Log in:  

Register

Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

20 Jul 2010 20:13

Col du Tourmalet (Distane 17.1 Km, Grade 7.4 %, Elevation 1268 m)

'Group Yellow Jersey' :
Time 56:16, Speed 18.24 Kph, VAM 1353 m/h, 4.93 w/kg.

The record of Col du Tourmalet (from east), Tour de France 2003, 15th stage


Armstrong, Ullrich, Mayo, Zubeldia :
Time 44:30, Speed 23.06 Kph, VAM 1710 m/h, 6.24 w/kg.
halamala
Junior Member
 
Posts: 184
Joined: 25 Jun 2009 00:27

20 Jul 2010 20:17

The Science of Sport wrote:On the note of Portoleau, I do feel that all he needs to do is give the times.


Hey, now there's a novel idea... ;)
acoggan
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,121
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 11:33

20 Jul 2010 21:03

halamala wrote:Col du Tourmalet (Distane 17.1 Km, Grade 7.4 %, Elevation 1268 m)

'Group Yellow Jersey' :
Time 56:16, Speed 18.24 Kph, VAM 1353 m/h, 4.93 w/kg.

The record of Col du Tourmalet (from east), Tour de France 2003, 15th stage


Armstrong, Ullrich, Mayo, Zubeldia :
Time 44:30, Speed 23.06 Kph, VAM 1710 m/h, 6.24 w/kg.


2003 stage finished at Luz Ardiden so not even the final climb! Wooaaahhhh.....
simoni
Member
 
Posts: 443
Joined: 11 Mar 2010 20:45

20 Jul 2010 21:14

simoni wrote:2003 stage finished at Luz Ardiden so not even the final climb! Wooaaahhhh.....
Tour de France 2003, 15th stage, final climb, Luz Ardiden (Distance 13.9 km, Grade 7.4 %, Elevation 1030 m)

Armstrong : Time 35:33, Speed 23.46 Kph, VAM 1738 m/h, 6.34 w/kg (including the crash).
Mayo, Ullrich, Zubeldia : Time 36:13, Speed 23.03 Kph, VAM 1706 m/h, 6.23 w/kg.

Very impressive results!
halamala
Junior Member
 
Posts: 184
Joined: 25 Jun 2009 00:27

20 Jul 2010 21:19

acoggan wrote:Hey, now there's a novel idea... ;)


Just feels like every post you make is either a show of superiority or a sniper attack, warranted or not. It's just bitter and nasty, imo. Just let it go. You have so much to contribute, but at various places, you get sarcastic, then superior, then boast about your writing ability. Why hijack the thread? Let's talk power numbers, are those values realistic or not? What does physiology say? There's so much value to be added through constructive debate, not destructive sarcasm.

Ross
The Science of Sport
New Member
 
Posts: 26
Joined: 20 May 2009 14:23
Location: Chicago, USA, and Cape Town, South Africa

20 Jul 2010 21:34

Highest VAM-values what I have calculated (10 Km or longer climbs)

1. 1839 m/h Bjarne Riis, Hautacam, Tour 1996
2. 1826 m/h Jan Ullrich, Arcalis, Tour 1997
3. 1804 m/h Marco Pantani, Mont Ventoux, Tour 1994
4. 1798 m/h Luc Leblanc, Hautacam, Tour 1994
5. 1797 m/h Miguel Indurain, Hautacam, Tour 1994
6. 1797 m/h Richard Virenque, Hautacam, Tour 1996
7. 1797 m/h Laurent Dufaux, Hautacam, Tour 1996
8. 1795 m/h Alexander Vinokourov, Col de Peyresourde, Tour 2003
9. 1795 m/h Iban Mayo, Col de Peyresourde, Tour 2003
10. 1792 m/h Marco Pantani, Alpe d'Huez, Tour 1995
halamala
Junior Member
 
Posts: 184
Joined: 25 Jun 2009 00:27

20 Jul 2010 21:35

The Science of Sport wrote:Just feels like every post you make is either a show of superiority or a sniper attack, warranted or not. It's just bitter and nasty, imo. Just let it go. You have so much to contribute, but at various places, you get sarcastic, then superior, then boast about your writing ability. Why hijack the thread? Let's talk power numbers, are those values realistic or not? What does physiology say? There's so much value to be added through constructive debate, not destructive sarcasm.

Ross


...this!;)
vrusimov
Junior Member
 
Posts: 206
Joined: 08 Jul 2009 02:05

21 Jul 2010 00:02

The Science of Sport wrote:Just feels like every post you make is either a show of superiority or a sniper attack, warranted or not. It's just bitter and nasty, imo. Just let it go. You have so much to contribute, but at various places, you get sarcastic, then superior, then boast about your writing ability. Why hijack the thread? Let's talk power numbers, are those values realistic or not? What does physiology say? There's so much value to be added through constructive debate, not destructive sarcasm.

Ross


Well said Ross, bout time someone tells him. Clearly he is threatened by your knowledge and feels insecure himself and therefore has to belittle everyone else to make himself feel better. Shows true inner self.

Just ignore him Ross and carry on everyone else finds your posts and knowledge insightful.
Colonel
Junior Member
 
Posts: 122
Joined: 04 Apr 2009 17:30

21 Jul 2010 00:05

halamala wrote:Highest VAM-values what I have calculated (10 Km or longer climbs)

1. 1839 m/h Bjarne Riis, Hautacam, Tour 1996
2. 1826 m/h Jan Ullrich, Arcalis, Tour 1997
3. 1804 m/h Marco Pantani, Mont Ventoux, Tour 1994
4. 1798 m/h Luc Leblanc, Hautacam, Tour 1994
5. 1797 m/h Miguel Indurain, Hautacam, Tour 1994
6. 1797 m/h Richard Virenque, Hautacam, Tour 1996
7. 1797 m/h Laurent Dufaux, Hautacam, Tour 1996
8. 1795 m/h Alexander Vinokourov, Col de Peyresourde, Tour 2003
9. 1795 m/h Iban Mayo, Col de Peyresourde, Tour 2003
10. 1792 m/h Marco Pantani, Alpe d'Huez, Tour 1995


How do you convert these to w/kg?
User avatar tockit
Junior Member
 
Posts: 106
Joined: 22 Jul 2009 03:44

21 Jul 2010 00:43

I'm a bit confused by the data.

On one hand, it appears that w/kg this year is substantially lower and in the arena of "clean"

What I don't understand, is:

1. I still think they are doping, so why the lower numbers?
2. Or If they are not doping, doesn't it seem that somebody would be doping to the gills and ace everyone easily (aka lance armstrong 1999)
sometriguy
Member
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 07 Jul 2009 13:14
Location: Tybee Island, GA

21 Jul 2010 01:42

sometriguy wrote:I'm a bit confused by the data.

On one hand, it appears that w/kg this year is substantially lower and in the arena of "clean"

What I don't understand, is:

1. I still think they are doping, so why the lower numbers?
2. Or If they are not doping, doesn't it seem that somebody would be doping to the gills and ace everyone easily (aka lance armstrong 1999)



Maybe the biopassport is gaining traction with more data on each rider (with the complications/costs of avoiding a more fine-tuned biopassport it rising all the time for the riders).

Been wondering for a while if the UCI is issuing informal/private notices like yellow cards (to prevent a public rush to judgment) to riders who have garnered UCI attention for oddities in their blood profiles (but just below the threshold values). This will change suspicious rider behaviour fast. Maybe word is getting around.

Vaughters says there are riders whose profiles clearly show evidence of manipulation, but whose key values are below the red light parameters set, so they are not investigated or sanctioned. Maybe the UCI is moving downward and giving notice to these guys.

Examples--Contador is clearly not the same rider who was literally sprinting uphill with Rasmussen the one year in the Tour; most of Saxo was dropped long before the final hill today (not seen that in a while); and 4 out of 5 mountain stage winners have been French (looks like the dirty field has come back to their levels). Bravo! :D
User avatar Parrot23
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,067
Joined: 11 Apr 2009 00:57

21 Jul 2010 07:23

Parrot23 wrote:Maybe the biopassport is gaining traction with more data on each rider (with the complications/costs of avoiding a more fine-tuned biopassport it rising all the time for the riders).

Been wondering for a while if the UCI is issuing informal/private notices like yellow cards (to prevent a public rush to judgment) to riders who have garnered UCI attention for oddities in their blood profiles (but just below the threshold values). This will change suspicious rider behaviour fast. Maybe word is getting around.

Vaughters says there are riders whose profiles clearly show evidence of manipulation, but whose key values are below the red light parameters set, so they are not investigated or sanctioned. Maybe the UCI is moving downward and giving notice to these guys.

Examples--Contador is clearly not the same rider who was literally sprinting uphill with Rasmussen the one year in the Tour; most of Saxo was dropped long before the final hill today (not seen that in a while); and 4 out of 5 mountain stage winners have been French (looks like the dirty field has come back to their levels). Bravo! :D


Hear hear! I remember last year we did an interview with a Prof Yorck Olaf Schumacher, who is one of the leading guys on the biopassport system. I found his views very insightful, because he doesn't do what most anti-doping crusaders (at least here in SA) do, which is to declare from the rooftops that "we've got them now!". He is a realist, and he acknowledges that people will dope and that we can't always catch them - http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/08/doping-control-interview-with-prof.html

And one of the thing he says, and which he added to in a some personal communication around this interview (which I've no doubt he'd have expressed openly, so I can share it), is that the key effect of the passport is to suppress rather than eliminate doping.

So Parrot is correct, and so is triguy - there is certainly still doping, though I really do believe there is much less, and also the doping going on is way less extreme that what went on until maybe even 2 or 3 years ago. The days of "Mr 60 Percent" are now well and truly over (at least until a new undetectable drug arrives, let's hope it doesn't).

And I think the biopassport is so "suffocating" that the chances of one or two guys doping to the gills and getting away with it are minimal. The whereabouts rule, the passport, the constant scrutiny, the pressure from media and sponsors, translated onto team owners and DSs, and from followers of the sport like yourselves (and not necessarily in that order) has, I think, pushed the sport to a tipping point where the cyclists feel for the first time that the system is capable of "beating them". Prof Schumacher said to me that the pro-cyclists were "frightened" of the bio passports, because they know that there is serious gray matter behind it.

I think it's changing behaviour, and I do believe the race is a fair contest. This year, it's tactical, with virtual trackstands, surging and sitting up - I believe this is out of necessity.

Ross
The Science of Sport
New Member
 
Posts: 26
Joined: 20 May 2009 14:23
Location: Chicago, USA, and Cape Town, South Africa

21 Jul 2010 07:57

That's heartening to hear the opinion of a sports scientist (I assume you are with a name like that)

But what about the second string riders who seem to be able to rip the peloton?

We know who we're talking about. The kind of rider who's riding like a GC man, but is hired as a domestique. What's the deal there? Are they just expendable, a "deniable" operative?
User avatar Animal
Member
 
Posts: 930
Joined: 19 Mar 2009 14:59

21 Jul 2010 08:21

Parrot23 wrote:Maybe the biopassport is gaining traction with more data on each rider (with the complications/costs of avoiding a more fine-tuned biopassport it rising all the time for the riders).

Been wondering for a while if the UCI is issuing informal/private notices like yellow cards (to prevent a public rush to judgment) to riders who have garnered UCI attention for oddities in their blood profiles (but just below the threshold values). This will change suspicious rider behaviour fast. Maybe word is getting around.

Vaughters says there are riders whose profiles clearly show evidence of manipulation, but whose key values are below the red light parameters set, so they are not investigated or sanctioned. Maybe the UCI is moving downward and giving notice to these guys.

Examples--Contador is clearly not the same rider who was literally sprinting uphill with Rasmussen the one year in the Tour; most of Saxo was dropped long before the final hill today (not seen that in a while); and 4 out of 5 mountain stage winners have been French (looks like the dirty field has come back to their levels). Bravo! :D


I am being persuaded too
:)
User avatar TourOfSardinia
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,321
Joined: 16 Feb 2010 14:25
Location: Sardinia

21 Jul 2010 08:56

The watts per kg are much higher than we think. Why? Cos we are all just using bodyweights we rip off the net vs actual morning bodyweights that the riders are at. Some riders are eating less and doing glucose drips to have a full glycogen tank with a lighter stomach. Some are doing enema's so they have a lighter colon. Another reason you never see GC riders tucking into a steak at a GT. All these are legal but not considered 'hard man etiquite' so they dont make the mainstream knowledge.

Heck even Lance's actual race body weight is still a mystery among sports scientists and there has been many debates about it, even in court, if some people can remember the vaqueness of a certain doctor.. :)
Over 300 000km cycled as a vegan.

Strava data
http://app.strava.com/athletes/254600
User avatar durianrider
Member
 
Posts: 768
Joined: 14 Mar 2010 06:54
Location: byron bay, NYC, Bangkok, Radelaide, Sydney, Sunshine Coast.

21 Jul 2010 09:51

durianrider wrote:The watts per kg are much higher than we think. Why? Cos we are all just using bodyweights we rip off the net vs actual morning bodyweights that the riders are at. Some riders are eating less and doing glucose drips to have a full glycogen tank with a lighter stomach. Some are doing enema's so they have a lighter colon. Another reason you never see GC riders tucking into a steak at a GT. All these are legal but not considered 'hard man etiquite' so they dont make the mainstream knowledge.

Heck even Lance's actual race body weight is still a mystery among sports scientists and there has been many debates about it, even in court, if some people can remember the vaqueness of a certain doctor.. :)


Even if the actual figures are a little out, it is at least indicative of a general trend.
User avatar Roland Rat
Member
 
Posts: 1,584
Joined: 28 Apr 2010 08:37

21 Jul 2010 10:47

Parrot23 wrote:Been wondering for a while if the UCI is issuing informal/private notices like yellow cards (to prevent a public rush to judgment) to riders who have garnered UCI attention for oddities in their blood profiles (but just below the threshold values). This will change suspicious rider behaviour fast. Maybe word is getting around.


Hamilton got warned a couple of times in 04 before he was finally busted.
ThaiPanda
Junior Member
 
Posts: 93
Joined: 26 Jun 2010 06:57

21 Jul 2010 13:35

Animal wrote:That's heartening to hear the opinion of a sports scientist (I assume you are with a name like that)

But what about the second string riders who seem to be able to rip the peloton?

We know who we're talking about. The kind of rider who's riding like a GC man, but is hired as a domestique. What's the deal there? Are they just expendable, a "deniable" operative?


Nice dig at Vino there.

Name some names so we can analyse the same riders you are please!
Joe Papp wrote:A friend told me Vino set-up a toilet paper manufacturing facility in his native country this spring, to produce "Vino Toilet Paper" for resale in the Central Asian market.

But there was a problem: it wouldn't take sh^t from anyone.
Big GMaC
Member
 
Posts: 1,594
Joined: 24 Nov 2009 21:07

21 Jul 2010 14:03

I doubt that Vino get's tested at surprise times when he's in Kazakhstan. Just sayin.

I've been for four days to Kazakhstan to visit some sponsors and friends and to eat Kazakh meat.
User avatar roundabout
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,364
Joined: 07 Jun 2010 11:43

21 Jul 2010 14:11

roundabout wrote:I doubt that Vino get's tested at surprise times when he's in Kazakhstan. Just sayin.


Even if a WADA tester were to come over, Vino knows about a gringo having been cleared for a Kazakh visa weeks beforehand :-)
Cloxxki
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,235
Joined: 19 Mar 2009 14:25

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Finn84 and 17 guests

Back to top