2014 Cleanest Peloton Ever

[DirtyWorks]

Even if what wansteadimp is saying weren't true, anti-doping could nonetheless be more effective today because

-it limits the gains riders can make from doping without being detected. those used to be large
-the lower number of positives is due to a fewer riders doping ie deterrence

Again, assuming most positives lead to sanctions. Which, we know there are unsanctioned positives.

There's no way to know how many are "positive" and unsanctioned in the current setup. This give the federation enormous power to control the sport's actors. Which, we know they do.

 

[northstar]

Less tests in 2013 compared to 2012. 1,156 less tests. FACT.

Not a fact at all. I don’t know if you noticed but the chart DearWiggo posted shows number of tests for all of 2012 and for 10 months of 2013 (up to October 31, 2013). Until the final results from 2013 are known, comparing the two years is invalid.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Not a fact at all. I don’t know if you noticed but the chart DearWiggo posted shows number of tests for all of 2012 and for 10 months of 2013 (up to October 31, 2013). Until the final results from 2013 are known, comparing the two years is invalid.

I considered this also, then checked and the last WT race is on the 15/10/2013.

Pretty sure the numbers are not going to jump by 1100 before December 2013. Henao's dodgy test was from October, and at least one rider has already stated by April 2014 they had not yet been OOC tested once for 2014.

 

[Ferminal]

It's based on VAM which is rather misleading on a climb like this


So, no, it's far from a "fact" that he did.

Not wrong but are you saying it should be higher? Under the circumstance I still think 5.4 is pretty excellent.

 

[jens_attacks]

It's based on VAM which is rather misleading on a climb like this

So, no, it's far from a "fact" that he did.

absolutely. you have to erase the parts of flat and descending.
quintana's effort of an hour after two passes over 2000 meters in freezing condition is of course super good. if anyone expected 6 w/kg for an hour here is just dreaming.

 

[the sceptic]

good day for the new clean generation today

 

[Benotti69]

vetooo @ammattipyoraily · 43m
8 fastest #Giro
1. 2009 40.057
2. 2010 39.628
3. 2013 39.360
4. 2014 39.046
5. 2003 38.917
6. 1983 38.896
7. 2011 38.780
8. 1984 38.658

4th fastest giro, someone tell JV the new generation think doping is

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

4th fastest giro, someone tell JV the new generation think doping is

Clearly the classes of 1983/4 were on the good stuff cos they went faster then the years when there was EPO and no HCT limit.

 

[Fagniniwins]

Clearly the classes of 1983/4 were on the good stuff cos they went faster then the years when there was EPO and no HCT limit.

The (early 80's) Giro parcours were created to suit the best Italian riders.

1984 had a prologue, 2 ITTs and a TTT and only one MTF that Fignon ran away with (EDIT: sorry, only one stage that allowed him to put big time into the other favorites); the organizers should have saved Moser the trouble of riding around Italy outdoors and just held the whole thing in a velodrome.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

The early 80's Giro parcours were created to suit the best Italian riders.

1984 had a prologue, 2 ITTs and a TTT and only one MTF that Fignon ran away with; the organizers might has well have saved Moser the trouble of riding around Italy outdoors and just held the whole thing in a velodrome.

That is kind of my point... The average speed is meaningless unless you consider many other variables. But why would you want to do that, eh?

 

[the sceptic]

That is kind of my point... The average speed is meaningless unless you consider many other variables. But why would you want to do that, eh?

Its been shown many times that average speeds, climbing speeds and TT speeds arent going down as one would expect in a cleans peloton.

 

[Fagniniwins]

That is kind of my point... The average speed is meaningless unless you consider many other variables. But why would you want to do that, eh?

Oh. Didn't realize anyone was using the average race speed alone to argue anything of consequence.

Data is interesting; plus, it saves us the trouble of having to actually watch the race.

 

[thehog]

Oh. Didn't realize anyone was using the average race speed alone to argue anything of consequence.

Data is interesting; plus, it saves us the trouble of having to actually watch the race.

Yes fairly pointless considering the Giro has been 4,100km long and now reduced down to around 3,300 to 3,400km in total distance.

The UCI mandated a reduction in the late 80's when the Vuelta was in May and the onset of EPO.

Hampsten was probably the last clean winner of the Giro. Roche, no chance.

 

[Benotti69]

Clearly the classes of 1983/4 were on the good stuff cos they went faster then the years when there was EPO and no HCT limit.

I think others have answered this.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I think others have answered this.

If that average speeds on their own are fairly meaningless then I agree. What clown would point to a small subset of those and try and make a generalisation about doping. At least we agree on that.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Dr. Veloclinic's week three wrap-up.

http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/87834528643/2014-giro-final-performance-analysis

The TT is the only red flag.

 

[pmcg76]

Dr. Veloclinic's week three wrap-up.

http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/87834528643/2014-giro-final-performance-analysis

The TT is the only red flag.

I usually do not get involved in comapring times, VAM etc but I have done some research into our own local club Hill-Climb TT. Now its only 2 mile/3km in distance and not in the third week of a GT and is raced by mostly low level amateurs.

I have been timekeeper a few times and the variance between the fastest and slowest times by the same riders was enlightening. The mean average difference between fastest and slowest times was 31 seconds.....in 2 miles. The difference was of course the weather, especially the wind as the events took place only weeks apart.

The first set of times were set on a day with a slight head-breeze but times were not far off the norm for the course i.e within 10 seconds. The other day was perfectly calm with no breeze at all. About 10 guys set PBs way above their previous best.

It really got me thinking as to how people are always comparing climbing times on here and I was thinking if lowly amateur riders could improve their times by on average 30 seconds in 3km with no breeze, what would be a normal relative improvement on a 16km climb with riders availing of drafting etc. Using my figures for the local amateurs, it would work out at 150seconds or 2 and a half-minutes. With a tail-wind it would be even more of an improvement.

I guess it reinforces how pointless it can be comparing individual days from different years to use as evidence suggestive of doping. That is not to say I think its impossible to decipher larger trends, like in the overall rise of climbing times in the peak EPO years and the slight slowing down since then.

People were going crazy when a new record was set on Mur du Huy this year but unless wind conditions were exactly the same, it seems rather pointless to get hysterical about such times.

 

[DirtyWorks]

It really got me thinking as to how people are always comparing climbing times on here and I was thinking if lowly amateur riders could improve their times by on average 30 seconds in 3km with no breeze,....

Except we know, for sure, that EPO-fueled times are unreachable under vaguely similar conditions. So if you compare super-human scores to what are supposed to be clean(er) scores, there should be a meaningful difference. And there was. Mostly.

We saw something I was surprised to see, some young riders in the top-10 who are getting good results elsewhere too. I'm not saying everyone was "pan y aqua", but, real-er and I did not expect that.

It will be interesting to see what Veloclinic's model shows for the TdF. My wild guess is a two-speed peloton.

 

[Benotti69]

It really got me thinking as to how people are always comparing climbing times on here ........................

Except we know, for sure, that EPO-fueled times are unreachable under vaguely similar conditions. So if you compare super-human scores to what are supposed to be clean(er) scores, there should be a meaningful difference. And there was. Mostly.

................

Time for a new thinking cap

 

[pmcg76]

Except we know, for sure, that EPO-fueled times are unreachable under vaguely similar conditions. So if you compare super-human scores to what are supposed to be clean(er) scores, there should be a meaningful difference. And there was. Mostly.

We saw something I was surprised to see, some young riders in the top-10 who are getting good results elsewhere too. I'm not saying everyone was "pan y aqua", but, real-er and I did not expect that.

It will be interesting to see what Veloclinic's model shows for the TdF. My wild guess is a two-speed peloton.

Well that would depend on how much time difference EPO would make on a 10km climb for example. Is there any research into this or are you just basing that on the usual 5-10% improvement figure given?

Just to clarify and this is where we get into comparing individual years against each other. Lucho Herrera who I think we can all agree was not on EPO has a time for Alpe d'Huez that is only 20 seconds slower than Contador in 2011, a Contador that many here believe was doped to the gills(and positive) on blood doping.

How does that fit into clenaish times should be nowhere near blood doping times even with vaguely similar conditions?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Well that would depend on how much time difference EPO would make on a 10km climb for example.

Well, let's think about this a minute. The right combination of PED's and Armstrong (Froome 2013) was leading the TdF. Other riders in the same race did not find a combination of PED's that delivered similar power.

So, asking the question "how much difference does EPO make?" is, really, the wrong question.

How is it possible to compare across generations when, admittedly, the racing conditions change dramatically? Because somehow, defying gravity and perhaps some wind returns remarkably consistent results over many years. And then EPO (oxygen vector doping) changed everything. But, gravity and wind resistance hasn't changed. So, if you can control for EPO, you can then distinguish human power from oxygen vector assistance.

 

[pmcg76]

Well, let's think about this a minute. The right combination of PED's and Armstrong (Froome 2013) was leading the TdF. Other riders in the same race did not find a combination of PED's that delivered similar power.

So, asking the question "how much difference does EPO make?" is, really, the wrong question.

How is it possible to compare across generations when, admittedly, the racing conditions change dramatically? Because somehow, defying gravity and perhaps some wind returns remarkably consistent results over many years. And then EPO (oxygen vector doping) changed everything. But, gravity and wind resistance hasn't changed. So, if you can control for EPO, you can then distinguish human power from oxygen vector assistance.

So you are more or less agreeing to what I said, it is possible to look at larger trends over time but picking year x and comparing with year y is kinda pointless unless you have an agenda. So looking at the trends for Alpe d'Huez, only six times from the Bio-Passport era make the top 100 list. As a trend, what would that suggest?

This is an example of the opposite, to push an agenda, LeMond in 91 rode as fast up Alpe d'Huez as Evans, Schlecks(both) and Valverde did in 2008.

 

[Benotti69]

Push agendas....the only so called fans pushing agendas is that their teams/riders are clean when the testing is still ridiculous and those doping enablers still run the teams, still hire the docs, still have the same lame old excuses for unbelievable performances, still refuse to be transparent etc etc etc

 

[King Boonen]

This is an example of the opposite, to push an agenda, LeMond in 91 rode as fast up Alpe d'Huez as Evans, Schlecks(both) and Valverde did in 2008.

Lemond rode up Alpe D'Huez in 91 at the end of a 77 mile stage with a flat stage before it. Evans, the Schlecks and Valverde did it at the end of a 130 mile stage, after climbing Lombarde and Bonette the day before.

 

[Netserk]

So you are more or less agreeing to what I said, it is possible to look at larger trends over time but picking year x and comparing with year y is kinda pointless unless you have an agenda. So looking at the trends for Alpe d'Huez, only six times from the Bio-Passport era make the top 100 list. As a trend, what would that suggest?

This is an example of the opposite, to push an agenda, LeMond in 91 rode as fast up Alpe d'Huez as Evans, Schlecks(both) and Valverde did in 2008.

Lemond was more than half a minute slower...