"clean", "suspect", "miraculous" and "mutants"

[Le breton]

again ,39:45 was correct but it wasn't taken at the start of the climb but only when they showed the peloton. i verified on multiple recordings, not only one. it's 100%

I could not find my original notes, only what I believe is the copy I prepared in 1994 to compare with that years' race as i would watch it on TV.

Here are my notes, presumably transcribed only for the Bugno, Indurain, Leblanc, etc group. But without my original notes I can't certify it.

I timed it from the Hydroelectric plant at the left turn at the very bottom.
806 - 21 - 2:18
880 - 20 - 4:15
900 - 19 - 4:55
922 - 18 - 6:03
965 - 17 - 7:42
980 - 16 - 8:24
1025- 15 - 10 ??
1055- 14 -10:40
1120 -13- ???
1161 -12- 14:20
1195 -11 -16:00
1245 -10 -17:26
1295 - 9 - 19:15
1345 - 8 - 21:15
1390 - 7 - 22:55
1480 - 6 - 26:15
1512 - 5 - 27:38
1553 - 4 - 29:00
1626 - 3 - 30:50
1669 - 2 - 33:10
1713 - 1 - 35:02
leveling - 37:10 That spot, just before the tourist office, is at 1780 meters. It's the place which I used to take for making comparisons between various editions.

I went to check the altitude and found my original notes. And, guess what I found? a note saying that they reached the bottom 25" behind the leader (Rooks?)

806 - 21 - 2:18 time might be for the leaders
880 - 20 - 4:15 ………………………. Jeff 22" behind (hence 4:18)
900 - 19 - 4:55
922 - 18 - 6:03 Bugno Rooks and?? caught
965 - 17 - 7:42 Jeff
980 - 16 - 8:
1025- 15 - 9:35 Jeff
1055- 14 -10:40 Jeff
1120 -13- ??? 12.40? Bugno
1161 -12- 14:20 Bugno
1195 -11 -16:00 Leblanc
1245 -10 -17:26 Bugno. Fignon +37"
1295 - 9 - 19:15 Clav dropped Fignon +55"
1345 - 8 - 21:15
1390 - 7 - 22:55
1480 - 6 - 26:15 Bugno
1512 - 5 - 27:38
1553 - 4 - 28:58 X? Clav +30"
1626 - 3 - 30:50 Bugno
1669 - 2 - 33:10 ?? Jeff +15"
1713 - 1 - 35:02 Indurain
leveling - 37:10

Finish line : 40:29 !!!!!!!!
Looks like you are right

Other note 12:30 at the 10 km mark
25:00 at 5km mark.
37 :00 at 2 km mark.

I just don't understand why it took them 3:19 from 1780 to 1845 m while Pantani took 2:46 for the same distance.

Anyway, now I have something to fall back on if ever …

PS : I also have circled at the top 40:26 without a note next to it.

 

[jens_attacks]

tremendous work Le breton!

 

[burning]

tremendous work Le breton!

You and le breton are simply the king of numbers, I appreciate your work

 

[Von Mises]

by the way Le Breton thanks for you Bahamontes 59 Puy de Dome slaughter analysis. that was something i like to read here

about the jet fuelued ascents, in my opinion, it started in1992 where you can find only a handful of riders doing that, in 1993 all the leaders and many others, 1994 almost everyone. that is my opinion of course and i respect the same, the riders pre jet fuel entrance and after

Wasnt Charly Gaul 1958 Ventoux also smth like 6,2-6,4 w(kg for an hour? Miraculous or close to mutant?

 

[Benotti69]

Wasnt Charly Gaul 1958 Ventoux also smth like 6,2-6,4 w(kg for an hour? Miraculous or close to mutant?

Gaul was a doper.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

it is only my opinion but i don't think either bugno or il diablo could have kept a secret only for them for two-three years. and not their doc either
maybe it was something but not proper jet fuel


laurent fignon in his book approves me in this matter too...1992 very few...1993 wtf?

On ZG Mobili 1993 two riders got 'special treatment', Perini and Ghirotto, under the guidance of the same doc that has had two positives in last Giro. In 1994 Conconi stepped in the team/worked with them, just like he was working for years with Carrera/Grazzi doing the work there and some of his own proteges like Bugno, Indurain, Fondriest et all.

There are numerous articles where Conconi describes Ferrari making a switch for the money, I read that as in 'upping the speed'. Well, that was just what happened with Ugrumov/Riis/Jaskula in 1993/1994 wouldnt it?

The speeds from Indurain/Capuccino/Bugno werent mindblowing but they were able to do it day after day because of their recovery drugs. When you see Indurain on Ventoux/Hautacam 1994 in comparison to Sestriere 1992 you will see a big big difference.

1994 the war was on, look at the climbing times.

 

[Krebs cycle]

All those timings, VAM and power numbers can be rather opaque, as you can imagine, so the authors have grouped them into ranges to which they apply a simple "heat scale". Normal (green), Suspect (yellow), Miraculous (orange) and Mutant (red).

They calculate watts for a virtual 70kg rider with 8kg bike + equipment
So "suspect" is above 5.85 W/kg (=410/70)
"miraculous" is above 6.14 W/kg
"mutant" is above 6.4

So let me get this straight, the authors take a "virtual" cyclist + bike = 78kg, then estimate watts (based on VAM of real performances from real riders with different bodyweights and lighter bikes) then categorize them according to the watts/kg?

Surely there must be other people around here who can see how totally flimsy this is from a performance analysis perspective? The error in the bodyweight alone renders the calculations almost useless.

Oh wait there's more... they appear to have arbitrarily chosen a particular cyclist from 20yrs ago and decided that he (Lemond) IS THE LIMIT of human cycling performance. No human can go beyond what he did and thus anyone who does must be doping. Why Lemond and not Hinault or Fignon? Why not go back further to Merckx?

Imagine if you applied the same logic to any other sport ie: that you go back in time choose a particular athlete and state for the record that he/she was the best of all time and nobody will ever be born in the future of all time who can be as good or better? It's a ridiculous concept that would not be accepted by anyone, anywhere who knows anything about sport.

I definitely don't buy it. IMO throughout history there will be at least one or two athletes in a generation who are blessed with the necessary genetics and psychological determination to perform as well as what the best athletes in history have achieved. However as time progresses, advances in training techniques, recovery and nutrition allow for world records to continue to be broken.

 

[Le breton]

So let me get this straight, the authors take a "virtual" cyclist + bike = 78kg, then estimate watts (based on VAM of real performances from real riders with different bodyweights and lighter bikes) then categorize them according to the watts/kg?

.

OF COURSE NOT, YOU GOT IT COMPLETELY WRONG!!!!!!!!!
Expletive deleted.

 

[martinvickers]

Gaul was a doper.

No doubt, but those numbers so long before EPO?

 

[Fatclimber]

.………

If the authors' research and calculations are as much of a hack-job as your explanation of it, I would call BS on it too. It sounds as though you haven't read it?

There's a lot more to it than what you've stated, and plenty of information for the curious mind. Funny how Basso lost 1/2 watt/kilo average on the climbs after his suspension.

 

[Krebs cycle]

If the authors' research and calculations are as much of a hack-job as your explanation of it, I would call BS on it too. It sounds as though you haven't read it?

There's a lot more to it than what you've stated, and plenty of information for the curious mind. Funny how Basso lost 1/2 watt/kilo average on the climbs after his suspension.

Not my hackjob. I guess you missed the bit where I quoted the OP whom I'm assuming has read it. If there is a lot more to it then perhaps you could explain it better. I don't speak french.

 

[Krebs cycle]

OF COURSE NOT, YOU GOT IT COMPLETELY WRONG!!!!!!!!!
Expletive deleted.

Go on and explain it properly then please.

How exactly does Antoine Vayer determine the exact rider weight for all those cyclists on all those difference days over the last 20-30yrs?

edit" lets not forget this is the same Antoine Vayer who was heavily criticised for overestimating power a few year ago.

 

[hiero2]

So let me get this straight, the authors take a "virtual" cyclist + bike = 78kg, then estimate watts . . . .

Thought I said this before - read the book. Then you wouldn't be asking questions like this.

 

[thehog]

Not my hackjob. I guess you missed the bit where I quoted the OP whom I'm assuming has read it. If there is a lot more to it then perhaps you could explain it better. I don't speak french.

Oh dear.

Like watching an alcoholic walk into a bar after a liver transplant

Seriously? You mean you didn't read the article?

Well well well.

 

[Fatclimber]

Not my hackjob. I guess you missed the bit where I quoted the OP whom I'm assuming has read it. If there is a lot more to it then perhaps you could explain it better. I don't speak french.

There were several links provided throughout the thread to an English version of the magazine. You've already made it clear that you will not buy it regardless of what language you speak. I don't see the point of trying to discuss an article that you aren't going to read.

 

[BroDeal]

So let me get this straight, the authors take a "virtual" cyclist + bike = 78kg, then estimate watts (based on VAM of real performances from real riders with different bodyweights and lighter bikes) then categorize them according to the watts/kg?

Surely there must be other people around here who can see how totally flimsy this is from a performance analysis perspective? The error in the bodyweight alone renders the calculations almost useless.

They are computing a normalized W/kg and comparing it to other normalized W/kg values. They could just as easily call their normalized W/kg units "brilligs," "toves," "gyres," or some other arbitrary name then do the comparisons with values in those imaginary units. In fact, that might be a better way to do it. The key point is they are comparing riders with one another; the units used to do so are irrelevant.

In other words, take two riders. One weight 50 kg and the other 100 kg. If the two climb the same same hill in the same time then they end up with the same normalized W/kg. The flaws are that I doubt real W/kg scale linearly with weight (lighter riders probably have a larger W/kg than heavier riders) and the difference in assumed bike weight and actual bike weight will skew the data more for light riders than heavier ones.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

They are computing a normalized W/kg and comparing it to other normalized W/kg values.

Normalising to a "standard" 70kg rider is redundant, since a W/kg value already normalises performance. Just plot the W/kg values.

Indeed I would argue that you don't need to calculate W/kg at all, since that simply introduces errors in assumptions (e.g. such as bike / kit mass as you say, and other things I've mentioned before), so you may as well just chart climbing times for a given climb to provide a trend analysis for each climb.

The main reason W/kg is estimated is to compare performances from different climbs. There is no need to normalise to a standard sized rider/bike to provide such comparisons. Indeed I think it just confuses people.

For these cross climb analyses, I think it would be helpful to plot W/kg with error bars.

 

[Krebs cycle]

They are computing a normalized W/kg and comparing it to other normalized W/kg values. They could just as easily call their normalized W/kg units "brilligs," "toves," "gyres," or some other arbitrary name then do the comparisons with values in those imaginary units. In fact, that might be a better way to do it. The key point is they are comparing riders with one another; the units used to do so are irrelevant.

Thank you brodeal. I also found what Mexckx wrote...

The values are equivalent to watts/kg. The fact that they are listed in watts is misleading, because they assume a fixed value for the rider's weight (70 kg, I think) and bike weight (8 kg or so). IOW, they take watts/kg values, and determine what the watts would be IF the rider in question weighed 70 kg and his bike 8 kg. In fact, without power meters, all raw power data are in watts/kg. The time taken to climb a certain distance up a certain grade is proportional to watts/kg, not to watts.

So my apologies for not reading the entire thread. Now onto the problems inherent in the analysis. For starters, the long list of assumptions remains. No need to go over that, its all been discussed in the estimated power thread.

Something sort of novel here is the "normalization" procedure. This introduces another source of error.....

W/kg is not directly proportional to velocity (even in the absence of environmental variability). ie: 2 different riders with exactly the same w/kg do not go the same velocity. This is because bodyweight is not directly proportional to differences in energy production ie: for a 2% difference in bodyweight you do not get a 2% change in power production because some of that difference in weight has nothing to do with locomotor energy production (ie: it is bone or connective tissue or vital organs etc).

There are also differences in thermoregulation between smaller and larger individuals. Smaller individuals with exactly the same w/kg will have a comparative advantage vs larger individuals because they have a greater surface area to bodyweight ratio. This enhances cooling and generally enables smaller individuals to perform better esp in hot conditions.

So if you "normalize" to a set bodyweight + bike weight you will re-introduce these errors which are actually already present in the initial estimation of power based on VAM (ie: you double dip on those sources of error). The further away from the bodyweight of 70kg the riders actual weight is, the greater the error will be. This is why this Vayer publicity stunt is published as a MAGAZINE and not in a scientific journal, because no proper science journal would touch it with a 10 foot pole.

but hey, keep up the pseudo scientific BS and believe whatever it is you want to believe. Nobody can be better that Lemond unless they are doping.... ever.... in all the future of cycling. SOOOO much hero worship around here its nauseating.

edit: IMO such an analysis is interesting from a broad 'trending' aspect of performances. It would be useful to have data across more than 100 athletes to examine trends, but it cannot be used in the way Vayer is using it ie: to make some definitive claim about doping suspicion betwe individuals. There are simply way too many sources of error to do that with enough precision. But that is what will sell and make Vayer money and you suckers will lap it up.

 

[Fatclimber]

Why on earth would Vayer need to make any definitive claims about doping derived from this data? Crimeny sakes where have you been? An overwhelming majority of these top riders have been busted for doping or admitted it. This is merely raw data representing what doping can achieve.

 

[Le breton]

Wasnt Charly Gaul 1958 Ventoux also smth like 6,2-6,4 w(kg for an hour? Miraculous or close to mutant?

That's probably the right range.
Neither miraculous nor mutant, that was a 1 hr. TT, not the last climb of a long mountain stage!

Gaul didn't stop at the finish line. He "disappeared" for a long while into a camping car or such vehicle, leaving observers to assume he was so doped up he needed to have some antidote given to him urgently

Bahamontès finished 2nd in 1:02:40 (against 1:02:09 for Gaul), therefore producing just about 0.05 Watts/kg less than Gaul.

In 1959, Baha produced 6.35 W/kg during 36 min. (Puy de dôme TT)

 

[vrusimov]

Go on and explain it properly then please.

How exactly does Antoine Vayer determine the exact rider weight for all those cyclists on all those difference days over the last 20-30yrs?

edit" lets not forget this is the same Antoine Vayer who was heavily criticised for overestimating power a few year ago.

Well if Armstrong is an example then the weights might mean that the performances are even more outlandish. For instance it was noted he never weighed less than 74kg, though it was used in Coyle's efficiency calculations, which were later debunked:

"Now, Coyle would have us believe that he was 72 kilos at the Tour de France. Armstrong is on the record saying that he was absolutely fastidious about what he ate, and when he ate and how he ate. It is incomprehensible that someone would get himself into such perfect condition and then essentially eat like a horse so that his body weight ballooned up to 79 kilos, and then somehow intend to go back through that hell to lose 7 kilos again for the next race. That's just not true, it doesn't happen.

Armstrong acknowldeged under oath that his body weight never got to 72, he was a little vague, but he said he was happy when he raced in the 74's. Now if you admit you were probably 74 you were probably a lot heavier than that."

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interv...chael-ashenden

The question then becomes how do we know that riders are not fudging their weights to bring their power numbers down? More weight requires more power going uphill. Why would they not fudge it? Online dating sites are littered with examples of males adding at least 2" to their real height, in an effort to appear taller than they really are. Can we trust any of them? Why would they not distort their real weights to obscure what they are really capable of to their competitors [or anti-doping experts like Vayer] no less?

If you look back at video from the Bergerac "fly-by" in 1994, you will see a supposedly 7kg heavier Armstrong riding next to Indurain, who looks "apparently" larger...now the question, if Armstrong is 81kg in that video, then how heavy is Indurain, who is taller? Someone is lying my friend...perhaps both of them?

Finally, do you believe what you see on Hautacam in 2000, 1994 or 1996? You can throw the baby out with the bathwater but read the analysis and its not hard to find the best fit line correlating positively with the rising use of EPO. Or maybe you believe that Bjarne Riis didn't actually dope his way to a 450W average tour performance. Forget about setting the standard with Lemond for cleanliness. How about setting the bar for dirtiness with Riis? It is not just numbers but inside information and data that confirms these riders have become lab rats on bicycles to a large degree. You should buy the book and read it thoroughly.

The averages of former Tour winners [mutant averages] over a Tour:

455 Indurain 1995
450 Pantani 1994
450 Riis 1996 reported hematocrit of up to 64% [Rominger, Leblanc, Ullrich and Jalabert all at 440W]
445 Pantani 1998
440 Armstrong 2001
440 Contador 2009
440 Ullrich 1997

All of these guys have been implicated either by association, confession, adverse finding or retroactive examination as having used performance enhancing substances. Indurain in particular seems highly suspect in both 1994 and 1995, his best tour performance of his five wins. Padilla quits the team the following year and what happens?

Here is an interesting read about the nineties:

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2011/2/16...on-the-causes-of-doping-francesco-conconi-and

Giving the benefit of the doubt to the mutant tour averages of the past 20 years is laughable to say the least. These guys and their handlers have pursued nefarious means of performance enhancement in arguably criminal ways.

 

[Fatclimber]

That's probably the right range.
Neither miraculous nor mutant, that was a 1 hr. TT, not the last climb of a long mountain stage!

Gaul didn't stop at the finish line. He "disappeared" for a long while into a camping car or such vehicle, leaving observers to assume he was so doped up he needed to have some antidote given to him urgently

Bahamontès finished 2nd in 1:02:40 (against 1:02:09 for Gaul), therefore producing just about 0.05 Watts/kg less than Gaul.

In 1959, Baha produced 6.35 W/kg during 36 min. (Puy de dôme TT)

Ventoux:

Armstrong's 6.15 in '99 was labeled miraculous, while
Vino's 6.25 was labeled suspicious, and
Moreau's 5.73 was normal

Is Vayer accusing these guys of being varying degrees of donkeys? Maybe Gaul should be the Criterion eh Krebs?

 

[UlleGigo]

So my apologies for not reading the entire thread. Now onto the problems inherent in the analysis...

At this point one would think the wise thing to do would be to actually read the article.

Looking forward to your review of Gibbons Decline and Fall by the way. It's available in French and English so feel free to not bother reading it either before sharing your opinion with everyone.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I definitely don't buy it. IMO throughout history there will be at least one or two athletes in a generation who are blessed with the necessary genetics and psychological determination to perform as well as what the best athletes in history have achieved. However as time progresses, advances in training techniques, recovery and nutrition allow for world records to continue to be broken.

What a surprise. The selfproclaimed professor working at AIS and who worked with numerous [doped] riders isnt able to play the 'spot the doper' game.

The problem with your statement here is there a numerous riders who are hitting the 'humanly possible' nowadays. Santambroggio did it too. Yet scientists like you wouldnt label him as for what he is: a doper, who stayed within the limits of believability. Ricco the same, Di Luca 2009 the same. No dopers for you yet we the non - scientists here can spot a doper from 40 miles out.

For the rest of your opinion:

they appear to have arbitrarily chosen a particular cyclist from 20yrs ago and decided that he (Lemond) IS THE LIMIT of human cycling performance

You, as a 'scientist' should know every scientific work begins with a thesis? Proof the quacks they are wrong.

But let me tell you this, Vayer actually knows what the difference is between a clean rider and a doped up rider. He saw first hand what happened at pre-season Festina in comparison too the Tour de France.

For all I care they could have used Herrera, Mottet or Hampsten too. They are just not that high profiled as LeMond of course. And, not as complete.

But, it is very scientific of you coming in here without even having read the magazine.

 

[Le breton]

Ventoux:

Armstrong's 6.15 in '99 was labeled miraculous, while
Vino's 6.25 was labeled suspicious, and
Moreau's 5.73 was normal

Is Vayer accusing these guys of being varying degrees of donkeys? Maybe Gaul should be the Criterion eh Krebs?

With so many numbers there are bound to be mistakes here and there.

In this particular case I don't see where the mistake you point out (6.15 miraculous/6.25 suspicious) could have come from. Possibly from placing the power numbers (real and normalized power) in the wrong columns of their worksheets.

W.r.t. Vino 99 Ventoux, he finished second, 43sec behind Vaughters 56:50 (not Mayo as indicated)

While I am ready to believe that Vino was clean early on in his career, I have no such delusion w.r.t. Moreau.