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

[pmcg76]

Amazing that Lemond, mottet, fignon, claveyrolat and hampsten all did the best times of their careers chasing epo-driven chiappucci, Indurain and Bugno in 1991.

That year Lemond thought he was having an off year after dominating the first week. He couldn't explain why the peloton was going so fast, instead of slowing some riders seemed to get stronger and faster as the tour grew longer. Usually the best in the third week, lemond exhausted himself chasing the new epo wonders around France trying desperately to compete with them. And all the time wondering what was wrong with himself. Meantime he actually posted the best time of his career up l'alpe...But way behind the new epo kings.

Maybe you should have a look at the stage details firstly, in 91 it was the first mountain stage in the Alps and was only 129km in distance and the preceding climbs were the minor Col de Bayard right at the start of the stage and the gentle Col D'Ornon(avg 3.8%).

Compare that to 89 for example when the stage was run over the Galibier and the Croix de fer before reaching Alpe d'huez and was the third Alpine stage following the mountain TT and the stage over the Izoard into Briancon.

This why it is pure folly to pick out and compare individual times of individual years, how would they produce similar times when conditions are different?? Yes you can look at climbing times and see a general pattern in the increase in speed during the 90s and a slight decline in more recent times but to compare individual years can be misleading especially if the routes are very different.

Why would the 91 Alpe times be so fast and then the 92 times so much slower if EPO was the main factor?

How did LeMond go from 46/48 minutes or whatever in 86 to 42 minutes in 91, surely that is a nailed on sign of doping

BTW I am not saying Bugno/Chiappucci were not on EPO in 91 but a lot of guys were fast up Alpe d'huez in 91. Plus the super clean LeMond went faster in 91 than so-called uber-dopers like Valverde and Frank Schleck in 2008 and faster than Cadel. What does that say??

 

[Le breton]

Here are the top 5 ascent times per year.

Nice job!!!

 

[Fatclimber]

Maybe you should have a look at the stage details firstly, in 91 it was the first mountain stage in the Alps and was only 129km in distance and the preceding climbs were the minor Col de Bayard right at the start of the stage and the gentle Col D'Ornon(avg 3.8%).

Compare that to 89 for example when the stage was run over the Galibier and the Croix de fer before reaching Alpe d'huez and was the third Alpine stage following the mountain TT and the stage over the Izoard into Briancon.

This why it is pure folly to pick out and compare individual times of individual years, how would they produce similar times when conditions are different?? Yes you can look at climbing times and see a general pattern in the increase in speed during the 90s and a slight decline in more recent times but to compare individual years can be misleading especially if the routes are very different.

Why would the 91 Alpe times be so fast and then the 92 times so much slower if EPO was the main factor?

How did LeMond go from 46/48 minutes or whatever in 86 to 42 minutes in 91, surely that is a nailed on sign of doping

BTW I am not saying Bugno/Chiappucci were not on EPO in 91 but a lot of guys were fast up Alpe d'huez in 91. Plus the super clean LeMond went faster in 91 than so-called uber-dopers like Valverde and Frank Schleck in 2008 and faster than Cadel. What does that say??

That's kind of the whole purpose of this project, collect as much data as possible and put it through whatever formula the authors came up with and designate it as realistic or whatever. Stage difficulty and all the other factors were taken into consideration. You pointed out that '89 was a difficult stage compared to '91. His power averages were 5.6 & 5.88 w/k respectively, which falls in line with your stage descriptions.

'86 was the joyride up the Alpe w/ Bernard, that's where the 48:00 comes from (4.94 w/k). I almost could have kept up with that.

As you pointed out, there are plenty of questions worth asking. I dont view this stuff as gospel, but do find it interesting and useful.

 

[LaFlorecita]

146. Greg LeMond _________ USA | 41:42 | 1991
147. Benjamin Noval ______ ESP | 41:44 | 2004

I loved that part

Lol!

 

[roundabout]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vayer-casts-doubt-over-performances-of-indurain-and-jalabert

eh?

Jalabert was a doper, but something is being lost here.

1996 Covadonga was probably his best climb performance. 1997 he was very good as support for Zülle, but finished 30 seconds behind the stage winner.

In Mende I think he lost substantial time to Indurain and Pantani as he was in the break for most of the stage. If that was 495 watts I dread to think how much they produced. Oh, and it was a 9 minute climb.

 

[Sarcastic Wet Trout]

I don't see the point of trying to discuss an article that you aren't going to read.

Of course, while reading it he would have to understand what he is reading.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Nice job!!!

I have all 200, but the chart with names gets a little crowded hence the top 5 chart. Here they all are with just the times. All very nice but TBH, I'm not sure you can draw too many conclusions from this.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

and a frequency chart

 

[Big Doopie]

Wow. If anyone ever doubted that 1991 was the beginning of the end...

I think breukink got the record in 1990. Not surprising since he may have been already experimenting with epo. Pen was definitely an early adopter with Rudy dhaenens and the other pdm rider at the 1990 WC that year and alcala and breukinks otherworldly tt-ing that year.

But, holy crap batman, 1991 is like a jet-fueled rocket taking off with some clean riders being pulled along to career record times trying to chase big mig, Chiappucci and bugno.

 

[thehog]

Perhaps an indicator on those charts of when the 50% rule came in and the test for EPO?

And introduction of OOC and passport?

 

[thehog]

VeloNews write up on the studies.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013...oubts-on-performances-past-and-present_290708

 

[Fatclimber]

VeloNews write up on the studies.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013...oubts-on-performances-past-and-present_290708

Vayer & Fuller both echo JV's sentiments in regards to the 'cleanerness' of the peleton (just kidding hog, "peloton"). I don't much care for this statement though:

The authors claim their projected data comes in at about one-percent higher than actual watts generated by Horner on marked climbs, though one measurement differs by as much as 9 percent, up the west Tourmalet ascent, so it’s important to take the metrics with a grain of salt.

So not only is there the power calculations' margin of error but there's also all those old-fashioned hillbilly non-cooling-down pro racers that we have to wonder how well their equipment is calibrated. Regardless, 9 percent is unacceptable. They should provide details of their verifications and I would hope they could get more than one rider to provide the necessary data to compare their methods to.

 

[ToreBear]

I haven't read much of this thread, so sorry if I post something already posted. I came across a discussion related to the Vayer calculations:
https://www.facebook.com/chris.mayhew/posts/10151435341793639
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.bicycles.racing/5mfipcMlXNE/tqoAcx2yat4J
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.bicycles.racing/5mfipcMlXNE/lOUws94xytkJ

Might be of interest to some, or me later if I get around to reading this thread through.

 

[Frosty]

and a frequency chart

Hi, thanks for doing this work. Dont like to point things out when i didnt put the effort in but 1999 is missed off? Also, alpe d'huez was climbed more times in the 80s/early 90s, with some ascents seeing no-one record a top 200 time (are there any records of those anywhere, maybe they werent timed or there is no video left which gives an accurate time?). For instance, after the 1991 peak, there appears to be no-one in the top 200 from when it was climbed in 1992. No-one in 1990 either. This makes 1991 look like a bit misleading, the reason for the fast climb was presumably, as already noted, the short length of the stage and the lack of big mountains beforehand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Hi, thanks for doing this work. Dont like to point things out when i didnt put the effort in but 1999 is missed off?

Oops, nice spot.

Corrected chart:

Also, alpe d'huez was climbed more times in the 80s/early 90s, with some ascents seeing no-one record a top 200 time

I'm just going off the available published data. If other relevant comparable data exists, happy to add it.

I was also thinking about charting some form of weighted speed average for the top riders.

 

[Galic Ho]

Wow. If anyone ever doubted that 1991 was the beginning of the end...

I think breukink got the record in 1990. Not surprising since he may have been already experimenting with epo. Pen was definitely an early adopter with Rudy dhaenens and the other pdm rider at the 1990 WC that year and alcala and breukinks otherworldly tt-ing that year.

But, holy crap batman, 1991 is like a jet-fueled rocket taking off with some clean riders being pulled along to career record times trying to chase big mig, Chiappucci and bugno.

That's it. What the Clinic has long said. Lemond was the last clean Tour winner.

That graph shows why Sastre's time from 2008 was blood bag assisted. Just a joke. He went as fast as Big Mig did in 91, actually about 20 seconds faster.

Not normal.

 

[Von Mises]

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.

No, problem is elsewhere.

Santambroggio, Di Luca, Ricco are easy cases - they are all proven dopers. Same with Pantani and Armstrong. Pantani´s 36:50 Alpe D´Huez - again, easy.
The problem is how to judge Samuel Sanchez 41:24 Alpe or Cadel Evans 42.07 Alpe- The problem is how to judge Thomas Voeckler or Bauke Mollema, Nico Roche, Dan Martin, Nairo Quintana? Or even how to judge Contador in 2007,2009, 2013?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

 

[Galic Ho]

That is frigging disgusting. Herrera not even making the top 150.
160. Luis Herrera ________ COL | 41:50 | 1987

Agreed. Absolutely disgusting. Best solo time in the whole group from a guy you could bank on being clean and he comes in at 160th place. What a horrible joke.

Lemond's 91 time is quicker, but lets face it, he was probably drafting behind epo fueled rockets for the first part of the climb and then went absolutely to his limit. Didn't even make the top 5 for that year.

It's funny looking at the years. 2006 for instance. Anyone here wanna have a crack and say Evans or Rogers never doped? Look how much faster they went that year versus 2008 and 2011. Clean for sure! Oh it's clean now...my bad.

I had no idea Sastre has THREE sub 40 minute times. Never went under 39 minutes, but no way did he do that clean. No wonder CSC left 2008 all down to Alpe d'Huez. They knew he could do it. Mind you if Evans had done his 2006 time he'd have won the Tour comfortably with over a minute in his pocket.

The whole list is one giant insult to clean cycling. Wall to wall of dopers with between maybe 2 to 5 clean performances in the whole top 200. Anyone wanna bet they won't crack 41 minutes this year? The way the riding is going they will annihilate it.

 

[Galic Ho]

No, problem is elsewhere.

Santambroggio, Di Luca, Ricco are easy cases - they are all proven dopers. Same with Pantani and Armstrong. Pantani´s 36:50 Alpe D´Huez - again, easy.
The problem is how to judge Samuel Sanchez 41:24 Alpe or Cadel Evans 42.07 Alpe- The problem is how to judge Thomas Voeckler or Bauke Mollema, Nico Roche, Dan Martin, Nairo Quintana? Or even how to judge Contador in 2007,2009, 2013?

Ask Vayer. He'll tell you the low down and give you a no frills answer.

You won't like what he says BTW.

 

[Ferminal]

The more you think about it the more remarkable Contador's 2011 performance was.

 

[jens_attacks]

The more you think about it the more remarkable Contador's 2011 performance was.

it is only my opinion but without the full bagarre on galibier(which was of tremendous caliber), alberto would have beaten or came few seconds close to marco's record time on alpe. also more than a dozen riders under 40 minutes for sure. voeckler had a 38 minutes on alpe that day in his legs. the power of his legs fucced his mind though, he thought he was immortal

also absolutely hilarious how some people make saints from the riders of the '80s...if the kerosene would have appeared right on 13 july 1982, on 14th july 1982, you will have it uber used in the peloton.

every generation of riders fought with the available weapons.


and again 1991 alpe time is wrong, seems like none of those times are verified, just taken from wiki or portoleau. and it scrrews all of your (rather beautiful) tables and graphics

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

and again 1991 alpe time is wrong, seems like none of those times are verified, just taken from wiki or portoleau. and it scrrews all of your (rather beautiful) tables and graphics

What time did u have for it?

 

[Netserk]

What time did u have for it?

42 seconds slower

the time from 1991 is not correct by the way . they started the clock when the helicopter showed the peloton but the climb aready started a while ago

the real time is

1991:13,8 km@8%---40:27---average speed 20.47 km/h(Gianni Bugno)

and yes it's verified by me

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vhFkITQanUg#t=2397s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vhFkITQanUg#t=4797s

2400 seconds while the climb was already underway

Time for yourself, or is there a directors cut here?
Guess it is even faster than 39.45