- Mar 24, 2011
- 10,525
- 1,923
- 25,680
maybe (that's just a friendly advice) you should try to read all the thread before starting to respond to every post in chronological order.Le breton said:I didn't realize you were incompetent.
maybe (that's just a friendly advice) you should try to read all the thread before starting to respond to every post in chronological order.Le breton said:I didn't realize you were incompetent.
Roderick said:Even just using power output as a criteria of who is doped/ who is a bigger doper is pretty stupid. It can give a pretty good indication, but that's all
webvan said:Not really, he has several "suspect" climbs and Hinault and Fignon get flagged for a few more watts...take the short La Ruchère ITT in 1984 :
Lemond : clean with 407/5.99/425 - 28'09"
Hinault : suspicious with 409/6.29/442 - 27'25"
Fignon : Miraculous with 429/6.5/454 - 26'51"
Dunno, I'm not finding this very convincing...yeah you've got to draw the line somewhere but in pre-EPO days it looks like they're splitting hair. Having said that it's nice to have tables with all these memorable climbs and associated comments over the years!
Big Doopie said:I remember that one. Gained like 3-4 mins on zoetemelk if I remember correctly.
icefire said:Any student of physics knows that variables have uncertainties. I find these kind of studies interesting, but I can't consider them serious when uncertainties in their variables are completely ignored. Antoine Vayer should watch Walter Lewin's lectures on Classical Mechanics to get a clue on this.
hrotha said:If you ask me, watt and W/kg figures you calculate with a normalized weight aren't as "real" as the ones that use real weight estimations. That's what I was talking about.
Le breton said:In fact in the Vayer-Portoleau team, the engineer who does the calculation is Portoleau. Vayer is the guy who has the stash of Festina data.
Look up for example "Portoleau Giro 2013" to get an idea of the great length he goes into for his power estimates.
http://www.alternativeditions.com/2013/06/02/les-calculs-de-puissance-du-tour-d-italie-2013/
Don't be late Pedro said:
Big Doopie said:And the clentadopucci fans aren't going to like the fact that he is above the greatest ever fraud. Lol.
icefire said:Then is Mr Portoleau the guy who needs to learn that such studies are of limited value if you have no idea of the uncertainties in your results.
icefire said:Then is Mr Portoleau the guy who needs to learn that such studies are of limited value if you have no idea of the uncertainties in your results.
melkemugg said:Im disappointed. Just to regard it by the looks of the scans in this thread it looks like cheap jail bait for bitter dope conspiracy jocks.
CHOCKING MUTANT PERFORMANCE
Books about dope is going to be bigger than cycling itself in a couple of years.
LaFlorecita said:ridiculous. Alberto is mutant because someone miscalculated his power output on Verbierhigher than Armstrong
![]()
SeriousSam said:the "bicycle performance" wiki page gives a useful expression for the power required to move the bike, as a function of weight, velocity, drag, friction and grade
![]()
is this the approach taken by portoleau or does he actually do CFD?
if he's using this equation, it wouldn't be hard to roughly account for uncertainty in the variables. you don't even need probability, you can just find upper and lower bounds for K1, K2 and Va which are the only variables that depend on the environment.. computing w/kg for ideal conditions and terrible conditions for the same climb would give a useful bound between which the real value most likely is.
if the resulting range is huge and could easily move one from say, suspicious to miraculous, then if good measurements of K1, k2 and va aren't available, the classification system really is bogus. the guy is an engineer and probably checked this
SeriousSam said:the "bicycle performance" wiki page gives a useful expression for the power required to move the bike, as a function of weight, velocity, drag, friction and grade
![]()
is this the approach taken by portoleau or does he actually do CFD?
if he's using this equation, it wouldn't be hard to roughly account for uncertainty in the variables. you don't even need probability, you can just find upper and lower bounds for K1, K2 and Va which are the only variables that depend on the environment.. computing w/kg for ideal conditions and terrible conditions for the same climb would give a useful bound between which the real value most likely is.
if the resulting range is huge and could easily move one from say, suspicious to miraculous, then if good measurements of K1, k2 and va aren't available, the classification system really is bogus. the guy is an engineer and probably checked this
The Hitch said:thank you.
Contador fans whatever their faults arent blind. They know Contador doped.
In anything, id say theyd be proud of the fact that riding in a "cleaner era" (according to you) Contador still went way faster than Lance.
Shows he was far more talented than Lance.
Le breton said:Almost. The start of the race was in Evian, not Thonon as I said, sorry.
15- Evian-Morzine-Avoriaz 54,2 km contre-la-montre
Montée escaladée :
Montée d'Avoriaz (1 ère -1833 m) : Bernard Hinault
1. Bernard Hinault en 1h33'35"
2. Zoetemelk à 2'37"
3. Agostinho à 3'15"
4. Verlinden à 4'06"
5. Van Impe à 4'11"
6. Battaglin à 4'39"
7. Kuiper à 4'48"
8. Knudsen à 5'13"
9. Hézard à 5'16"
10. Thurau à 5'34"
Big Doopie said:Thanks. Brings back some memories. Look at those time differences! The French organizers never tired of giving hinault tons and tons of itt. People complain about last year but that would have been light if I remember correctly. Imagine a 70-80 km flat itt as just one of the itts. Jrod, valverde and the other day's clentadopucci wouldn't even be contenders any more. The thing has skewed dramatically in favor of climbers since Indurain.
thehog said:I think you're forgetting something.
The dramatic "levelling" that EPO, microdosing and transfusions have caused.
In the old days the TT'ers would lose minutes in the mountains. Pure climbers could gain time.
This is not true and can be proven as an application of Bayes' theorem.BroDeal said:Not if you combine enough data. The differences will even out just like flipping a coin will trend to 50/50 with enough flips.
Come on Eshnar, you have to at least acknowledge that there is such a thing as a "best fit line" to all this analysis and it correlates with the EPO era, especially the nineties, when most of the riders depicted have either been caught, confessed, or at least inferentially found highly suspicious. I'm sure that a scatterplot of all the normalized data would show this and it would indeed be a positive correlation from the 80's up through the Armstrong era. It is of course not perfect but it is the best indication that cycling changed as the nineties dawned. We can say that Contador's Verbier is no worse than the guys who followed him but you can also say that there is no way Contador should have been able to follow Rasmussen in 2007.Eshnar said:you didn't either.
Anyway my point is still valid. If you don't take into account the environment it's rubbish![]()
jw1979 said:Didn't Greg LeMan openly say he could do roughly 6.7 w/kg for about 40:00 when fresh? That is mutant territory. Yet, he IS a mutant and the consensus is that he is a real mutant, not one made in a lab. Are we to believe he is the only mutant to have ever raced a bike? Is Boardman a mutant naturally or through science?
Anybody who has been here long enough knows what is obviously not clean, like the awesome duel between Rasmussen and Contador. By being lazy/sloppy and normalizing everyone's weight to 70kgs it takes away from this article, which is a shame.
It's enough to just show that Contador was able to beat Cancellara in a TT when they were both at the top of their game, I mean, duh!, that is more mutant than any of his climbing exploits, no?
As for this nonsense of sanctioning riders based on power output, that is really pathetic for a variety of reasons. As if scientists know everything! Target them, sure, but you can't just sanction someone because they do something incredible when you don't actually know all there is to know about the universe, let alone human physiology/psychology/etc.