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

[Eshnar]

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]

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

So it's good that we have you to do a better job.

Thanks

 

[Le breton]

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!

The difference between 5.99 and 6.5 watts/kg does not look like hair splitting, it's huge.

However, it should be noted that Herrera did 26:07 on that climb, which makes me think there might be something wrong with some of the data they used for that particular climb. Herrera would have been producing over 6.8 watts/kg (6.8 if you do not factor in that he was only about 55 kg, which puts him at a disadvantage : his bike would be a considerably higher %age of his body weight than for Fignon or Hinault).

16- Les Echelles-La Ruchère 22 km contre-la-montre

Montée escaladée :
Montée de La Ruchère (Hors Catégorie -1160 m) : Luis Herrera
1. Laurent Fignon en 42'11"
2. Herrera à 25"
3. Delgado à 32"
4. Hinault à 33"
5. J.Gorospe à 41"
6. Arroyo à 1'09"
7. Kelly à 1'21"
8. Millar à 1'26"
9. Anderson à 1'30"
10. Breu

 

[Le breton]

I remember that one. Gained like 3-4 mins on zoetemelk if I remember correctly.

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"

 

[melkemugg]

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.

 

[Le breton]

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.

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/

 

[Le breton]

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.

In this magazine, he gives both. Real and normalized

 

[icefire]

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/

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.

 

[The Hitch]

21 Counts

thank you.

And the clentadopucci fans aren't going to like the fact that he is above the greatest ever fraud. Lol.

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]

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.

And what you need to learn is that Portoleau quotes the uncertainties.

http://www.alternativeditions.com/2013/06/02/les-calculs-de-puissance-du-tour-d-italie-2013/

 

[SeriousSam]

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.

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

 

[Fatclimber]

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.

I feel quite the opposite. If readers take offense to the classifications, that's fine, but there are still plenty of cold, hard facts that should at least inspire some thought/questions regarding performances.

With the impact that dope has had on cycling, I find it only fair that it is granted a certain amount of attention. I find the trends shown by the facts revealed somewhat hopeful that we may someday witness fair competition.


Has anybody seen a response from JV about this?

 

[Fatclimber]

ridiculous. Alberto is mutant because someone miscalculated his power output on Verbier higher than Armstrong

So you're saying that 444 is greater than 472? You may want to look a little closer, it appears there was no miscalculation but perhaps a misread by yourself.

 

[icefire]

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

It depends on what you consider huge. 5% is huge? It is what Portoleau quotes for Galibier. That's enough to jump from green to miraculous, or from suspect to mutant. The figures are interesting nonetheless, but they have to be taken with some caution.

EDIT: my mistake +/-5% is enough to jump from green to mutant. +/-2%, which is what Portoleau quotes for climbs other than Galibier is almost enough to jump two categories.

 

[IndianCyclist]

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

CFD i think is not possible for this scenario.
Since you have data for different riders for the same climbs, it is possible to reduce the variation in the constants. If you know for sure that somebody is riding undoped or have access to actual rider data, then that rider is the baseline. From that baseline then the performance of the rest of the riders can be calibrated.
Just a comparison of the error in watts/kg for 2% & 5 % for ideal conditions for 10 km 8% slope climb 70+8 kg rider+cycle system
Watts/kg Speed kph Time Minutes Time Diff seconds
6.00 w/kg 20.14 kph 29.79 min 0.00 s
5.88 w/kg 19.80 kph 30.30 min 30.69 s
5.70 w/kg 19.27 kph 31.14 min 80.70 s

 

[Big Doopie]

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.

Huh? What? Faster? Cleaner? What? And somehow you can judge talent amidst the complete lack of scientific data. The only thing we know about clentadopucci is that he is a doper. Everything else is simply noise.

And I will ask you once again not to compartmentalize me. I freakin' hate Armstrong more than anything. I simply find it utterly baffling that anyone can be a fan of such a huge known doper as clentadopucci. You simply do not like cycling. It's that simple. You are somehow caught up emotionally with a complete fraud. and knowing he's a doper somehow makes it okay? Seriously? Talk about cognitive dissonance.

 

[thehog]

This is an excellent thread.

We need more like it.

 

[Big Doopie]

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"

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]

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.

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.

 

[Big Doopie]

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.

Um...not forgetting anything. Don't know what your point is honestly.

Climbers started tt-ing like crazy too on epo.

Anyway the gts are never TTers against climbers, but all-rounders against climbers. When you drop the the amount of tts you lessen the chance of an all rounder winning and increase the chance of a climber winning. Pure Climbers historically have won very few tours.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Not if you combine enough data. The differences will even out just like flipping a coin will trend to 50/50 with enough flips.

This is not true and can be proven as an application of Bayes' theorem.

 

[vrusimov]

you didn't either.
Anyway my point is still valid. If you don't take into account the environment it's rubbish

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.

 

[jw1979]

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.

 

[mewmewmew13]

a bit of input from doc on veloclinic or @veloclinic on twit
http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/52412273102/altitude-6-watts-onna-boar-continued

 

[Fatclimber]

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.

The best Lemond did on any climbs over 40 minutes documented in this magazine was 5.88 w/k. Interestingly enough, that was in his final Tour on the Alpe. If you can show when Lemond made that comment it would be neat.

The 70 K normalization is for simplicities sake for comparison on certain graphs. All the actual power and power/weight ratios are listed for each climb under each individual riders' section. Don't have to look real hard to find it, but do have to have the entire article.

I find this information fascinating, hopefully it is legit. If it's not, well I guess that would be poetic justice.

It does seem like there was a crackdown in 2010 following '09. It's almost like McQuaid put the word out in '09 for a free-for-all to celebrate la's participation, what a bloodbath it was! Amazingly, in '10 Bertie was unable to match his average output for all 5 calculated climbs of '09, on any single climb!

This is cool stuff.