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

[BroDeal]

Dunno if someone mentioned it already (I hope someone did), but taking into accounts power outputs without considering anything else (how hard the stage was, the weather, the race as a whole) is pure rubbish.

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

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Another tool for fans to judge doped up performances in the future.

Nice.

 

[Merckx index]

Indurain is also green in his first 3 wins, riding with the likes of Bugno, Chiapucci and Rominger.

Where did you see that? Do you have the book? All I saw was the list with GL green and everyone else yellow or above. I haven't seen the breakdown for individual performances of a single rider.

It's rubbish in order to judge a performance. Ofc it's nice to have all this data, but to use them and write 'this is more suspect than that because the power output was higher' is rubbish.

I don't think it's out-and-out rubbish. Of course you have to take estimates like these with a grain of salt, but it's been well documented that times in the 90s were much faster than those in 80s--and also faster than those in recent years--over the same climbs. Comparing a single performance at different times is problematic, but when you have many comparsions, differences in weather conditions tend to average out. So the fact that no one broke 40 mins, or apparently even 42 mins, for Alpe in the 1980s, whereas several riders did it in the 90s or early in this century is highly significant. And it follows that riders winning during the 90s and earlier part of this century almost certainly were putting out more power than earlier riders.

And of course it isn't just that times were different. We know for a fact that riders at least up to the late 80s were not on EPO, and that riders in the 90s could use it with impunity. We know when the 50% HT rule came into play, and also when an EPO test became available. When events like these correlate fairly well with changes in power values, that is pretty strong support for the robustness of the diiferences in the power values.

I wish, though, that Vayer had addressed that article I linked to a few months ago, in which LA's ITT times were compared with ITTs throughout the history of the TDF, and concluded that there was nothing suspect about them. Or maybe he did, but I haven't heard anything about that.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1191814&highlight=article#post1191814

 

[Eshnar]

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

I have my doubts about this too. It may work with riders of the same era. Comparing power data between, say, Fignon, Pantani and Froome could be misleading. The way they (and the peloton) ride is totally different.

 

[thehog]

It's rubbish in order to judge a performance. Ofc it's nice to have all this data, but to use them and write 'this is more suspect than that because the power output was higher' is rubbish.

No it's not rubbish.

Power output is power output.

If it was raining or a headwind or a tailwind the rider still had to produce the wattage.

Considering the the analysis is conducted during the month of July on the same terrain the variables as stated are negligible.

Not rubbish as you refer.

Or are you suggesting Armstrong and Pantani are clean?

 

[thehog]

I have my doubts about this too. It may work with riders of the same era. Comparing power data between, say, Fignon, Pantani and Froome could be misleading. The way they (and the peloton) ride is totally different.

What they ride backward now or with their hands?

How do they ride 'differently'?

 

[MacRoadie]

21 Counts

Just ordered my copy...

 

[Eshnar]

Or are you suggesting Armstrong and Pantani are clean?

I'm not an idiot

Power output is power output.

If it was raining or a headwind or a tailwind the rider still had to produce the wattage.

hum... no. The wattage is different if the drag resistance is different. The wattage is different if the rider has attacked on the previous col and is tired. The wattage is different if the rider attacks in the last 2 kms after being pulled by his team for the whole climb. The wattage is different if the rider is racing a 100 km stage after a rest day, than if he's racing a 250 km stage after 3 MTFs in a row.

 

[roundabout]

Well, take Alpe d'Huez stage for example. Contador set the record time on the Telegraphe, but was pedaling squares by 3km to go on Alpe d'Huez and did it in over 42 minutes.

Does it make him clean or doped?

 

[DirtyWorks]

I am asking if the drugs of the pre epo era allowed you to improve you power number beyond what could normally do as opposed to help you sustain your existing ones.

It depends on the era.

For the steroid era, it was a one-day super-champion performance followed by at least one terrible day. So, not a very good stage racing, much less a grand tour drug.

Pre-steroid, it would be some combination of pain killers and stimulants. These would be tiny differences in performance.

Somewhere in all that is transfusions. That would be great stuff for stage racers. Maybe someone else can summarize when blood bags became prevalent.

 

[webvan]

A short ITT would definitely make a difference. You can appreciate it from the red line in Nibs' analysis. The line goes up as time goes down, because more power can be put out for a shorter period of time. The line is in fact an estimate based on what he was known to put out in one sustained climb of around forty minutes.

However, I assume Vayer would have factored that in. He would either have to make all his power estimates from relatively sustained climbs, or use a projection like that red line to estimate what sustained power would be based on power output for shorter intervals.

If Hinault had a power output of 6.4 watts/kg for a sustained climb, around 40 min, then the only thing available at that time that would explain it would be blood transfusion. But there is no evidence that he did that, and if he did, one would expect he would do it at other times, as well.

I haven't read the book, of course, but if he's claiming Hinault did 6.4 watts/kg, then there is almost certainly something wrong with his calculations. Most likely he used too short an interval, and if he did, then many of his other estimates are probably wrong, too. But again, it seems hard to believe that Vayer would make a simple mistake like that.

Edit: Where did the 6.4 watts/kg come from? According to what I've seen, Hinault was classified as yellow. This would mean > 5.85 watts/kg. This I think is believable without EPO. Remember there is considerable variation in on the road estimates due to weather conditions. E.g., Hinault could have had a tail wind on that climb.

Yep, I've now flipped through that magazine and I'm a bit perplexed...they have the numbers and the stories, for Hinault it's the stuff we already know, cortisone for his knees and that test he refused in a crit. Then the numbers...he's flagged for 6.34 in the ITT Avoriaz/1981 and for 6.37 in the Monte Campione ITT in the Giro. It's pretty close to yelllow of which he has a few as well as Lemond.

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.

Ok I think we should move on to this topic -> http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=20803

 

[Roderick]

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

 

[thehog]

I'm not an idiot

hum... no. The wattage is different if the drag resistance is different. The wattage is different if the rider has attacked on the previous col and is tired. The wattage is different if the rider attacks in the last 2 kms after being pulled by his team for the whole climb. The wattage is different if the rider is racing a 100 km stage after a rest day, than if he's racing a 250 km stage after 3 MTFs in a row.

After a reat day?

Ummm I rest my case!

You see what you did? You added a very interesting variable - the refill!

Thank-you for proving my point.

Rubbish indeed.

 

[Eshnar]

After a reat day?

what's the matter on that?

edit: I'm not sure why you think my point is that that anyone is clean. My point is that all these data, alone, are misleading.

 

[webvan]

The Lance fanboys aren't going to like the fact that Greg Lemond is rightfully labeled as having been clean.

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!

 

[thehog]

what's the matter on that?

edit: I'm not sure why you think my point is that that anyone is clean. My point is that all these data, alone, are misleading.

Misleading or 'total rubbish'?

 

[Eshnar]

Misleading or 'total rubbish'?

when something is misleading and someone brings it up to prove a point, then it's rubbish. If you showed me those data and told me "look I calculated all these power output!" I'd have answered "oh. Cool. Thanks"

 

[hiero2]

Didn't realise this thread had started. I've been discussing the publication on another thread. Perhaps a mod can move that part because it was all OT.

Starting from:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1254365#post1254365

Done. Thanks for the tip.

 

[thehog]

when something is misleading and someone brings it up to prove a point, then it's rubbish. If you showed me those data and told me "look I calculated all these power output!" I'd have answered "oh. Cool. Thanks"

Why would I do that?

Vayer has done the work already.

You're just sitting around saying "rubbish".

Sounds to me you should be presenting the calculations on why they're rubbish.

Respectfully until such time I'll take word of a sports scientist with years in game over yourself.

 

[Big Doopie]

The Lance fanboys aren't going to like the fact that Greg Lemond is rightfully labeled as having been clean.

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

Glad that Lemond keeps getting confirmed. Without the gunshot and epo, my god, what might have been...

 

[Big Doopie]

Badger's yellow flag is due to a "not normal" mountain TT in 1981 in Avoriaz I believe, that day he did something like 6.4 W/kg which is a lot for pre-EPO era.

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

 

[The Hitch]

Well, take Alpe d'Huez stage for example. Contador set the record time on the Telegraphe,

You mean Contador-schleck- Evans without mechanical according to his fans

 

[hiero2]

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

Glad that Lemond keeps getting confirmed. Without the gunshot and epo, my god, what might have been...

It has always been my opinion that Greg had 5 Tour wins in him. That turkey hunt in the news was a big shock - huge.

Edit: oops, left out the important bit ----

- - -

Vayer has done the work already.

You're just sitting around saying "rubbish".

Sounds to me you should be presenting the calculations on why they're rubbish.

Respectfully until such time I'll take word of a sports scientist with years in game over yourself.

Vayer's getting a lot of respect, but even in the article that was linked to the one in French way way above? They had somebody in there casting doubt on Vayer's methodology. So, it was like "Great. -- Yeah, but . . . " and then topped with another "But still". Overall, the article had Vayer as believable, and good methodology, but with some questions still. At least - that was how I read the translation.

Also worth noting is that, apparently, Vayer compensated for conditions and other stuff that usually get questioned in comparisons like this. Again - translations and all may have misled me.

 

[Eshnar]

Sounds to me you should be presenting the calculations on why they're rubbish.

okay.
The power output on a certain route of length X, climbed in a certain time T, is
P=F*X/T, by theory, where I consider the force F to be constant (it isn't, and this is another flaw of the whole "let's-take-wattages-to-compare-riders", but let's ignore it).
Now let's assume we have two riders, both of them have ridden the same climb, in the same total time, but in two different conditions. One had headwind and the other tailwind.
The first one had a drag resistance enormously higher that the second, hence his F must have been higher than the one of the second rider, thus provoking a higher power output. Consistently higher. Now, if I didn't consider this condition but just calculated the power output right away not knowing the wind, how would that work out?

 

[JRTinMA]

okay.
The power output on a certain route of length X, climbed in a certain time T, is
P=F*X/T, by theory, where I consider the force F to be constant (it isn't, and this is another flaw of the whole "let's-take-wattages-to-compare-riders", but let's ignore it).
Now let's assume we have two riders, both of them have ridden the same climb, in the same total time, but in two different conditions. One had headwind and the other tailwind.
The first one had a drag resistance enormously higher that the second, hence his F must have been higher than the one of the second rider, thus provoking a higher power output. Consistently higher. Now, if I didn't consider this condition but just calculated the power output right away not knowing the wind, how would that work out?

I suck at French but I'm pretty sure he says his formula takes into account weather and wind.

Le calcul tient compte de la distance de la montée, le temps pour la parcourir, l'inclinaison de la pente, le vent, les facteurs météo, le poids du coureur, etc.