Climbing Speeds

[JimmyFingers]

Let's not derail this one in another SKY thread, let's talk climbing speeds in general. For that matter, also the TT speeds/wattages.

This +10000000000

 

[acoggan]

keyboard cowboys

"Keyboard cowboys" - I like that.

 

[acoggan]

Except your graph jumps from a track-based 4 minute effort to ... a 2009 effort. Where the people who think he's a doper often believe he started doping.

That data are what the data. The point, in this context, is that they imply that Wiggins always had more potential at longer durations than your average world class pursuiter.

AS for your "facts" - it's not what Ed was saying, if you want to be honest. Of course someone who has never ridden a bike can improve their efficiency. "Efficiency is trainable".

Ed was claiming an elite level cyclist with years of training and racing at the elite / pro level, continued to improve his efficiency, based on really dodgy data.

Actually, as an overarching theme "efficiency is trainable" is precisely what Ed was saying. You'd realize that if you read all of his preceding papers on the topic, not just the case study of Armstrong. There have been numerous papers published since the sum total of which indicate that this conclusion is correct...in fact, when you look at the literature as a whole going back ~100 y it is hard to figure out why anyone ever believed otherwise.

 

[Ferminal]

Interesting comments by Steven Kruijswijk in Wielerrevue: he says he rode the same Watts in Tirreno last year, as in the Tour de Suisse 2011. In the Tour de Suisse 2011 he got third and won a stage, in Tirreno 2012 he finished 21st. He says he'd rather doubt himself than the riders around him, but...
.

Don't know what Kruijswijk did to win in Liechtenstein but Nibali on Prati di Tivo was hardly mind blowing... Kruijswijk was over two minutes behind that day, I really doubt that Francesco Failli and Vlad Gusev would have made the 2011 Suisse podium. Doesn't add up.

 

[The Hitch]

Times are changing but various people in this place refuse to accept it because they are obsessed with everyone being dopers. In Armstrong's day you could not have won the tour clean, but in the last 2yrs there has been no single effort anywhere on any climb or ITT that would be considered physiologically impossible by world leading experts. Yet the keyboard cowboys in this place like dear wiggo, benotti69, brodeal, the hitch, and thehog all think they know better than those world leading experts and they post the same sh!t over and over everyday. It's sad and pathetic really.

Excuse me. Exactly which "world leading experts" do you think my posts ignore? Ligget?

 

[sittingbison]

This is one of the the great tragedies of doping and it is the single biggest fallacy of this forum which is dominated by the "if you're winning you MUST be a doper" mentality. By all means, focus on the winner, but if you're going to do so, then be realistic, and use real evidence, not errors of fact stemming from ignorance and lack of education, and worse still not made up lies. Some stuff is just complete and utter BS.

Times are changing but various people in this place refuse to accept it because they are obsessed with everyone being dopers. In Armstrong's day you could not have won the tour clean, but in the last 2yrs there has been no single effort anywhere on any climb or ITT that would be considered physiologically impossible by world leading experts. Yet the keyboard cowboys in this place like dear wiggo, benotti69, brodeal, the hitch, and thehog all think they know better than those world leading experts and they post the same sh!t over and over everyday. It's sad and pathetic really.

to the bolded in red:
1) Times changing? lol
2) There have been so many #extraterrestrial performances the mind boggles

World renowned "sports scientists" my ar$e. Pigs with snouts in the trough more like, as is now being exposed in Australia.

Dodger (and Porte) scything down all opposition in the Pyrenees, Wiggo belting the opposition in the ITTs on the Tour and the Olympics, the insane mountain stages of Bertie and JRod in the Veulta, Wiggo dominating the entire season from wo to go. These are not performances within the realms of "normal" performances, supposed "sports scientists" theories about what is physiologically possible are complete rubbish because every time they open their cakehole it gets revealed dopers are the root of the equation.

An example being acoggan STILL misses the wood from the trees with Coyles article, simple fact being every single test Coyle ever did was on a doper juiced to the gills but presuming him to be a clean athlete so the entire experiment and all the data and conjectures and hypthoesis were BS.

Why should any of us believe what a "sports scientist" has to say when the entire profession is completely discredited and mired in corruption. Every time we switch on the telly and watch a footy, rugby, soccer, tennis, baseball, gridiron bla bla bla game its more than even money (and we cant even believe them odds with crooked betting and match fixing by organised criminals thrown in) we are watching a charade of dopers.

Buddy Franklin running from full back to full forward (thats 130m) at full tilt the whole game? Still doing it in the last quarter? Without raising a sweat or lungs bursting? 1.96m and 100kg? Give me a break. Theres a reason why a player has a position like "full forward" and lurks withing the 50m circle and has done for 100 years until just recently, its because normal people no matter how athletic cannot do 130m intervals for 2 hours.

The ONLY times and performances we can place ANY reliance on as being "clean" are 1989 preEPO wnen Badger Lemonf and Professor were duking it out. If domestique level riders are kkilling these performance levels then we have a problem...which we most certainly do.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Holy smoke, how about that for a slam dunk.

Physiologically possible, they should go on Tell Sell with that.

 

[acoggan]

An example being acoggan STILL misses the wood from the trees with Coyles article, simple fact being every single test Coyle ever did was on a doper juiced to the gills but presuming him to be a clean athlete so the entire experiment and all the data and conjectures and hypthoesis were BS.

A little background reading for you (note that these are just Coyle's own articles leading up to his case study of Armstrong; there are numerous others that also provide important information and context):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1501563

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1521959

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8005729

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10668757

 

[acoggan]

The ONLY times and performances we can place ANY reliance on as being "clean" are 1989 preEPO wnen Badger Lemonf and Professor were duking it out.

Didn't Fignon admit to doping before his death?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

A little background reading for you (note that these are just Coyle's own articles leading up to his case study of Armstrong; there are numerous others that also provide important information and context):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1501563

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1521959

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8005729

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10668757

Ah yes, but were the participants in these studies as inspired as Lance?

 

[BroDeal]

Didn't Fignon admit to doping before his death?

He said he did not use EPO.

 

[oldcrank]

The ONLY times and performances we can place ANY reliance on as being "clean" are 1989 preEPO

The FDA approved EPO on 1-June-1989 and by the end of the
month Amgen had sales totaling $17 million. So are you saying
that Greg LeMond was using EPO in July of 1989 at the Tour?
If so Lance has $1 million for you.

 

[Winterfold]

Advice to ten Dam: Train before the race like all the others.

LOL I was just thinking that

 

[Krebs cycle]

Why should any of us believe what a "sports scientist" has to say when the entire profession is completely discredited and mired in corruption. Every time we switch on the telly and watch a footy, rugby, soccer, tennis, baseball, gridiron bla bla bla game its more than even money (and we cant even believe them odds with crooked betting and match fixing by organised criminals thrown in) we are watching a charade of dopers.

It would be a waste of my time pointing out every bogus statement in this post so I will just focus on this particular piece of logic.

According to this logic, since Dr Michele Ferrari is a dodgy doctor, the entire medical profession is corrupt and completely discredited. Better turn your outrage-o-meter up to 11, write to your local MP and demand the govt stop spending your hard earned taxpayer dollars on healthcare because Ferrari gave EPO to Lance.

This entire scandal with AFL has nothing to do with sport science anyway. Stephen Dank isn't even a sport scientist and the only people calling "sport scientists" dodgy are the Essendon coaching staff who are using the doping investigation as a smokescreen to cover their own ar$es since they were the ones who f@#ked up last season and demanded that Robinson smash their players pre-season which led to a spate of injuries.

But go ahead and believe everything you hear and read in the tabloids. You must be the most gullible kid in the playground.

Originally Posted by sittingbison
The ONLY times and performances we can place ANY reliance on as being "clean" are 1989 preEPO

lol the 1980s... a time when steroid use was rampant in the peloton. You really are the most gullible kid in the playground.

 

[sittingbison]

not been listening to the ACC pressers krebs? Not read their report?? Failed to understand the bit about rampant team based systematic doping, match fixing and colluding with organised crime??? Failed to comprehend the extremely pointed reference to "sports scientists"????

THE ROLE OF SPORTS SCIENTISTS, COACHES AND OTHER FACILITATORS
Some coaches, sports scientists and support staff of elite athletes have orchestrated and/ or condoned the use of prohibited substances and/or methods of administration. Sports scientists are now influential in professional sport in Australia, with some of these individuals prepared to administer substances to elite athletes which are untested or not yet approved for human use. In many Australian sporting codes, sports scientists have gained increasing influence over decision making within the clubs. Some sports scientists and doctors are experimenting on professional sportspersons in an effort to determine if particular substances can improve performance without being detected. Complicit medical practitioners are a key conduit through which peptides and hormones are being supplied to athletes and other individuals on prescription. In some cases, medical practitioners who are prescribing peptides, hormones and other PIEDs are engaging in lax, fraudulent and unethical prescribing practices, such as prescribing controlled drugs in false names.

The entire medical profession aren't tarred with Ferraris brush krebs, but all CYCLING doctors certainly are, compounded by Drs Leinders, del Morral, Fuentes, Ibarguen (sic) et al the list is so long I've forgotten them all.

And how unlike a PhD to misinterpret or not understand a simple comment, namely that preEPO era 1989 is "clean". Did you not notice or understand the use of the quotation marks krebs? Steroids rampant in the peleton in the 80s? What about the 90s, the 00s, the 10s? You didn't stop for one second and think the statement might have something to do with the advent of oxygen vector doping after 1989 and its dramatic effects on performance?

Next time I'll make it easy for you krebs and spell it out in words of less than three syllables

oldcrank, what kind of comment is that? Were on earth do you get the impression I am suggesting Lemond was using EPO? Anyway, the reward is not a million bucks, sauces suggest its $300k

acoggan, are you ever going to admit that the entirety of Coyles data on Lance is totally corrupted by the test subject being juiced to the gills the whole time? For the love of god give it up man.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

lol the 1980s... a time when steroid use was rampant in the peloton. You really are the most gullible kid in the playground.

Didn't Fignon admit to doping before his death?

It seems it is in the Holy Bible of physiology to dodge questions with a question or making childish insults.

Specially the steroids remark is so good! Since you guys have been dragging and dragging on about aerobic versus anaerobic. What are steroids used for?

No sir, that is another looping whole in your theories.

You just do not know what is humanly possible, do you? A lot of assumptions, dodgy data.

Tell Sell Science.

 

[acoggan]

acoggan, are you ever going to admit that the entirety of Coyles data on Lance is totally corrupted by the test subject being juiced to the gills the whole time? For the love of god give it up man.

Heh - I've always said that I'm not sure if it ever should have been published in the first place, and that would be true even if it were believed at the time that Armstrong was squeaky-clean. There's a difference between that and believing it should be withdrawn, however, and I still believe Coyle's conclusion (i.e., that efficiency improves over time) is 100% consistent with the data presented and with the literature as a whole.

 

[acoggan]

It seems it is in the Holy Bible of physiology to dodge questions with a question or making childish insults.

Specially the steroids remark is so good! Since you guys have been dragging and dragging on about aerobic versus anaerobic. What are steroids used for?

No sir, that is another looping whole in your theories.

You just do not know what is humanly possible, do you? A lot of assumptions, dodgy data.

Tell Sell Science.

Why are you conflating my remarks with Kreb cycle's??

EDIT: Your complete lack of logic of doing so is illustrated by the fact that he and I couldn't be further apart on what is "physiologically possible" with respect to human power output (and hence the topic of this thread).

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Why are you conflating my remarks with Kreb cycle's??

EDIT: Your complete lack of logic of doing so is illustrated by the fact that he and I couldn't be further apart on what is "physiologically possible" with respect to human power output (and hence the topic of this thread).

Good, now we have established a clear waypoint, let's go back at the questions of sitting bison.

The ONLY times and performances we can place ANY reliance on as being "clean" are 1989 preEPO wnen Badger Lemonf and Professor were duking it out. If domestique level riders are kkilling these performance levels then we have a problem...which we most certainly do.

Do you feel the same on this? OR is there just now way of knowing what is accomplishable clean? Is there a reliable database?

Dodger (and Porte) scything down all opposition in the Pyrenees, Wiggo belting the opposition in the ITTs on the Tour and the Olympics, the insane mountain stages of Bertie and JRod in the Veulta, Wiggo dominating the entire season from wo to go. These are not performances within the realms of "normal" performances, supposed "sports scientists" theories about what is physiologically possible are complete rubbish because every time they open their cakehole it gets revealed dopers are the root of the equation.

Don't mind the names of the riders involved but do you feel the same on this or are you just looking at the numbers and say 'hey, this is possible numberwise'? Do exercise phsyologists analyze who is making the watts work? Put them into historic perspective?

Just questions. I just want to know more on the way of working.

 

[oldcrank]

Specially the steroids remark is so good! Since you guys have been dragging and dragging on about aerobic versus anaerobic. What are steroids used for?

No sir, that is another looping whole in your theories

Surely you are not trying to say that steroids are of no benefit to
athletes competing in aerobic or largely aerobic sports? You
cannot really be saying that, or can you be?

 

[acoggan]

Do you feel the same on this? OR is there just now way of knowing what is accomplishable clean? Is there a reliable database?

I don't believe that you can determine whether or not someone is doping based on their performance.

Don't mind the names of the riders involved but do you feel the same on this or are you just looking at the numbers and say 'hey, this is possible numberwise'? Do exercise phsyologists analyze who is making the watts work? Put them into historic perspective?

I can't speak for others, but in my book analyzing climbing performances or even directly-measured power outputs is a waste of time (see above).

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Surely you are not trying to say that steroids are of no benefit to
athletes competing in aerobic or largely aerobic sports? You
cannot really be saying that, or can you be?

Course not, steroids are usefull as well for aerobic athletes. Built up of muscles, recuperation. But hell, bloodboosters are much more effective.
Or do you not agree on that?

I don't believe that you can determine whether or not someone is doping based on their performance.

Thats a bit vague. Have you never in your carreer as a athlete coach seen an athlete/cyclist improve that much in a short time that you thought 'hell, what is that guy doing'?

What is YOUR red flag when it comes to human possible performances? A genuine question.

I can't speak for others, but in my book analyzing climbing performances or even directly-measured power outputs is a waste of time (see above).

What should we do in your view to make sure dopers have no chance in the future?

 

[acoggan]

Have you never in your carreer as a athlete coach seen an athlete/cyclist improve that much in a short time that you thought 'hell, what is that guy doing'?

1. I am not a coach, nor have I ever played one on TV.

2. I've never really paid any attention to what others are doing, but instead have focused on what I can control, i.e., my own training.

What is YOUR red flag when it comes to human possible performances? A genuine question.

I don't really have one (i.e., it's all shades-of-gray to me).

What should we do in your view to make sure dopers have no chance in the future?

I'm not about to claim that I have any bright new ideas, but I will say that I don't think that there is really anything to be gained by obsessing over actual performances.

 

[oldcrank]

Course not, steroids are usefull as well for aerobic athletes. Built up of muscles, recuperation. But hell, bloodboosters are much more effective.
Or do you not agree on that?

I agree that steroids and blood-doping are highly effective,
that is why they are still being used by current cheaters.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I'm not about to claim that I have any bright new ideas, but I will say that I don't think that there is really anything to be gained by obsessing over actual performances.

This is pretty much the crux of it. You know it, I know it, Rob Parisotto knows it, Michael Ashenden knows it, Chris Gore knows it, Chris Abbiss, Dave Martin and Marc Quod know it, Ross Tucker knows it, Olaf Schumacher knows it, various other Aussie ex phys uni lecturers with an interest in cycling know it, and I'm pretty damn sure Peter Keen and Tim Kerrison would too. But according to sittingbison, since NRL and AFL football codes have been involved in taking PEDs (is that really a surprise to anyone?), then if you watch cycling on TV apparently you are more qualified than all of the above wrt to cycling science and anti-doping and thus you CAN determine whether someone is doping by obsessing over actual performances which occurred in 2012.