Climbing Speeds

[acoggan]

Ross Tucker knows it

I'm not so sure about that.

 

[sittingbison]

Bjarne Riis.....Lance Armstrong....et al.....performance increases.....Nothing to see here. Move along.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Bjarne Riis.....Lance Armstrong....et al.....performance increases.....Nothing to see here. Move along.

Funny how someone who does not consider themselves intelligent (or at least by dint of comparison to JV being "genius") - Tyler Hamilton - was able to watch Bjarne Riis's performance and remark, "I might be green but I am not an idiot".

It's the problem, I guess, when you study something for years and years and years and are so used to lab results: reality takes a back seat and is not obvious to you.

 

[acoggan]

Funny how someone who does not consider themselves intelligent (or at least by dint of comparison to JV being "genius") - Tyler Hamilton - was able to watch Bjarne Riis's performance and remark, "I might be green but I am not an idiot".

Well clearly that settles it, then: the solution to doping is to get rid of WADA, etc., and just hire Hamilton and his divining rod to tell us who's juicing and who isn't.

 

[BigBoat]

While I respect Coggan and enjoy reading his thoughts on training/racing, I have to say that a long distance climb is a great measure of performance and yes of how doped the riders are.

I also wonder about Contador's 41:30 in 2011, maybe the riders were cleaner that year, I wonder what Chris Froome can do up the mountain... The fact that they go slower now than the "old days" even with all the modern day bikes, the lightweight aero stuff their still way off what Big Mig did during his day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez#Fastest_Alpe_d.27Huez_ascents

 

[mastersracer]

Funny how someone who does not consider themselves intelligent (or at least by dint of comparison to JV being "genius") - Tyler Hamilton - was able to watch Bjarne Riis's performance and remark, "I might be green but I am not an idiot".

It's the problem, I guess, when you study something for years and years and years and are so used to lab results: reality takes a back seat and is not obvious to you.

Guessing you've never done science or been engaged in the enterprise of science. A scientist can't simply assert something is the case because he believes it to be the case. I think the point Andy Coggan is making is that even if there were no measurement error in power data, making a claim about doping/physiological plausibility is riddled with uncertainty stemming from assumptions that the model has to make (efficiency, etc.) and then reduces to an ideological debate about what is physiologically plausible. Even Riis' 6.6 watts/kg (derived from estimation, which introduces uncertainty) results in a range of VO2max values that aren't definitive in terms of a value for which there is clearly no physiological basis.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Guessing you've never done science or been engaged in the enterprise of science. A scientist can't simply assert something is the case because he believes it to be the case. I think the point Andy Coggan is making is that even if there were no measurement error in power data, making a claim about doping/physiological plausibility is riddled with uncertainty stemming from assumptions that the model has to make (efficiency, etc.) and then reduces to an ideological debate about what is physiologically plausible. Even Riis' 6.6 watts/kg (derived from estimation, which introduces uncertainty) results in a range of VO2max values that aren't definitive in terms of a value for which there is clearly no physiological basis.

Here's a hint: Hamilton had no idea what W/Kg Riis was doing. But it's obvious something isn't right. Doesn't take a scientist to see something is wrong, or dodgy. Takes a dose of reality.

 

[sittingbison]

the issue is for his entire career Riis was a domestique, then WHAM won the Tour with physiologically IMplausible figures

And exactly the same for Armstrong, except he wasn't a domestique level rider like Riis, rather a Classics racer who couldnt stage race to help himself being incapable of matching the big boys in climbing or time trialling and unable to put multiple days effort together.

These two, and many others, delivered performances that yes, to my eye and many others are #extraterrestrial or #outofthisworld

Its been hilarious listening to the bleating and knashing of teeth the past few months "I should have known, I was duped by the weight loss and power gain, by the dancing fast cadence up hills, but upon reflection it was all too good to be true because in my heart I knew Lance was crap at GTs" rubbish.

Mind you, this all sounds eerily familiar....

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

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.

Coaching might be the wrong word, but Andy Coggins did do a lot of testing since the eighties [?] on cyclists or not?

http://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2011...the-secret-training-life-of-andy-coggan-ph-d/

But you have no clear answer to what is humanly possible?

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.

The crux is are those actual performances believable.

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.

Nice list Krebs, all Aussies? And yet they could not stop the drugs in Australia rambling?

 

[Krebs cycle]

The crux is are those actual performances believable.

Nice list Krebs, all Aussies? And yet they could not stop the drugs in Australia rambling?

When I say world renowned experts in cycling science say yes, those performances are believable, your answer is "pffft, what would they know? AFL and NRL teams are doping". If that is the best answer you've got then you really, really need to lay of the crack dude.

Just give up on the strawman argument which has been repeated about 5 or 6 times now. That list of sport scientists above have absolutely nothing to do with doping in AFL and NRL. None of them have ever worked with AFL or NRL.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

When I say world renowned experts in cycling science say yes, those performances are believable, your answer is "pffft, what would they know? AFL and NRL teams are doping". If that is the best answer you've got then you really, really need to lay of the crack dude.

Just give up on the strawman argument which has been repeated about 5 or 6 times now. That list of sport scientists above have absolutely nothing to do with doping in AFL and NRL. None of them have ever worked with AFL or NRL.

Oh Krebs, you give me too much credit, I like it straight in the veins, my heroine that is.

Cycling Science, man, you are getting more strange with every posting.

But, for the sake of the argument lets' get to your list of Cycling Scientists Hero top ten.

* Rob Parisotto
Was at the heart of the EPO test in 2000, does that make him a cycling scientist? He is a big fan of the BioPass.

Former AIS of course.

Good marketeer.

* Michael Ashenden
Former exercise physiologist at the Australian Institute of Sport, assisted on the EPO test. Cycling scientist? Has done a lot of good for cycling/sport and still does.

* Chris Gore
Also AIS of course.

I can see a clear pattern. Not going through the trouble looking up your other heroes.

Cycling science? Gotta look at Conconi I guess, Ferrari? Cecchini? Padilla? Fuentes perhaps? Or do you have to have worked at AIS to get that label?

 

[acoggan]

Coaching might be the wrong word, but Andy Coggins did do a lot of testing since the eighties [?] on cyclists or not?

http://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2011...the-secret-training-life-of-andy-coggan-ph-d/

Research and coaching are two completely different things.

But you have no clear answer to what is humanly possible?

I don't think that anyone can really provide a definitive answer to that question (i.e., it is all shades of gray).

 

[acoggan]

it's obvious something isn't right. Doesn't take a scientist to see something is wrong, or dodgy. Takes a dose of reality.

Or maybe you just have to look straight into their eyes...

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I don't think that anyone can really provide a definitive answer to that question (i.e., it is all shades of gray).

Okay, thanks for your honesty.

Or maybe you just have to look straight into their eyes...

Hence the sunglasses

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Or maybe you just have to look straight into their eyes...

Or look at the business relationship between the man defending Wiggins (ie you) and his business relationship with the employer of Wiggins (ie Team Sky) and see there is a financial incentive to portray Wiggins as clean.

Right?

I didn't look in your eyes for that, by the way, it's on the Interwebs.

 

[acoggan]

Or look at the business relationship between the man defending Wiggins (ie you) and his business relationship with the employer of Wiggins (ie Team Sky) and see there is a financial incentive to portray Wiggins as clean.

Right?

I didn't look in your eyes for that, by the way, it's on the Interwebs.

I'm not defending Wiggins (or anyone else), and I have no financial relationship with Team Sky. Specifically, Wiggins could be found guilty of doping tomorrow, Sky could withdraw their sponsorship, and it would not impact me at all. (The same could be said for any other professional cyclist or team.)

 

[mastersracer]

Here's a hint: Hamilton had no idea what W/Kg Riis was doing. But it's obvious something isn't right. Doesn't take a scientist to see something is wrong, or dodgy. Takes a dose of reality.

that's irrelevant to the issue of whether an empirical method can determine doping from performance alone. Besides, some rider's suspicion of another has never figured into a due process of anti-doping controls. You seem incapable of distinguishing between speculation and a due process.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

that's irrelevant to the issue of whether an empirical method can determine doping from performance alone. Besides, some rider's suspicion of another has never figured into a due process of anti-doping controls. You seem incapable of distinguishing between speculation and a due process.

Mastersracer, we kinda know Armstrong send emails to the UCI something was going on in Spain, ratting on Hamilton/Mayo, so, you might want to retract that.

It wasn't as anti - doping as how we guys want anti - doping to look like but nevertheless we have some kind of precedent...

 

[mastersracer]

Mastersracer, we kinda know Armstrong send emails to the UCI something was going on in Spain, ratting on Hamilton/Mayo, so, you might want to retract that.

It wasn't as anti - doping as how we guys want anti - doping to look like but nevertheless we have some kind of precedent...

I have no idea what you're trying to say - or why Armstrong is relevant to a comment about Riis' 1996 performance.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I have no idea what you're trying to say - or why Armstrong is relevant to a comment about Riis' 1996 performance.

Let us try again:

Besides, some rider's suspicion of another has never figured into a due process of anti-doping controls.

Your words? Right.

My words:

Mastersracer, we kinda know Armstrong send emails to the UCI something was going on in Spain, ratting on Hamilton/Mayo, so, you might want to retract that.

Now, how is that not relevant?

 

[mastersracer]

Let us try again:


Your words? Right.

My words:

Now, how is that not relevant?

A rider can provide testimony if they have knowledge of another rider doping, but that has to be based on more than simply observing a rider's performance. Besides, what Armstrong may have done wasn't due process - it was an alleged back door deal he had with officials (part of an alleged bribe, etc.)

 

[Krebs cycle]

Oh Krebs, you give me too much credit, I like it straight in the veins, my heroine that is.

Cycling Science, man, you are getting more strange with every posting.

But, for the sake of the argument lets' get to your list of Cycling Scientists Hero top ten.

For the sake of argument? You're trying so hard to nitpick and argue for the sake of it over trivial BS that you've lost sight of the actual argument, which is this...

Do climbing speeds give some indication about the level of doping in the pro peloton?

My view and that of many experts in sport science, including some who are considered world renowned experts in cycling, is that previously, the climbing speeds, and thus estimated power outputs, were a strong indicator that doping had to be occurring at the top end, because none of those sport scientists had ever seen anything like it in their many years of combined experience working with elite cyclists. What I am hearing though from these same experts (many whom I know personally) is that we don't really know any more because the climbing speeds have slowed down to the point where now the estimated power outputs are similar to what we've seen and tested in the lab and the field on elite cyclists whom are clean or were clean at the time of testing. Therefore, the general consensus is that in 2012 and 2011, there were NO performances in the TdF that were considered strongly indicative of doping. That doesn't mean that they weren't doping. It just means that when people like you come along and say "I don't need to know w/kg, I know better than experts in sport science, I just KNOW when someone is doping" it is nothing more than ignorance

 

[del1962]

For the sake of argument? You're trying so hard to nitpick and argue for the sake of it over trivial BS that you've lost sight of the actual argument, which is this...

Do climbing speeds give some indication about the level of doping in the pro peloton?

My view and that of many experts in sport science, including some who are considered world renowned experts in cycling, is that previously, the climbing speeds, and thus estimated power outputs, were a strong indicator that doping had to be occurring at the top end, because none of those sport scientists had ever seen anything like it in their many years of combined experience working with elite cyclists. What I am hearing though from these same experts (many whom I know personally) is that we don't really know any more because the climbing speeds have slowed down to the point where now the estimated power outputs are similar to what we've seen and tested in the lab and the field on elite cyclists whom are clean or were clean at the time of testing. Therefore, the general consensus is that in 2012 and 2011, there were NO performances in the TdF that were considered strongly indicative of doping. That doesn't mean that they weren't doping. It just means that when people like you come along and say "I don't need to know w/kg, I know better than experts in sport science, I just KNOW when someone is doping" it is nothing more than ignorance

Krebs, Thanks for a well constucted post on current versus previous climbing speeds

 

[acoggan]

My view and that of many experts in sport science, including some who are considered world renowned experts in cycling, is that previously, the climbing speeds, and thus estimated power outputs, were a strong indicator that doping had to be occurring at the top end, because none of those sport scientists had ever seen anything like it in their many years of combined experience working with elite cyclists.

Before Bob Beamon long-jumped 8.90 m at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics, the furthest someone had flung themselves was only 8.35 m. IOW, with that single leap he improved the World Record by almost 7%, with only about half of the increase possibly being credited to the environmental conditions. Just sayin'...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

that's irrelevant to the issue of whether an empirical method can determine doping from performance alone. Besides, some rider's suspicion of another has never figured into a due process of anti-doping controls. You seem incapable of distinguishing between speculation and a due process.

You seem incapable of not making everything personal. That's fine. In fact, come to expect it.

Due process in regards to identifying dopers is not helpful, useful, unbiased, nor incorruptible. Why, it's worth its weight in used plutonium.