Climbing Speeds

[Krebs cycle]

Ok, i think its time for.you to pack it in with this faux "expert" card. im sure it was fun but you have no one to blame but yourself for taking it too far with foolish comments like the one above. If it makes you feel better no one actually ever believed you were an expert anyway.

 

[Caruut]

Careful, I think I can see your true colours peeking out there.

 

[mastersracer]

a thread that was purportedly about whether climbing speed reduction was an indication of cleaner riding has descended yet again into an anti-Sky screed by a handful of posters who derail every thread now with their "I can just tell Sky is doping" line, absent any consideration of actual data, discounting experts who undermine their central claims (e.g., Wiggins' later performances are outliers compared to early performances), and accuse everyone who disagrees with them to be Sky apologists.

If you 'just know' Sky is doping but have no justification for it or refuse to engage actual arguments, why even post?

 

[IzzyStradlin]

Ok folks.

Coggan - He is probably the most influential voice in training over the past what....15 years. Just a fact. His opinion carries MUCH more weight than pretty much anyone else who posts here, aside from actual pro's and Vaughters

...but....

He may have a vested interest in not outing dopers

....so....

Let's just ask the one big question...

Wiggins was climbing at, what 6.2 w/kg during the big climbs of last years climbs? Everyone who races bikes and trains by COGGAN'S methods knows that race wattage is generally lower than training. That is the premise of all of Coggan's training theories. So that would put his actual threshold at 6.4-5? At least?

It is generally accepted that the last genuinely clean Tour winner rode the climbs at 5.8-9 w/kg. Putting his actual threshold at 6.1-2ish. And he is also generally accepted as the greatest Talent of the past several generations.

So how do we close the gap?
Wiggins is obviously very talented...huge engine...but is it possible to be that thin and ride a 3 week tour without assistance?
Now, FROOOOOME? Froome was an effing donkey. No arguments from anyone. How does Froome get even better than Wiggins?

Sorry if my numbers are off. This was just off the top of my head.

 

[sittingbison]

a thread that was purportedly about whether climbing speed reduction was an indication of cleaner riding has descended yet again into an anti-Sky screed by a handful of posters who derail every thread now with their "I can just tell Sky is doping" line, absent any consideration of actual data, discounting experts who undermine their central claims (e.g., Wiggins' later performances are outliers compared to early performances), and accuse everyone who disagrees with them to be Sky apologists.

If you 'just know' Sky is doping but have no justification for it or refuse to engage actual arguments, why even post?

sorry mastersracer you are mistaken, the opposite is usually the case. Threads get highjacked and derailed by Sky fans seeing anti-Wiggo slurs under every bush and leaping in jackboots and all defending their man.

I can understand you wanting the discussion to be just about facts and figures, but perhaps you should open your mind to a holistic approach, as facts are not necessarily readily available, when they DO get presented certain apologists blithely shrug them off anyway as being inconsequential or irrelevant.

The endless discussions about Sir Wiggos comments on "Captain" Dodger cranking out 500W to scythe down any pretenders, Basso winking about 420W not being enough to hold the wheel of the Dodger/Porte/Froome train etc come to mind.

And they often tell a story that is not what was intended, one example being just upstream when someone mentioned a rider improving to 5.8W/kg meant diddl with anther poster responding that 5.8W/kg is watt (lol) Lemond achieved. Which funnily enough is the actual topic under discussion

Then we have the situation of 2012 where the OVERALL times and powers might have fallen compared to the Armstrong era free for all, but SPECIFIC outputs are just as high such as Dodger/Porte/Froome crushing all before them in the Pyrenees or say La Planche des Belles Filles WHEN IT MATTERED but then soft peddling to the finish line.

...FROOOOOME? Froome was an effing donkey. No arguments from anyone. How does Froome get even better than Wiggins?

easy

Coggan - He is probably the most influential voice in training over the past what....15 years. Just a fact.

 

[mastersracer]

sorry mastersracer you are mistaken, the opposite is usually the case. Threads get highjacked and derailed by Sky fans seeing anti-Wiggo slurs under every bush and leaping in jackboots and all defending their man.

I can understand you wanting the discussion to be just about facts and figures, but perhaps you should open your mind to a holistic approach, as facts are not necessarily readily available, when they DO get presented certain apologists blithely shrug them off anyway as being inconsequential or irrelevant.

The endless discussions about Sir Wiggos comments on "Captain" Dodger cranking out 500W to scythe down any pretenders, Basso winking about 420W not being enough to hold the wheel of the Dodger/Porte/Froome train etc come to mind.

And they often tell a story that is not what was intended, one example being just upstream when someone mentioned a rider improving to 5.8W/kg meant diddl with anther poster responding that 5.8W/kg is watt (lol) Lemond achieved. Which funnily enough is the actual topic under discussion

Then we have the situation of 2012 where the OVERALL times and powers might have fallen compared to the Armstrong era free for all, but SPECIFIC outputs are just as high such as Dodger/Porte/Froome crushing all before them in the Pyrenees or say La Planche des Belles Filles WHEN IT MATTERED but then soft peddling to the finish line.

The fact that Froome rode that time trial at 5.8 watts/kg - comparable to the best riders of the 80s is a good sign, right? Certainly that's what the sports scientists suggest (e.g., Tucker).

I would like to see a data file supporting your claims about Porte, Rogers, etc. riding at comparable outputs to the 90s. I challenge you to find one showing they maintained over 6.1 watts for more than 30 minutes.

Re Belles Filles, Ross Tucker says:

"All I will say, and I'm very confident in saying this, is that what we saw on the slopes of Les Planche des Belles Filles did not have me thinking "That's just not right, there's something not adding up". It adds up. It's exactly what you'd expect, just as I expect that when we do hit the longer HC climbs later this week, we'll see the top men ride at 5.9 to 6 W/kg, just as they have done for the last three years."

Climbing speeds/power outputs are down approx 10%. Performances are no longer a sign of doping (if they ever were, these aren't them).

 

[acoggan]

Coggan - He is probably the most influential voice in training over the past what....15 years. Just a fact. His opinion carries MUCH more weight than pretty much anyone else who posts here, aside from actual pro's and Vaughters

Flattery will get you everywhere. If what you say is true, however, I think it merely illustrates the power of ideas and the utility of the internet as a bully pulpit.

He may have a vested interest in not outing dopers

And why would that be? I don't receive any income from coaching or consulting with any elite cyclists, so who is or isn't doping doesn't impact me in the least.

Everyone who races bikes and trains by COGGAN'S methods knows that race wattage is generally lower than training.

On the contrary: while I believe that training can (and indeed, often should) be just as hard as racing and some highly-motivated individuals might be able to produce maximal power even w/o pinning on a number, the fact of the matter is that many, if not most, need the heat of competition to get the most out of themselves. That's why (in part) our book is titled Training and Racing with a Power Meter.

 

[IzzyStradlin]

On the contrary: while I believe that training can (and indeed, often should) be just as hard as racing and some highly-motivated individuals might be able to produce maximal power even w/o pinning on a number, the fact of the matter is that many, if not most, need the heat of competition to get the most out of themselves. That's why (in part) our book is titled Training and Racing with a Power Meter.

Now this is where you start to contradict yourself. I can Imagine someone putting up PRs in shorter races.

But after two solid weeks of the highest level of racing? That's where you find the outliers? When super talented, non-blood-doped riders could not come close? On 30+ min efforts? Really?

And yes, I think calling out pro riders for dicey performances would adversely effect your career. Whether book sales, coaching gigs or general industry rep. Omerta exists.

 

[northstar]

Re Belles Filles, Ross Tucker says:

"All I will say, and I'm very confident in saying this, is that what we saw on the slopes of Les Planche des Belles Filles did not have me thinking "That's just not right, there's something not adding up". It adds up. It's exactly what you'd expect, just as I expect that when we do hit the longer HC climbs later this week, we'll see the top men ride at 5.9 to 6 W/kg, just as they have done for the last three years."

Did Ross Tucker write a follow up piece on the later mountain stages?

 

[Ferminal]

What HC climbs?

Didn't go over 6, in any case.

 

[acoggan]

Now this is where you start to contradict yourself. I can Imagine someone putting up PRs in shorter races.

But after two solid weeks of the highest level of racing? That's where you find the outliers? When super talented, non-blood-doped riders could not come close? On 30+ min efforts? Really?

Ah, so 'tis cumulative fatigue to which you were referring! I can't say that I necessarily disagree with you there...but what does that have to do with my ideas??

And yes, I think calling out pro riders for dicey performances would adversely effect your career. Whether book sales, coaching gigs or general industry rep. Omerta exists.

I get about $0.30 per copy of our book (which, BTW, the Sky staff won't let any of the coaches or riders read, for fear of contradicting their approach), I don't coach anyone (and never have), and don't "rep" for any companies. So, as I indicated before, whether or not any cyclist is implicated in doping has no effect on me whatsoever (this includes everyone in that picture I posted, with the exception of my wife and myself).

 

[northstar]

What HC climbs?

Didn't go over 6, in any case.

Oops...did I ask a dumb question??

Quote Ross Tucker:
"It will be fascinating to see what develops in the high Alps and Pyrenees over the next two weeks. Hopefully, we'll have some data to chat about. And a press conference or two!"

Just wondered if there was any further data to chat about.

 

[Ferminal]

Oops...did I ask a dumb question??

Quote Ross Tucker:
"It will be fascinating to see what develops in the high Alps and Pyrenees over the next two weeks. Hopefully, we'll have some data to chat about. And a press conference or two!"

Just wondered if there was any further data to chat about.

Not a dumb question, it was in the quote from Tucker! Problem is there weren't really any "classic HC" climbs in the Tour so can't really compare to an Alpe d'Huez or Plateau de Beille of previous years. As far as I know no one has taken a close look at the Pyrenees climbs. Estimates say they weren't bad weren't good.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Not a dumb question, it was in the quote from Tucker! Problem is there weren't really any "classic HC" climbs in the Tour so can't really compare to an Alpe d'Huez or Plateau de Beille of previous years. As far as I know no one has taken a close look at the Pyrenees climbs. Estimates say they weren't bad weren't good.

I know we don't need another climbing thread, but someone posted guesstimates of climb times for l'Alpe for this year, 1st and 2nd ascents.

Anyone else want to have a crack?

 

[northstar]

Not a dumb question, it was in the quote from Tucker! Problem is there weren't really any "classic HC" climbs in the Tour so can't really compare to an Alpe d'Huez or Plateau de Beille of previous years. As far as I know no one has taken a close look at the Pyrenees climbs. Estimates say they weren't bad weren't good.

Ok, thanks. Tucker looked at some limited data for Les Planche des Belles Filles and found nothing suspicious. Too bad he didn't do a follow up blog.

 

[sittingbison]

The fact that Froome rode that time trial at 5.8 watts/kg - comparable to the best riders of the 80s is a good sign, right? Certainly that's what the sports scientists suggest (e.g., Tucker).

I would like to see a data file supporting your claims about Porte, Rogers, etc. riding at comparable outputs to the 90s. I challenge you to find one showing they maintained over 6.1 watts for more than 30 minutes.

Re Belles Filles, Ross Tucker says:

"All I will say, and I'm very confident in saying this, is that what we saw on the slopes of Les Planche des Belles Filles did not have me thinking "That's just not right, there's something not adding up". It adds up. It's exactly what you'd expect, just as I expect that when we do hit the longer HC climbs later this week, we'll see the top men ride at 5.9 to 6 W/kg, just as they have done for the last three years."

Climbing speeds/power outputs are down approx 10%. Performances are no longer a sign of doping (if they ever were, these aren't them).

Im not interested in starting a flame war on this thread because this has all been discussed at length in the various Sky and Wiggo threads. Suffice to say I will raise these points and you can go to those threads to check your memory:
1) Dodger claiming he was the lightest he had been since 16yo, but putting out the best power of his career
2) Power outputs and climbing speeds equal the most they have ever been, but are not constant rather used judiciously ie Wiggos "Captain" Dodger 500W comment etc, Dodger and Porte scything down escapes then pulling back the throttle
3) What was Dodgers w/kg output for an hour on the days he rode down Evans and Nibali (given point 1 and point 2)? 500W/75kg=6.6W/kg for an hour but I'm not an expert and there are other factors included in the calc. I recall a figure of about 485W quoted by Dodger for La Planche des Belles Filles which is 6.5W/kg for about 35mins from memory which is probably why the peleton was shredded.
4) The real issue for many clinicians is comparing Froome with "the best riders of the 80s" presumeably Badger Lemond and Professor. Sorry, that does not compute on the scientific or holistic bull****-o-meter

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It does seem curious that the only reports we get are

1. Past performances that look / were ridiculous, thanks to doping
2. Present performances that look fine

Everyone in the sports science world (according to Krebs Cycle, except Ed Coyle but he doesn't say that, it's implied) knew X, Y and Z were doping, as were their performances doped, and yet the only people calling out dopers are journalists, namely Kimmage and Walsh.

Is there a single scientific call-out of a contemporary climbing performance, as dodgy, anywhere, ever?

 

[peterst6906]

Is there a single scientific call-out of a contemporary climbing performance, as dodgy, anywhere, ever?

Sure there have been. There's been plenty over the years. However I don't think they get the same coverage as questions by Walsh, Kimmage or others in the media, simply because they aren't in the media.

I remember quite clearly the Antoine Vayer calculations following the 2009 Verbier climb by Contador and the implications that were indicated:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contadors-climbing-credibility-questioned

There are a lot of others as well and I'll go find some links.

Additionally, the public face of the media questioning is often linked and based on scientific work in the background. The retesting of the 1999 samples and 6 positives for EPO of Armstrong is an example where both science and the media were important to exposing the truth, with the credit for the investigative work rightly going to the reporter and the scientific results that allowed that link going to the scientists.

As a final note, it's not always possible (rarely) working in a laboratory to make public comment. Doesn't mean that the scientists don't know what is going on.

 

[sittingbison]

...and yet the only people calling out dopers are journalists, namely Kimmage and Walsh.

Is there a single scientific call-out of a contemporary climbing performance, as dodgy, anywhere, ever?

Indeed namely Kimmage and Walsh (and Ressiot), because almost all journalists kept schtumm for fear of being blacklisted and therefore losing their ricebowl.

Isnt it funny that those who could lose their ricebowl such all those AIS "sports scientists" and the experts krebs trotted out never once publicly queried #extraterrestrial performances of either the road or track cyclists despite knowing without a shadow of doubt Armstrong (and presumably all the other dopers) was juiced to the gills.

None of them even said Charlies Angels like Hall, Pate, Djaka, French, Vinnicombe et al were physiologically impossible performances

 

[peterst6906]

...Isnt it funny that those who could lose their ricebowl such all those AIS "sports scientists" and ...

I think, particularly when linked with the names you listed, AIS scientists might just as easily be implicated in the doping that clearly occurred (and be partly culpable for the tragedy of the Djaka story). Hopefully the current ASADA process will bring out some names publicly.

Again, another side of science in the same issue. Without them at some point, the doping isn't possible.

Science and scientists are part of the problem and part of the solution and there are examples of enablers as well as anti-doping crusaders who have spoken out.

I don't think it's necessarily fair to expect scientists to use the medium that the media use and to criticise them when they don't act like journalists. In many cases there are scientists who speak out, but through the pathways that are more immediately available to them.

 

[sittingbison]

...I don't think it's necessarily fair to expect scientists to use the medium that the media use and to criticise them when they don't act like journalists. In many cases there are scientists who speak out, but through the pathways that are more immediately available to them.

Here is what krebs said:

...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.....

...Literally EVERYONE in the sport science community thought all those guys were doping...It was common knowledge that EPO use was rife in the peloton because Hcts of 55% just don't occur naturally unless you've got polycythemia.

surprisingly not one single one of them managed to use pathways available to them that led to their certain knowledge every head of state for 15 years was a doper and EPO was rife in the peleton entering the public domain.

For instance saying to a cycling journo or even a newspaper journo "EVERYONE in the sport science community knows all these guys are doping including myself...It's common knowledge that EPO use is rife in the peloton because Hcts of 55% just don't occur naturally unless you've got polycythemia"

Remember what the ACTUAL response of the "sports scientists", experts and UCI was? A two week vacation for "health concerns"

 

[peterst6906]

Here is what krebs said:

My opinion is different and as I have said a little higher, there are examples of scientists speaking out.

The fornt page of this forum currently has 4 threads directly linked to scientists/scientific data:

1. UCI vs Ashenden
2. AFLD vs UCI
3. Tyler's blood
4. Data from clean pro's

Particularly 1 and 2 are good examples of scientists speaking out on current issues and there have always been examples of scientists speaking out.

Both acoggan and krebs speak out also, but not in a way that meets other members view of the World. So instead of looking at it critically and accepting they may be right in what they say (including their explanation about what that means from their view - ie. not that the peleton is clean, but that some of the performances discussed could be achieved by a clean rider), it's just easier to reinforce existing opinions and criticise (with the inevitable seldging in response both ways).

The AIS in my view was a bit dodgy and I think some sports scientists in Australia may be exposed by ongoing investigations, but only time will show that.

As for the scientific community in general, the lack of media as a medium doesn't mean there is no talk. Just because information doesn't immediately come to the public's attention doesn't in itself make scientists weak.

I'll only reiterate my view - all sources of data are important.

When someone who has been a fan of the sport and watching for many years observes something that doesn't look right, then that is an important piece of information. At the same time, when the data indicates that the performance is within what is possible from a clean rider, then that also is important and should be a sign, not to drop the inquiry, but to look broader for other information. It's all important and none of it should be discounted in the way it has in some of the discussion/argument.

 

[hfer07]

Think what you like, just don't put it across as some truth,

More Data that tells us little

2012 39.9
2011 39.79
2010 39.6
2009 40.31
2008 40.5
2007 39.23
2006 40.89
2005 41.65
2004 41.02
2003 40.03
2002 39.98
2001 40.01
2000 39.55
1999 40.28
1998 41.76
1997 39.19
1996 40.7
1995 39.5
1994 37.83
1993 38.71
1992 39.5****
1991 38.75
1990 38.6
1989 37.48
1988 38.9
1987 36.65
1986 37
1985 36.23
1984 34.9
1983 35.9

the bold dates refer to speed increments of 2km -which needless to say is a huge number- so by that rational- we really haven't seen a "dramatically decrease in speed" from the current "clean" peloton in comparison to the "dirty" peloton from the 90's, regardless how lengthy or hard the parcours were back then...

 

[sittingbison]

...When someone who has been a fan of the sport and watching for many years observes something that doesn't look right, then that is an important piece of information. At the same time, when the data indicates that the performance is within what is possible from a clean rider, then that also is important and should be a sign, not to drop the inquiry, but to look broader for other information. It's all important and none of it should be discounted in the way it has in some of the discussion/argument.

This post is far too sensible to be on the clinic

Exactomundo peterst6906 chapeau to you.

One small issue to consider is "...the data indicates that the performance is within what is possible from a clean rider..." . One reason the levels of say 1989 Badger and Lemond are bandied about is because exactly what ARE the possible performances of a clean rider have become muddied by 15 years of oxygen vector doping by pretty much every head of state. I do not believe for one second that Chris Froome, or Dodger, or in fact any of them other than maybe Bertie and Evans is a better athlete and cyclist than Badger and LeMond,

Strangly enough Bertie and Evans GT performances and pro rider points from scratch are of a slightly different calibre and vector than Sir Wiggo and Froome.

Badger 1 1 1 1 WD 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 JEEBUS JUST LOOK AT THAT RECORD!!!
LeMond WD 3 3 2 4 1 WD 39 1 105 1 WD 7 WD WD WD where the WD and 39th were coming back from shotgun damage and you can see where EPO kicked into the peleton
Evans 14 60 8 4 2 4 2 30 3 5 26 1 7 where the 2004 60th was coming back after a 2 year injury absence, and the I think the 2009 30th was after a very bad crash?
Bertie 30 1 1 1 1 DQ DQ DQ 1 where the 2012 1st was coming back from a 2 year drug ban
Sir Wiggo 123 124 WD 134 71 3 40 23 WD 3 1 where the 2007 WD was Cofidis drug expulsion and 2009 3rd was actually a 4th
Froome 84 36 WD 2 2 4

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

This post is far too sensible to be on the clinic

Exactomundo peterst6906 chapeau to you.

One small issue to consider is "...the data indicates that the performance is within what is possible from a clean rider..." . One reason the levels of say 1989 Badger and Lemond are bandied about is because exactly what ARE the possible performances of a clean rider have become muddied by 15 years of oxygen vector doping by pretty much every head of state. I do not believe for one second that Chris Froome, or Dodger, or in fact any of them other than maybe Bertie and Evans is a better athlete and cyclist than Badger and LeMond,

Badger quit in 1986.

You say doping has muddied every head of state and yet make the claim that Contador and Evans may be better cyclists then Hinault and Lemond. How does that make any sense? How can you possibly tell given you previous statement. Contador and Evans might have been doping from a young age.