Dumoulin.

Page 30 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I can't single any poster out, it's a bigger message at play here. So when I say "you all", if the shoe fits, wear it.

But you all are the reason we have problems with transparency to begin with. You're making it worthless, by deciding it's worthless. For what ever reason (or the exact reason that it doesn't show what you want it to), you decide it's not anything. And then you'll go over to the Radcliffe thread and complain that she thinks it isn't worth it to release data.

If you want to have a conversation about it's validity, then have a conversation about it's validity. Talk about the publication, the author, the comparison to models. Or, if you want to talk about what the data means, then talk about that.

But anything less is just hostility that creates the environment we are stuck in now: omerta, anti-transparency, and the holier-than-thou attitude by those in the sport.
 
Mar 17, 2014
73
0
0
Re: Re:

Fearless Greg Lemond said:
chuckmicD said:
Escarabajo said:
6.1 w/kg for 25 minutes for a world class athlete is perfectly OK. But it does not mean that he is not doping either. So what did we learn today? nothing.

We learned plenty. Namely that there is no satisfying people who wish to remain skeptical and distrustful at all costs. We also learned that many people on this message board just want a target on which to practice, the truth being largely irrelevant. I just hope people stop hounding riders for not releasing data but won't be holding my breath.

What matters is not testing positive and keeping $$$ in this sport. Without sponsors...pro cycling is dead.
How is that slice of Pizza Omerta tasting for you?

Re- Pinot in Suisse, wasnt there a tailwind - not bs'ing - reported?
That's not omerta, it's a dose of reality. Nobody can satisfy the bloodthirsty anti-dope crusader and this sport needs money. The budgets of these teams are small by comparison to other pro sports and they don't have unlimited resources to be dealing with a bunch of people who can't take yes for an answer. Loose big sponsors and there aren't always others to pop up and take their place.

Some people will dope. Some won't. I'd bet a lot of people on this board wouldn't be as righteous in action as they are at their keyboards. I'm just pointing out the irony that people are constantly asking for more info, and when it's provided, it's just not good enough. It likely never will be.
 
Re: Re:

Rechtschreibfehler said:
MikeS369 said:
Supimilian said:
He is not 71kg. This is settled already.
69 at most, I'd guess 68. Could be even less.
Where was this settled?
According to the Data he released he weight
69,6kg/Stage 2,
72,6kg/Stage 6,
69,5gk/Stage 7,
69,7kg/Stage 9,
69,8kg/Stage 11,
70,4kg/Stage 14,
69,8kg/Stage 15,
69,5kg/Stage 16,
70,2kg/Stage 18,
69,7kg/Stage 20 first climb and 70kg on the second climb.
All of the differences can easily be explained with rounding errors of the watt/kg number of the released data.
Just Stage 6 Puzzeles me a litte, plus he didn't seem to have lost weight, or they didn't account for weight loss during the race.

But 69/70kg looks fair, atleast according to the data.
Is it credible to gain and loose 3kgms in such a short period, if the same scales are being used at same time of day?

Interesting that they have this data, whilst Brailsford almost implies that Froome is never weighed, or that he doesn't know what it is :rolleyes:
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Re: Re:

coinneach said:
Rechtschreibfehler said:
MikeS369 said:
Supimilian said:
He is not 71kg. This is settled already.
69 at most, I'd guess 68. Could be even less.
Where was this settled?
According to the Data he released he weight
69,6kg/Stage 2,
72,6kg/Stage 6,
69,5gk/Stage 7,
69,7kg/Stage 9,
69,8kg/Stage 11,
70,4kg/Stage 14,
69,8kg/Stage 15,
69,5kg/Stage 16,
70,2kg/Stage 18,
69,7kg/Stage 20 first climb and 70kg on the second climb.
All of the differences can easily be explained with rounding errors of the watt/kg number of the released data.
Just Stage 6 Puzzeles me a litte, plus he didn't seem to have lost weight, or they didn't account for weight loss during the race.

But 69/70kg looks fair, atleast according to the data.
Is it credible to gain and loose 3kgms in such a short period, if the same scales are being used at same time of day?

Interesting that they have this data, whilst Brailsford almost implies that Froome is never weighed, or that he doesn't know what it is :rolleyes:
I dont find it credible to have such a weight variation so close. But i guess Vaughters would blame Machine Calibration Error ;)
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Re:

More Strides than Rides said:
I can't single any poster out, it's a bigger message at play here. So when I say "you all", if the shoe fits, wear it.

But you all are the reason we have problems with transparency to begin with. You're making it worthless, by deciding it's worthless. For what ever reason (or the exact reason that it doesn't show what you want it to), you decide it's not anything. And then you'll go over to the Radcliffe thread and complain that she thinks it isn't worth it to release data.

If you want to have a conversation about it's validity, then have a conversation about it's validity. Talk about the publication, the author, the comparison to models. Or, if you want to talk about what the data means, then talk about that.

But anything less is just hostility that creates the environment we are stuck in now: omerta, anti-transparency, and the holier-than-thou attitude by those in the sport.
By releasing data that is not stratospheric as in Dumoulin's numbers it proves very little. Maybe If Dumoulin got his penultimate day right he would not have released his data. If his numbers get better and match those at the TdF then i doubt he will release them then.

Yes it is be applauded to a point, but as Dumoulin(and team) knows as long as it is in the 'humanly possible' range, which is not truly known and is based on LeMond's numbers, no one can say much. But is it naturally possible for Dumoulin to achieve these numbers?

It proves nothing if it is not verified independently. The true test of these numbers is in the future when and if there are more to compare them with.

Maybe riders should be weighed every morning before the stage as they sign in, like Jockeys at horseracing.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
coinneach said:
Rechtschreibfehler said:
MikeS369 said:
Supimilian said:
He is not 71kg. This is settled already.
69 at most, I'd guess 68. Could be even less.
Where was this settled?
According to the Data he released he weight
69,6kg/Stage 2,
72,6kg/Stage 6,
69,5gk/Stage 7,
69,7kg/Stage 9,
69,8kg/Stage 11,
70,4kg/Stage 14,
69,8kg/Stage 15,
69,5kg/Stage 16,
70,2kg/Stage 18,
69,7kg/Stage 20 first climb and 70kg on the second climb.
All of the differences can easily be explained with rounding errors of the watt/kg number of the released data.
Just Stage 6 Puzzeles me a litte, plus he didn't seem to have lost weight, or they didn't account for weight loss during the race.

But 69/70kg looks fair, atleast according to the data.
Is it credible to gain and loose 3kgms in such a short period, if the same scales are being used at same time of day?

Interesting that they have this data, whilst Brailsford almost implies that Froome is never weighed, or that he doesn't know what it is :rolleyes:
I dont find it credible to have such a weight variation so close. But i guess Vaughters would blame Machine Calibration Error ;)
Weigh yourself every day at the same time, and you can see something similar. There is a reason people are told not too.

And again, it doesn't do any good to leave it at "not credible". Why not? Did he take a hit of HGH and bloated up with water weight? Did he skip an AICAR dose and balloon up 6kgs. Those are absurd examples obviously, but they make more of a case than you are.
 
I weigh myself every day and even between morning and evening the highest difference in one day I've ever measured is 1.5kg. 3kg seems insane especially because on all other days his weight doesn't fluctuate that much at all. Excluding the stage 6 weight, the difference between his highest and lowest weight is less than 1kg.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Re: Re:

More Strides than Rides said:
Benotti69 said:
I dont find it credible to have such a weight variation so close. But i guess Vaughters would blame Machine Calibration Error ;)
Weigh yourself every day at the same time, and you can see something similar. There is a reason people are told not too.

And again, it doesn't do any good to leave it at "not credible". Why not? Did he take a hit of HGH and bloated up with water weight? Did he skip an AICAR dose and balloon up 6kgs. Those are absurd examples obviously, but they make more of a case than you are.
I am sure we will find out in the future. No doubt the machine was calibrated wrong.......... :rolleyes:
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
Re: Re:

More Strides than Rides said:
Weigh yourself every day at the same time, and you can see something similar. There is a reason people are told not too.

And again, it doesn't do any good to leave it at "not credible". Why not? Did he take a hit of HGH and bloated up with water weight? Did he skip an AICAR dose and balloon up 6kgs. Those are absurd examples obviously, but they make more of a case than you are.
Yes. Weigh yourself every day for 3 weeks. At the peak of your fitness. In the middle of a GT. As one of the worlds elite athletes.

Do all of that, or the comparison is completely useless.
 
Re: Re:

coinneach said:
Rechtschreibfehler said:
MikeS369 said:
Supimilian said:
He is not 71kg. This is settled already.
69 at most, I'd guess 68. Could be even less.
Where was this settled?
According to the Data he released he weight
69,6kg/Stage 2,
72,6kg/Stage 6,
69,5gk/Stage 7,
69,7kg/Stage 9,
69,8kg/Stage 11,
70,4kg/Stage 14,
69,8kg/Stage 15,
69,5kg/Stage 16,
70,2kg/Stage 18,
69,7kg/Stage 20 first climb and 70kg on the second climb.
All of the differences can easily be explained with rounding errors of the watt/kg number of the released data.
Just Stage 6 Puzzeles me a litte, plus he didn't seem to have lost weight, or they didn't account for weight loss during the race.

But 69/70kg looks fair, atleast according to the data.
I keep a weight log sometimes and even when the overall trend is constant, the range is +/- 3 lbs (hence 6lbs range) just after waking up. At bedtime the weight is consistently 3-5 more than on waking.

Long rides cause dehydration, muscle inflammation, depletion of glycogen stores, and necessitate consuming tons of calories. All of these things can also play havoc with your water weight, and in a GT you're doing this every single day.
 
By the time he actually hits the final climb on a certain stage, Dumoulin's weight has probably shifted significantly downward due to dehydration. You can lose something like 2% of your body weight before performance suffers. I'd also conjecture that whether you start the day slightly more or less hydrated your weight might normalize out on the road because your urge to drink is affected.
 
Apr 3, 2011
1,837
0
0
Re: Re:

coinneach said:
Is it credible to gain and loose 3kgms in such a short period, if the same scales are being used at same time of day?

Interesting that they have this data, whilst Brailsford almost implies that Froome is never weighed, or that he doesn't know what it is :rolleyes:
clearly, not to violate the weight passport if the data accidentally leak
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
roundabout said:
Ok, maybe I am missing something, but what makes people think that he released his actual weight along with the power?
Noone. The data released was absolute power and W/kg. We simply calculated the weight based on those 2 numbers.

Those 2 numbers are calculated for you in the SRM or whatever software you use.

We know cyclists in GTs tend to weigh themselves to track hydration, so it makes sense that he updated the software or knew his weight.

It's also possible it was all fabricated, although that's a dangerous game to play and not what I think they are doing.
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
I saw the pain claim by Dumoulin pre-TT but did not expect that result.

The podium I expected (Dennis, Martin & Dumoulin) were relegated by a MINUTE. :-/

Were the conditions unfavourable or something? Ridiculous and stinking of something.
 
Jan 10, 2010
1,514
0
0
i've read that dennis had a mechanical, tom was poked after that insane effort in the vuelta and tony fell into a "mental hole" in the 2nd half of the course which he couldn't get out of....

"From the start and in the first eight kilometres I felt okay and that I had the power but when I entered the tailwind section I quickly lost my rhythm. It was too fast for me and I couldn’t handle the RPM and I didn’t expect this. Then on the uphill sections I couldn’t find my rhythm and I lost morale. I couldn’t get it back and it wasn’t my day. For the second half of the race it was more of a mental problem than a physical one."
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
Re:

JackRabbitSlims said:
i've read that dennis had a mechanical, tom was poked after that insane effort in the vuelta and tony fell into a "mental hole" in the 2nd half of the course which he couldn't get out of....

"From the start and in the first eight kilometres I felt okay and that I had the power but when I entered the tailwind section I quickly lost my rhythm. It was too fast for me and I couldn’t handle the RPM and I didn’t expect this. Then on the uphill sections I couldn’t find my rhythm and I lost morale. I couldn’t get it back and it wasn’t my day. For the second half of the race it was more of a mental problem than a physical one."
Thank you.

I still find it curious that they all finish within the same spread you would expect their podium to finish. That their various reasons for lower than expected performance, as widely differing as they were, resulted in such a consistent 60 second loss to the eventual winner.

* Loss of rhythm and morale
* Mechanical
* Tiredness

What are the chances that these 3 entirely different things lead to a mere 9 second spread between them, but 61+ seconds off the top step?

Curious.
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
Re:

proffate said:
i was gonna say changing wind conditions but Kiriyenka, Martin, Dennis and Dumoulin all went off in succession.
Thank you for looking that up.

So we are back to the physical or mechanical failure anomaly.
 
Jan 10, 2010
1,514
0
0
in the case of tom - 10 days between the end of the vuelta and racing the tt world champs is a tough ask - especially considering he went from riding the vuelta as worlds preparation to being a serious contender for the gc - i think we can give him the fatigue option
after his vuelta performance...... to come along to the WC's and stomp all over the TT wouldn't be a good look would it?
maybe he is just being smart or stupid - which ever side of the fence you sit on

tony is a strange one - this would have been a major target after the tdf injury
he would have known the course well, known what gear ratios and watts to punch out
i'm not saying he should have won it, but been very close amongst the top 3
losing rhythm, morale and too fast in the tail wind section seems very odd

maybe the question marks aren't along side these guys, but the riders ahead of them?
 
Re:

JackRabbitSlims said:
in the case of tom - 10 days between the end of the vuelta and racing the tt world champs is a tough ask - especially considering he went from riding the vuelta as worlds preparation to being a serious contender for the gc - i think we can give him the fatigue option
after his vuelta performance...... to come along to the WC's and stomp all over the TT wouldn't be a good look would it?
maybe he is just being smart or stupid - which ever side of the fence you sit on

tony is a strange one - this would have been a major target after the tdf injury
he would have known the course well, known what gear ratios and watts to punch out
i'm not saying he should have won it, but been very close amongst the top 3
losing rhythm, morale and too fast in the tail wind section seems very odd

maybe the question marks aren't along side these guys, but the riders ahead of them?

Right about Dumolin, doper or not, you can be spent. And after his effort you'd expect it.
Dennis had a mechanical, maybe after that you lose a bit mentally.
And Martin usually seems to be pushing a harder gear, perhaps he has changed ratios or something and it stuffed him up.

either way, the guys you'd expect to clean up in this situation did. 1st and 2nd at least.
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
Re:

JackRabbitSlims said:
in the case of tom - 10 days between the end of the vuelta and racing the tt world champs is a tough ask - especially considering he went from riding the vuelta as worlds preparation to being a serious contender for the gc - i think we can give him the fatigue option
after his vuelta performance...... to come along to the WC's and stomp all over the TT wouldn't be a good look would it?
Without going too far OT, this is exactly what Wiggins did in 2012 July 22 end of Tour, August 1 OG TT. I realise this current event is later in the season, but Wiggo had had a full program by then.
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
Re:

JackRabbitSlims said:
maybe the question marks aren't along side these guys, but the riders ahead of them?
This was my point. I only raised it here as Dumoulin was in contention. I could have started a new thread and that would have made it more obvious, but my problem with the results is the people ahead of these expected podium placers.

My discussion re: these three's closeness despite the circumstances to their demise being so disparate was seeking to highlight the incongruence of the result.

ie those podium placers look well dodgy.
 
TT differences to winner from last year for top 20

Kiri 0
Malori -15
Coppel -114
Castroviejo -28
Dumoulin 68
Dennis 58
Martin 98
Bodnar 2
Moser -267
Barta 38
Oliveira 77
Brandle -52
Dowsett 19
Quaade 49

Please note I may have made a miscalculation as a disclaimer
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY