The tests are so lame that a rider can full well publish their data and even when it shows highly improbable values they know that with a bit of smarts they will beat the testers.
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Re:
I don't doubt that the vast majority of the peloton is doping to some extent. But I find it hard to believe that there are insane levels of doping going on right now if a rider nearly won the Vuelta with these numbers as their best performances. Even a simple and un-optimized blood doping + micro-EPO programme done with the help of your local gynecologist should have no trouble generating higher numbers, no? And I really doubt that a rider like Dumoulin has the better connections, resources, and knowledge about doping than most of those he competed against.
Merckx index said:
I don't doubt that the vast majority of the peloton is doping to some extent. But I find it hard to believe that there are insane levels of doping going on right now if a rider nearly won the Vuelta with these numbers as their best performances. Even a simple and un-optimized blood doping + micro-EPO programme done with the help of your local gynecologist should have no trouble generating higher numbers, no? And I really doubt that a rider like Dumoulin has the better connections, resources, and knowledge about doping than most of those he competed against.
Re: Re:
I think the numbers are more impressive than they initally seem. Both climbs were very irregular with numerous pitches well above 15%. They were basically done as a series of intervals. To do 6.1w/kg where you are repeatedly going anaerobic and then recovering is significantly harder than doing 6.1w/kg on a nice steady 7-8% climb.
BrentonOfTheNorth said:
I think the numbers are more impressive than they initally seem. Both climbs were very irregular with numerous pitches well above 15%. They were basically done as a series of intervals. To do 6.1w/kg where you are repeatedly going anaerobic and then recovering is significantly harder than doing 6.1w/kg on a nice steady 7-8% climb.
Didnt Pinot release something from the Rettenbachferner at Suisse?roundabout said:
Could be Vayer of course.
Within the cleans numbers so I will move along.
Dumoulin on Rettenbach was 5,5 w/kg. Similar to his performances on really long climbs in Vuelta
Re:
Is that a number from a power file or an estimate?
Quick calculation using VAM would put him roughly at 5.2 W/kg which is still quite good considering the duration of the climb and the 2000 meter average altitude.
Dekker_Tifosi said:
Is that a number from a power file or an estimate?
Quick calculation using VAM would put him roughly at 5.2 W/kg which is still quite good considering the duration of the climb and the 2000 meter average altitude.
I suppose numbers are numbers
But
Cortals d'Encamp is roughly a 10 km climb and there is no way that it took Dumoulin 39 minutes to climb it so I would guess that the number includes the valley from Escaldes. The numbers from the moment Aru attacked would be more interesting.
Fuente de Chivo is also not top to bottom. 25 minutes would at a guess be the last 8km or so which would only be slightly more than the half of the climb (possibly from the moment Astana accelerated?)
Were these points clarified in the original article?
But
Cortals d'Encamp is roughly a 10 km climb and there is no way that it took Dumoulin 39 minutes to climb it so I would guess that the number includes the valley from Escaldes. The numbers from the moment Aru attacked would be more interesting.
Fuente de Chivo is also not top to bottom. 25 minutes would at a guess be the last 8km or so which would only be slightly more than the half of the climb (possibly from the moment Astana accelerated?)
Were these points clarified in the original article?
Re: Re:
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.
MikeS369 said:
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.
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.
Re:
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 $$$ in this sport. Without sponsors...pro cycling is dead.
Escarabajo said:
We learned plenty. Namely that there is no satisfying people who wish to remain skeptical and distrustful at all costs. We also learned that many people on this message board just want a target on which to practice, the truth being largely irrelevant. I just hope people stop hounding riders for not releasing data but won't be holding my breath.
What matters is not testing positive and keeping $$$ in this sport. Without sponsors...pro cycling is dead.
Re: Re:
Re- Pinot in Suisse, wasnt there a tailwind - not bs'ing - reported?
How is that slice of Pizza Omerta tasting for you?chuckmicD said:
Re- Pinot in Suisse, wasnt there a tailwind - not bs'ing - reported?
Re: Re:
IMO chuckmicD isnt saying we shouldnt remain sceptical at all. That there will be doped, no matter what. It would be foolish to think otherwise.
Yet there are people out here, who remain sceptical at all costs. Between the lines, you notice they are disappointed when there's something slightly positive to say. If a camera team will follow...lets say, Valverde for 24hrs a day 3 months long, even @ the toilet/bedroom (sorry for that), they will still talk ****.
IMO chuckmicD isnt saying we shouldnt remain sceptical at all. That there will be doped, no matter what. It would be foolish to think otherwise.
Yet there are people out here, who remain sceptical at all costs. Between the lines, you notice they are disappointed when there's something slightly positive to say. If a camera team will follow...lets say, Valverde for 24hrs a day 3 months long, even @ the toilet/bedroom (sorry for that), they will still talk ****.
Re:
The TdS roadbook lists the altitude gain for Rettenbachferner as 1234 meters.
What's the source for 1298 meters?
motty89 said:
The TdS roadbook lists the altitude gain for Rettenbachferner as 1234 meters.
What's the source for 1298 meters?
Re: Re:
It's mostly that Dumoulin is a doper, but since you guys consider all riders to dope then what is the controversy about?
Im not saying he's clean, but there are some crazy fundamentalists in the clinic. That's for sure.
Benotti69 said:Kwibus said:
Don't post then. Clinic reflects the sport, but then you know that and had to have your say.........
It's mostly that Dumoulin is a doper, but since you guys consider all riders to dope then what is the controversy about?
Im not saying he's clean, but there are some crazy fundamentalists in the clinic. That's for sure.
Re: Re:
Well spotted that for stage 6 the weight used wasn't 70 kg like for all other stages.
And I guess he will "officially" be at 70 kg for now, because using "even less than 68" would make some performances seem a bit suspicious.
Rechtschreibfehler said:
Well spotted that for stage 6 the weight used wasn't 70 kg like for all other stages.
And I guess he will "officially" be at 70 kg for now, because using "even less than 68" would make some performances seem a bit suspicious.
roundabout said:
Should be interesting yes, but as Giant allready pointed out Tom was never really able to delicer these big efforts at the end of a long stage and started doing so this year.
He could do it before, but not after 200km and now he seems to be capable of that.
Obviously EPO. Ofcourse he couldn't naturally get stronger. At the age of 24 he can't improve that much. Certainly not since he started late with cycling.
GW50516 styled drugs allow you to utilise more fat for your efforts, leaving more carbohydrate-based energy available for final ascents also.
Re: Re:
Im not a specialist at this as I find it useless, but doesn't a higher weight means he had to produce more kg/w?
roundabout said:Rechtschreibfehler said:
Well spotted that for stage 6 the weight used wasn't 70 kg like for all other stages.
And I guess he will "officially" be at 70 kg for now, because using "even less than 68" would make some performances seem a bit suspicious.
Im not a specialist at this as I find it useless, but doesn't a higher weight means he had to produce more kg/w?
Now Froome ought to release his data too, but also the likes of Contador Aru Quintana etc. That's the only way to get full transparency
To catch a doper you need to test the right ahtlete on the right hour with the right test sent to the right lab.
Re: Re:
He would have to produce a higher absolute power.
Say rider A weighs 50kg and rider B weighs 70kg. Both produce 350 watts. Rider A is producing 7.0w/kg and rider B is producing 5.0w/kg. Rider A will also be going faster than rider B. If rider B were pushing 7.0w/kg his absolute power would be 490 watts. In order for rider B to match rider A speed he would have to match rider A w/kg. His absolute power would be higher though. But there are factors that can somewhat effect this. At least that is the way I understand it.
Kwibus said:roundabout said:Rechtschreibfehler said:
Well spotted that for stage 6 the weight used wasn't 70 kg like for all other stages.
And I guess he will "officially" be at 70 kg for now, because using "even less than 68" would make some performances seem a bit suspicious.
Im not a specialist at this as I find it useless, but doesn't a higher weight means he had to produce more kg/w?
He would have to produce a higher absolute power.
Say rider A weighs 50kg and rider B weighs 70kg. Both produce 350 watts. Rider A is producing 7.0w/kg and rider B is producing 5.0w/kg. Rider A will also be going faster than rider B. If rider B were pushing 7.0w/kg his absolute power would be 490 watts. In order for rider B to match rider A speed he would have to match rider A w/kg. His absolute power would be higher though. But there are factors that can somewhat effect this. At least that is the way I understand it.
Re:
Yep.
Releasing data is PR whitewash.
Consider the source for crying out loud.
Benotti69 said:
Yep.
Releasing data is PR whitewash.
Consider the source for crying out loud.
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.
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.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
Amstel is Gold, Jerry, Gold! Men's Classic One-Day Race, April 14, 2024- Started by red_flanders
- Replies: 708
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Latest: Zoetemelk-fan
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram