Froome's SRM data on Ventoux

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

Actually, power data would work as a dopeometer, but it requires lots of samples, over a long time period from each athlete. In this way the bio-passport is a much better idea.

Convince me of how power data can be a dopeometer.

Let's put aside the (not inconsiderable) practical issue of obtaining consistently accurate data. Assume that's not an impediment.

How would having power data result in a doping sanction?

In theory, a doper's power profiles would change. A transformation like Froome's from Barloworld to Sky would be easy. But, it's too problematic in real life. There are too many problems and too difficult to do in real life.

 

[franic]

Re: Re:

A HR of 160? When I heard about that figure on Ventoux, I said absurd. Its impossible except....perhaps some form of Beta-blocker. There was a time I was taking a beta-blocker for medical reasons, it was amazing when I played high intensity games like squash, my heart was literally silent, almost oblivious to what was going on outside. As long as my legs were good, I could play for hrs.

I think we may have hit Froome's amazing juice, its some form of beta blocker. I wonder if they test for that in cycling? I know one sport that they test for that - Archery - because you rest the bow on your chest so a silent heart means you bow is more steady. Even if they test for that in cycling he may have a new not detected one.

This is nonsense, if you have every used beta-blockers you would know that your heard rate is suppresed and when you try to do some intense workout you can barley move...
If he would used Beta-blockers he would be the last one on every climb...

One of the guys I usually train with had some psychological problems and he has used beta blockers (Atenolol I think) in the past. Coincidentally the period he was on drugs was the period he set his PR: maybe it was just because he was much much much less anxious and had a normal life, anyway that’s the case.

 

[Escarabajo]

Merkx Index, thanks for you insides. I can really understand it a bit better when you explain it.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Actually, power data would work as a dopeometer, but it requires lots of samples, over a long time period from each athlete. In this way the bio-passport is a much better idea.

Convince me of how power data can be a dopeometer.

Let's put aside the (not inconsiderable) practical issue of obtaining consistently accurate data. Assume that's not an impediment.

How would having power data result in a doping sanction?

In theory, a doper's power profiles would change. A transformation like Froome's from Barloworld to Sky would be easy. But, it's too problematic in real life. There are too many problems and too difficult to do in real life.

Like this:

viewtopic.php?p=1765212#p1765212

I reckon my own power profile went through pretty similar sort of variance, as has dozens of riders I know.

As you point out, there are practical problems with making it work, let alone the fundamental problem that there are plausible explanations for variability in performance both with and without doping.

I'm all for having power data available, but unless it:
- will result in a doping sanction, or
- will mean that we are targeting a rider that isn't already a target (and they all already are)
then I'm struggling to see the point in demanding it, other than for it to become pub chat fodder.

Would not the resources required to do this in a manner that would eliminate the random error involved in power estimates be better used in other ways, such as improved (legal) investigative activity and powers? Or other strategies that provide evidence that can lead to a sanction?

That's assuming such additional resources are available of course, and we are not simply reallocating the existing woefully inadequate resources.

Power numbers I see as giving a general sense of the overall impact of doping over a period of decades, like say the way a chart of average climbing speeds up a given mountain does, but attempting to use it as an anti-doping measure is flawed.

 

[Energy Starr]

Just ask Doc. Ferrari. I guarantee he would know exactly how/what to test for.

 

[Dr.Guess]

Just ask Doc. Ferrari. I guarantee he would know exactly how/what to test for.

Yes. The riders would freak out as well.

 

[M Sport]

Re: Re:

Actually, power data would work as a dopeometer, but it requires lots of samples, over a long time period from each athlete. In this way the bio-passport is a much better idea.

Convince me of how power data can be a dopeometer.

Let's put aside the (not inconsiderable) practical issue of obtaining consistently accurate data. Assume that's not an impediment.

How would having power data result in a doping sanction?

Power data would put the ridiculous motor claims to bed once and for all.

I think the impediment to consistent data can be overcome, it may take some rules that teams might not be happy with but I don't really care what they think. They are either on board with credible cycling or they go.

Lastly, I don't think you would use it to sanction but you would certainly use it to increase targeting.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Lastly, I don't think you would use it to sanction but you would certainly use it to increase targeting.

How can it increase targeting beyond what it already is?

All WT riders are already targets, in particular the GC contenders. How is it going to increase the targeting?

What about points jersey contenders, or flatter land domestiques? Those riders are not about W/kg up longer climbs. They are conserving as much as possible in order to do their job.

 

[malakassis]

so what are the bottom lines in this long thread?

-the leaked video might easily be faked
-if the video is real, the srm data can easily be faked (for safety) to hide motor-doping
-1KW bursts is humanly possible (sprinters reach 2KW)
- if all data is real and the video no fake: one explanation for the constant HR but +200W constant power output: froome has sth like a second heart. a in body pump synchronised to his heart. so one beat, but more bloodflow. but ok im engineer not doctor so maybe its garbage.

 

[Saint Unix]

The bottom line is the data, if real, which is likely is judging by experts' opinions and the fact that Sky said to the press there'd been a hack (leak), proves that all the so-called "pseudo-scientists" are actually getting their calculations bang on the money.

It in turn gives validity to the numbers for other climbs too. If the calculations of Vayer or Ammattipyoraily show Froome consistently getting to the very limit of what is thought to be humanly possible on other climbs, he most likely is doing just that rather than the numbers being off.

Then the arguing point becomes whether Froome is that übermensch who can produce those one-in-10-billion (generous guesstimate) numbers or not. Most people who were keen followers of cycling before 2011 think not, I suspect.

 

[Franklin]

There's also missing forest due to the trees.

- Someone doin 6.2 kwpkg over 40 minutes. Okay, let's stretch our disbelief. .But several times? After multiple tough stages?
- The superbe performances are beating Contador. Contador isnt a chump, so logically we have to surmise he's clean as well?
- The superbe performances are beating Nibali. Nibali isnt a chump, so logically we have to surmise he's clean as well?
- Sky is outgunning Astana in a tremendous way, far beyond what we even saw at the Giro. So Astana is actually a clean team?

So we are seeing multiple performances beyond what's deemed normal and they are beating teams which in their own words are probably dopers.

How good are those Sky riders? Every single one beats their equivalent but doped competitor.

The mental gymnastics involved are prohibitive.

 

[Saint Unix]

Rider A:
- Started cycling actively at 14.
- Absolutely rinsed the field in his first 11 races in his age group.
- Was competing against national pros at the age of 15.
- Remembered as "a diamond, a clear diamond" by people who coached him as a youngster
- Won the Junior Worlds at 18
- Youngest ever winner of a European pro race
- Won l'Avenir with a record 10 minute margin
- 2nd at the World Championships at 21 practically without a team
- Won the Worlds at 22
- 3rd in his first Tour de France, riding as a support rider

Rider B:
- Started cycling actively at 13
- Remembered as "good, but nothing special" by his fellow riders from younger days
- Finished 17th at the Commonwealth Games Time Trial at 21
- Finished 36th at the U23 ITT Worlds at 21
- Won the Tour of Mauritius at age 21
- 2nd at Giro del Capo, a small South African stage race at 23
- Winner of Anatomic Jock Race at 24
- 83rd at his first Tour de France


Now, if you asked me which of these guys was extraordinarily gifted, I wouldn't hesitate to point to rider A. Somehow though, it's supposedly both. If you look at the career trajectory of all the greats from the 50's with Coppi and Bobet to the late 80's with Hinault and LeMond, they were all crushing everything in their path from the very beginning. Then came the '90s where it seemed like even Joe Also-Ran could climb like a champion, so we'll just ignore the 20-ish years that followed, go back to when riders became clean again and add guys like Wiggins and Froome into the mix. It'd be an understatement to say they stuck out like sore thumbs. They'd be sore arms.

 

[SeriousSam]

what about badzilla though

 

[Saint Unix]

Re:

what about badzilla though

I'd say getting badzilla mid-career ranks underneath getting shot half to death mid-career.

But that's just me.

 

[IndianCyclist]

Re:

so what are the bottom lines in this long thread?

-the leaked video might easily be faked
-if the video is real, the srm data can easily be faked (for safety) to hide motor-doping
-1KW bursts is humanly possible (sprinters reach 2KW)
- if all data is real and the video no fake: one explanation for the constant HR but +200W constant power output: froome has sth like a second heart. a in body pump synchronised to his heart. so one beat, but more bloodflow. but ok im engineer not doctor so maybe its garbage.

to sum it all up
There are ALIENS amongst us

 

[bigcog]

You will like this.

 

[SeriousSam]

Here is a link to the paper. http://www.fredericgrappe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Millet.pdf

The general message is of course right, and one that applies to any estimated quantities ever published or talked about: Report the confidence interval too. What the error is likely to be for TdF climbs, and to which extent this affects qualitative conclusions based on power estimates, is a different story.

 

[bigcog]

Re:

Here is a link to the paper. http://www.fredericgrappe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Millet.pdf

The general message is of course right, and one that applies to any estimated quantities ever published or talked about: Report the confidence interval too. What the error is likely to be for TdF climbs, and to which extent this affects qualitative conclusions based on power estimates, is a different story.

Haven't read it all but conclusion is interesting:

Conclusions: Aerodynamic drag (affected by wind velocity and orientation, frontal area, drafting, and speed) is the most confounding factor. The mean estimated values are close to the power-output values measured by power meters, but the random error is between ±6% and ±10%. Moreover, at the power outputs (>400 W) produced by professional riders, this error is likely to be higher. This observation calls into question the validity of releasing individual values without reporting the range of random errors.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

Here is a link to the paper. http://www.fredericgrappe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Millet.pdf

The general message is of course right, and one that applies to any estimated quantities ever published or talked about: Report the confidence interval too. What the error is likely to be for TdF climbs, and to which extent this affects qualitative conclusions based on power estimates, is a different story.

Haven't read it all but conclusion is interesting:

Conclusions: Aerodynamic drag (affected by wind velocity and orientation, frontal area, drafting, and speed) is the most confounding factor. The mean estimated values are close to the power-output values measured by power meters, but the random error is between ±6% and ±10%. Moreover, at the power outputs (>400 W) produced by professional riders, this error is likely to be higher. This observation calls into question the validity of releasing individual values without reporting the range of random errors.

The paper seems to want to disregard the estimates because they can't get a perfectly controlled environment. Getting a perfectly controlled environment isn't racing.

5 riders go up a hill within a few minutes of each other means the conditions will be nearly the same.

 

[Merckx index]

This is all well known. That’s why so many of us have been demanding that riders release SRM data, which don’t have this problem, and why we just shake our heads at the excuses used by Sky and their supporters for not releasing these data. It goes like this:

Clinic: The climbing speeds of Froome, Porte, Thomas, et al. are unreal

Sky: You can’t conclude this because of the error in climbing estimates

Clinic: We can avoid this error with SRM data. Why do you refuse to release them?

Sky: If we give you these data, you won’t know how to interpret them. We did give them to Grappe, and he concluded the values were fine.

Clinic: They aren’t fine. Other teams who are more transparent than you are (without bragging about their transparency as you do) have released their data, and we can use these data when their riders finish on the same climb as Froome (e.g., Gesink). And these data show the same thing as the climbing times. Not normal.

Sky: Froome’s power is within the bounds of the humanly possible, if his V02max and efficiency are very high

Clinic: So what are Froome’s values for these parameters? Release them.

Sky: We don’t know, we’ve never measured them.

Clinic: Why?

Sky: Because we don’t need them if we have power values. We know what Froome is capable of.

Clinic: How do you know what Froome is capable of if you’ve never measured the values that determine what he’s capable of?

Sky: His power values show what he’s capable of.

Clinic: But how do you know he’s putting out these values clean?

Sky: Why do you hate Froome so much?

 

[bigcog]

Re:

This is all well known. That’s why so many of us have been demanding that riders release SRM data, which don’t have this problem, and why we just shake our heads at the excuses used by Sky and their supporters for not releasing these data. It goes like this:

Clinic: The climbing speeds of Froome, Porte, Thomas, et al. are unreal

Sky: You can’t conclude this because of the error in climbing estimates

Clinic: We can avoid this error with SRM data. Why do you refuse to release them?

Sky: If we give you these data, you won’t know how to interpret them. We did give them to Grappe, and he concluded the values were fine.

Clinic: They aren’t fine. Other teams who are more transparent than you are (without bragging about their transparency as you do) have released their data, and we can use these data when their riders finish on the same climb as Froome (e.g., Gesink). And these data show the same thing as the climbing times. Not normal.

Sky: Froome’s power is within the bounds of the humanly possible, if his V02max and efficiency are very high

Clinic: So what are Froome’s values for these parameters? Release them.

Sky: We don’t know, we’ve never measured them.

Clinic: Why?

Sky: Because we don’t need them if we have power values. We know what Froome is capable of.

Clinic: How do you know what Froome is capable of if you’ve never measured the values that determine what he’s capable of?

Sky: His power values show what he’s capable of.

Clinic: But how do you know he’s putting out these values clean?

Sky: Why do you hate Froome so much?

Obviously Sky haven't but which teams / riders have released their SRM data out of these ?
Contador /TS
Nibali /Astana
Quintana / Valverde / MS
Van Gardener / BMC

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Re:

This is all well known. That’s why so many of us have been demanding that riders release SRM data, which don’t have this problem, and why we just shake our heads at the excuses used by Sky and their supporters for not releasing these data. It goes like this:

Clinic: The climbing speeds of Froome, Porte, Thomas, et al. are unreal

Sky: You can’t conclude this because of the error in climbing estimates

Clinic: We can avoid this error with SRM data. Why do you refuse to release them?

Sky: If we give you these data, you won’t know how to interpret them. We did give them to Grappe, and he concluded the values were fine.

Clinic: They aren’t fine. Other teams who are more transparent than you are (without bragging about their transparency as you do) have released their data, and we can use these data when their riders finish on the same climb as Froome (e.g., Gesink). And these data show the same thing as the climbing times. Not normal.

Sky: Froome’s power is within the bounds of the humanly possible, if his V02max and efficiency are very high

Clinic: So what are Froome’s values for these parameters? Release them.

Sky: We don’t know, we’ve never measured them.

Clinic: Why?

Sky: Because we don’t need them if we have power values. We know what Froome is capable of.

Clinic: How do you know what Froome is capable of if you’ve never measured the values that determine what he’s capable of?

Sky: His power values show what he’s capable of.

Clinic: But how do you know he’s putting out these values clean?

Sky: Why do you hate Froome so much?

Once again you prove to be one of the most thoughtful, intelligent members of this forum. Great post!

 

[Digger]

Re:

This is all well known. That’s why so many of us have been demanding that riders release SRM data, which don’t have this problem, and why we just shake our heads at the excuses used by Sky and their supporters for not releasing these data. It goes like this:

Clinic: The climbing speeds of Froome, Porte, Thomas, et al. are unreal

Sky: You can’t conclude this because of the error in climbing estimates

Clinic: We can avoid this error with SRM data. Why do you refuse to release them?

Sky: If we give you these data, you won’t know how to interpret them. We did give them to Grappe, and he concluded the values were fine.

Clinic: They aren’t fine. Other teams who are more transparent than you are (without bragging about their transparency as you do) have released their data, and we can use these data when their riders finish on the same climb as Froome (e.g., Gesink). And these data show the same thing as the climbing times. Not normal.

Sky: Froome’s power is within the bounds of the humanly possible, if his V02max and efficiency are very high

Clinic: So what are Froome’s values for these parameters? Release them.

Sky: We don’t know, we’ve never measured them.

Clinic: Why?

Sky: Because we don’t need them if we have power values. We know what Froome is capable of.

Clinic: How do you know what Froome is capable of if you’ve never measured the values that determine what he’s capable of?

Sky: His power values show what he’s capable of.

Clinic: But how do you know he’s putting out these values clean?

Sky: Why do you hate Froome so much?

Excellent.....

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

This is all well known. That’s why so many of us have been demanding that riders release SRM data, which don’t have this problem, and why we just shake our heads at the excuses used by Sky and their supporters for not releasing these data. It goes like this:

Clinic: The climbing speeds of Froome, Porte, Thomas, et al. are unreal

Sky: You can’t conclude this because of the error in climbing estimates

Clinic: We can avoid this error with SRM data. Why do you refuse to release them?

Sky: If we give you these data, you won’t know how to interpret them. We did give them to Grappe, and he concluded the values were fine.

Clinic: They aren’t fine. Other teams who are more transparent than you are (without bragging about their transparency as you do) have released their data, and we can use these data when their riders finish on the same climb as Froome (e.g., Gesink). And these data show the same thing as the climbing times. Not normal.

Sky: Froome’s power is within the bounds of the humanly possible, if his V02max and efficiency are very high

Clinic: So what are Froome’s values for these parameters? Release them.

Sky: We don’t know, we’ve never measured them.

Clinic: Why?

Sky: Because we don’t need them if we have power values. We know what Froome is capable of.

Clinic: How do you know what Froome is capable of if you’ve never measured the values that determine what he’s capable of?

Sky: His power values show what he’s capable of.

Clinic: But how do you know he’s putting out these values clean?

Sky: Why do you hate Froome so much?

His V02 score is probably "off the charts" probably pushing a 99.9

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

This is all well known. That’s why so many of us have been demanding that riders release SRM data, which don’t have this problem, and why we just shake our heads at the excuses used by Sky and their supporters for not releasing these data. It goes like this:

Clinic: The climbing speeds of Froome, Porte, Thomas, et al. are unreal

Sky: You can’t conclude this because of the error in climbing estimates

Clinic: We can avoid this error with SRM data. Why do you refuse to release them?

Sky: If we give you these data, you won’t know how to interpret them. We did give them to Grappe, and he concluded the values were fine.

Clinic: They aren’t fine. Other teams who are more transparent than you are (without bragging about their transparency as you do) have released their data, and we can use these data when their riders finish on the same climb as Froome (e.g., Gesink). And these data show the same thing as the climbing times. Not normal.

Sky: Froome’s power is within the bounds of the humanly possible, if his V02max and efficiency are very high

Clinic: So what are Froome’s values for these parameters? Release them.

Sky: We don’t know, we’ve never measured them.

Clinic: Why?

Sky: Because we don’t need them if we have power values. We know what Froome is capable of.

Clinic: How do you know what Froome is capable of if you’ve never measured the values that determine what he’s capable of?

Sky: His power values show what he’s capable of.

Clinic: But how do you know he’s putting out these values clean?

Sky: Why do you hate Froome so much?

Obviously Sky haven't but which teams / riders have released their SRM data out of these ?
Contador /TS
Nibali /Astana
Quintana / Valverde / MS
Van Gardener / BMC

I guess none of them then.