Leopejo said:
No, never said nor meant that they aren't accurate.
Sorry, i skimmed your reply, so I accused you of somethign you didn't say.
Having a good performance is what you are striving to in sport. It's a bit counter intuitive to condemn someone based on their performance. Get suspicions, yes. But nothing else.
I agree. However, you want to level the playing field. That's why the UCI decided to maintain a minimum bike weight, and it's generally accepted by all teams and riders. We are also not talking about condemning great performances. The fact that peoples wattages are more or less within a certain range does not prevent the occurrence of great or heroic performances. What you are almost seem to be suggesting is that we need doping, (I am trying to spice up the discussion) in order to let athletes continuously surprise us and set new records.
I think you mentioned swimming before. Swimming (and correct me if I am wrong) is a sport that requires few tactics and strategies, especially the 50m or 100m free (the most important Olympic distance). Swimming requires a good technique, and the 100m even a good turningpoint, and especially an amazing start. However, the last decade swimming times on those distances have rarely been improved. And if the improved, it was by 100ths of seconds, invisible to the eye, and almost impossible to measure. Untill recently. Why, because athletes started to wear 'sharskin' swimming suits, by which they went so much faster, that time after time swimming records got beaten by seconds. Pieter vd Hoogenband's coach said that the records from the last decades have become obsolete... This is not because swimmer have been able to measure higher watt outputs, I bet they have remained almost the same amongst the top competitors. I therefore think it's safe to say, that had we not had those suits, the next 10-20 years we might not have seen many improvements.
If the odd one or two athletes would have set new records, beating the old ones with seconds, I am sure that 'yearly performance results measured by watt outputs', compared against those new WR, would actually have stood up against the test of scrutiny in court. At least as far as circumstantial evidence. In other words, if the tests are taken correctly by UCI, they sure seem to have some value in court...
Because I trained, I changed training methods, I am a year older, etc. etc.
Even if Haussler and Hagen improve their results in a race, that does not mean that their watt outputs have become so much better. Haussler, formerly seen as a pure sprinter, has adjusted his training,
and also his tactics. Instead of waiting for the bunch sprint, he picks his escapes, and with the improved conditioning of surviving hills as well as his stamina for long escapes he has become a better rider. I really sincerely doubt that his watt outputs have improved by over 10%!
If you get a year older, improvements neither jump up 'abnormally'. By this reasoning, the blood passport has zero to nill value either. 'Your Hematocrit has gone up by over 10%',... 'Well', says the athlete 'I have gotten a year older' or 'My training schedule changed'... Heck even doping testing has zero value,... "you've got higher testosterone levels'... 'Well, I have become more of a man since I am a year older'...
Better yet, let's give all the athletes an individual minimum time they can use to climb Alpe d'Huez. You can climb it in 39', your teammate in 40'30". That would make for some interesting racing during the Tour...
Again, you are confusing tested performance in a lab setting with actual performances in a stage race. Watt outputs in a lab setting could serve as a guideline to discover anomalies.
If UCI would force all riders to use an SRM, we would soon see which rider's output values are 'abnormal'. Since they are in competition, ie in the TdF, on the Alpe.. I bet the GC contenders will give it all they got, wham, baseline info set...