• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

Page 73 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
msjett said:
Did I miss the bit when someone explained it was the parasite that Froome had until may last year that was sucking all the kw's out of him? :rolleyes:

176 pages is a lot of my life I am never getting back...if I have to go and read all the posts....

SH*T! And I missed Housewives of Jimmy's Trailer Park to post here...never gonna get that time back...:D
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Turner29 said:
You are the one who needs therapy.

BTW, I did address "Mr. Verifiable Facts" in person, face-to-face. The subsequent discussion with his stooge Arnie Baker became quite heated.

Good. Glad someone did. Tip of the hat.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Yea, and Mr. Verifiable Facts here wrote some major smack talk when one of those science guys who tested p!ss for EPO said his hero was completely full of sh*t when he attributed his subject's prowess to being a once in a earth phenomenon.

How old are you?
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Yea, and Mr. Verifiable Facts here wrote some major smack talk when one of those science guys who tested p!ss for EPO said his hero was completely full of sh*t when he attributed his subject's prowess to being a once in a earth phenomenon.

Yep, not all science guys are on the mark with everything. In many cases, they can be way off the mark.

There is a difference though in what the good ones are doing to detect doping versus the 'clinic crazies'. The clinic is more suspicion of doping and less detection of doping, so it's a difference between detect vs. suspect (which doesn't relate to the Coyle thing, but to my previous post).

But some scientific work done over the years to justify why LA was so good is really laughable and should have been challenged by more scientists when it was published. One thing that stopped more challenges (and there were some at the time) is the reputation that Coyle has/d and the way the paper was written. There is nothing directly outlandish in the paper, but the conclusions subsequently drawn from it are ridiculous.

For example, based on Coyle's work, there were conclusions drawn that LA was clean because his performances were due to adaptations in his body over time. Those conclusions were not stated in the paper, but were pretty public.
 
Turner29 said:
If you really think that you are not only a total *** but giving yourself too much self-credit than you have.

First of all, Dr. Coyle had his doubts about Armstrong and undertook the student with reservations.

Really? Did he put those concerns in his paper? Was there a disclaimer at the bottom that said, "Warning! The test subject may have spent his entire adult life jacked to the gills on a PED cocktail that would give a meth addict the heebie jeebies."?

Turner29 said:
Second, the paper is not shoddy, there was an acknowledged calculation mistake that did not affect the outcome of his study, that Armstrong showed an efficiency improvement as he matured. Nowhere does that paper claim that Armstrong was clean.

I must have missed the page in my Big Book of Reputable Research Methods that recommends simply asking subjects for their weight rather than using a fancy new scientific instrument--I believe it is called a scale--to get an actual weight.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
peterst6906 said:
Yep, not all science guys are on the mark with everything. In many cases, they can be way off the mark.

There is a difference though in what the good ones are doing to detect doping versus the 'clinic crazies' more related to detect vs. suspect.

The clinic is more suspicion of doping and less detection of doping.

But some scientific work done over the years to justify why LA was so good is really laughable and should have been challenged by more scientists when it was published. One thing that stopped more challenges (and there were some at the time) is the reputation that Coyle has/d.

Of this I am well aware.

Nobody is slagging off on guys in the trenches doing real work to catch doping.

The problem comes when a discredited apologist scientist comes in here with his best god tie on, and pronounces the suspicion is fit only for people who sip gruel every other day.

I would also suggest that there is value in examining the numbers we do know (Froome will never submit his real numbers to anyone) to see how they compare to numbers from known dopers to see where they stack up.

Again, nobody is asking for the criteria for doping to be: If the Clinic says a dude's VAM is suspicious, they should get a 2 year automatic ban and have to b*tthole surf across sandpaper.
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Again, nobody is asking for the criteria for doping to be: If the Clinic says a dude's VAM is suspicious, they should get a 2 year automatic ban and have to b*tthole surf across sandpaper.

Hey, in some way that approach might actually be better than the current system with the UCI involved, which is just as ridiculous.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
BroDeal said:
Really? Did he put those concerns in his paper? Was there a disclaimer at the bottom that said, "Warning! The test subject may have spent his entire adult life jacked to the gills on a PED cocktail that would give a meth addict the heebie jeebies."?



I must have missed the page in my Big Book of Reputable Research Methods that recommends simply asking subjects for their weight rather than using a fancy new scientific instrument--I believe it is called a scale--to get an actual weight.

Look Bro, Coggan has been over and over that point. The fault lies COMPLETELY with the reviewers. Coyle was under NO obligation to actually produce his own numbers on such trivial things. He had a Cheerios box he needed to get signed.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Good. Glad someone did. Tip of the hat.

This thread is about power estimates for climbing, the issues with estimating such and the plausibility of certain performance levels. This thread is not about whether any individual rider is doping.

Do I think that Froome's performance is suspicious? Absolutely. In fact, in the appropriate thread, I make the point that I not only believe that Sky employs certain "grey area" substances and methods, I speculated on what they might be -- one of which was confirmed by visual evidence -- read what I said in bold.

However, in the context of this thread, I merely maintain that 6.5 w/kg is a plausible upper-limit for aerobic performance and not that Froome is capable of such without resorting to methods that some might consider doping.

For the record, I thought that Armstrong was doping from moment he put on his first Yellow Jersey. I am no Fanboy.

Regarding Landis, of course I wanted him to be clean. I was in France for the 2006 Tour. I have great picture of Landis in Yellow, that I took on the Col de Galibier.

I was with friends at bistro in Briancon to the watch the Alpe d'Huez stage. When Landis timed in under 39 minutes, I turned to one of my friends and said "doping."

You and I are much closer in thought than you realize. Do us and yourself a favor. Act like an adult, sick to the topic, read what people say and back off on the personal attacks.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
BroDeal said:
Really? Did he put those concerns in his paper? Was there a disclaimer at the bottom that said, "Warning! The test subject may have spent his entire adult life jacked to the gills on a PED cocktail that would give a meth addict the heebie jeebies."?

Perhaps if you acted like an adult you would be able to chat with people offline and get the real story.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Turner29 said:
First of all, Dr. Coyle had his doubts about Armstrong and undertook the student with reservations.

Bulldust. There was no study whatsoever until Lance took an insurance company to court. There was only a poster, with pretty pictures and what not. The study was published, in haste, after Lance called on Ed for some back up, and employed him as an expert witness.

Turner29 said:
Second, the paper is not shoddy, there was an acknowledged calculation mistake that did not affect the outcome of his study, that Armstrong showed an efficiency improvement as he matured. Nowhere does that paper claim that Armstrong was clean.

Bulldust. Here is what Ed Coyle himself wrote about Lance Armstrong. In a paper. For the scientific community. If you don't get disparaging remarks from rata de stenata about reading comprehension I am lodging a formal protest.

It is remarkable
that at age 25 yr this individual developed advanced cancer,
requiring surgeries and chemotherapy, yet these events did not
appear to impede his physiological maturation and athletic
achievements. Clearly, this champion embodies a phenomenon
of both genetic natural selection and the extreme to which the
human can adapt to endurance training performed for a decade
or more in a person who is truly inspired
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Turner29 said:
This thread is about power estimates for climbing, the issues with estimating such and the plausibility of certain performance levels. This thread is not about whether any individual rider is doping.

Do I think that Froome's performance is suspicious? Absolutely. In fact, in the appropriate thread, I make the point that I not only believe that Sky employs certain "grey area" substances and methods, I speculated on what they might be -- one of which was confirmed by visual evidence -- read what I said in bold.

However, in the context of this thread, I merely maintain that 6.5 w/kg is a plausible upper-limit for aerobic performance and not that Froome is capable of such without resorting to methods that some might consider doping.

For the record, I thought that Armstrong was doping from moment he put on his first Yellow Jersey. I am no Fanboy.

Regarding Landis, of course I wanted him to be clean. I was in France for the 2006 Tour. I have great picture of Landis in Yellow, that I took on the Col de Galibier.

I was with friends at bistro in Briancon to the watch the Alpe d'Huez stage. When Landis timed in under 39 minutes, I turned to one of my friends and said "doping."

You and I are much closer in thought than you realize. Do us and yourself a favor. Act like an adult, sick to the topic, read what people say and back off on the personal attacks.

I see you're unfamiliar with my work.

Anyway, I was directing my disdain almost exclusively toward Mr. Coggan, who is one of the single biggest hot water bottles with the long white hose in existence. His Gestalt is "arrogant empty shirt." If you took that personally, again, I suggest you ask yourself why. You jumped in on my conversation, it wasn't the other way around.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Bulldust. There was no study whatsoever until Lance took an insurance company to court. There was only a poster, with pretty pictures and what not. The study was published, in haste, after Lance called on Ed for some back up, and employed him as an expert witness.



Bulldust. Here is what Ed Coyle himself wrote about Lance Armstrong. In a paper. For the scientific community. If you don't get disparaging remarks from rata de stenata about reading comprehension I am lodging a formal protest.

Glad to see we're back on the same page. Wanna get married?
 
Turner29 said:
Perhaps if you acted like an adult you would be able to chat with people offline and get the real story.

You mean the revisionist history story that makes Coyle not look like a fool or worse?

You dodged the question? Did Coyle put a disclaimer in his paper? Did he put anything in it to indicate that he had doubts about the test subject? Did anyone who read that paper at the time find anything in it that said the results might be compromised by extreme PED use?

For someone concerned about people attacking those they don't know, you seem to engage in a lot of that yourself. How low is your self-esteem?
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,890
0
0
Turner29 said:
No professional dopes "to get to 4.5 w/kg" -- the undoped "entry bar" for a professional is at least 5.5 w/kg and I am not talking about a GC contender here..

I didn't mention professionals, I just said people, I'm actually sure some people could dope to the gills and never achieve 4.5w/kg

Turner29 said:
Jonathan Vaughters is pretty open now about his past and states that during training, undoped, he could hit 6.5 w/kg for 15-20 minutes. This implies an undoped FTP of over 6.0 w/kg, consistent with his undoped FTP estimate of 6.2 w/kg.

People know what is possible.

Really? You know someone who will put their head on the chopping block and state that noone, living or yet to be born,with current or yet to be developed training techniques, can ride at higher than xW/kg undoped. Someone actually knows exactly where the line is? Impressive. I'd not have thought anyone would be that arrogant.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
I see you're unfamiliar with my work.

Anyway, I was directing my disdain almost exclusively toward Mr. Coggan, who is one of the single biggest hot water bottles with the long white hose in existence. His Gestalt is "arrogant empty shirt." If you took that personally, again, I suggest you ask yourself why. You jumped in on my conversation, it wasn't the other way around.

Let me rephrase then. As I said, we are in general agreement and put aside that some wires may have been inadvertently crossed. I do not have the same access level and history as you, but when I have my chances, I don't hold back and I still have my doubts about the whole peloton and the system.

At the same time, fair needs to be fair, at least in terms of plausibility. You can help with the plausible side. You can also be a bit more specific in what is still going on, because the more that is rationally discussed, the better chances for a clean peloton.

OTOW, I can see why you might think this will never happen, as the reality is that all professional sports would prefer a veneer of control against doping rather than a totally clean sport, if that is even possible.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
karlboss said:
I didn't mention professionals, I just said people, I'm actually sure some people could dope to the gills and never achieve 4.5w/kg



Really? You know someone who will put their head on the chopping block and state that noone, living or yet to be born,with current or yet to be developed training techniques, can ride at higher than xW/kg undoped. Someone actually knows exactly where the line is? Impressive. I'd not have thought anyone would be that arrogant.

OMG. I have being actually saying quite the opposite and getting **** for it...
 
Hugh Januss said:
Why do the clinic crazies seem to have a much better track record of detecting doping frauds than the science guys have?:rolleyes:
What a load of complete and utter crud. The clinic crazies just accuse everyone who is winning of doping period. Then when someone tests positive, you all start cheering each other about how awesome you are because "you detected the doper". Means nothing. A monkey with a keyboard could do the same. If you examined the actual riders who tested positive or were sanctioned via an investigation vs the accusations by the crazy brigade, the hit percentage would be less than 5%.


I've stated this previously, if the anti-doping control procedures are not carried out in a manner which is full-proof from a legal perspective, then you open the door for positive tests to be overturned. This sets a precedent and then suddenly nobody gets sanctioned because instead of a full proof doping control test, you have a full proof doping loophole. A higher threshold allows some to slip under the radar, but that is better than a lower threshold that results in no sanctions whatsoever because the risk of false positives is simply too high.
 
Turner29 said:
And your evidence? JV1973 claims such is possible, based upon his own performance on Mt. Ventoux.

He is talking about his 1999 D.L. TT for heaven's sake !!!

PS : JV elsewhere on the forum said that after a number of hours of racing he could at best produce 85% of his "fresh" power output, i.e. if his fresh undoped FTP was 6.35 Watts/kg, his undoped end of mountain stage FTP was more like 0.85 times 6.35 = 5.4 Watts/kg.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
And if we could graph those leaps and bounds against developments in the medical world...

Considering that in swimming
1) the exerted power goes up roughly as the FIFTH power of the velocity, there is not all that much to be gained from doping (if we compare to cycling up mountains)

2) competitors are not in their natural environment

I would expect gains to come from
a) better techniques
b) better pools, deeper, no use of the outside lanes, etc.