Merckx index said:
I said "akin to". Power data are about all we have other than tests which are generally easy to beat.
Then the issue is sorting out testing process and effectiveness of investigative measures rather than looking to power data that doesn't really solve the problem, no matter how accurate it might be.
Merckx index said:
If you have seen even a few of my posts on this subject, you know that I'm not recommending power data be used as a basis of a sanction. But of course they will be used by fans to form opinions.
Well I think fans' opinions should more be based on relevant evidence rather than idle speculation. But that is, of course, just my opinion
Merckx index said:
In addition, some people highly-placed in the sport, like JV, use power data to argue that the peloton is cleaner. In fact, I don't know anyone who argues that the peloton is cleaner who doesn't use power data as the main argument, do you? Walsh, for example, while arguing that the data are too imperfect to conclude Froome is doping, has no problem using the same data to conclude the peloton is cleaner, and even that Froome's climbs are evidence of being clean.
There is a very large difference between using ascension rates (and W/kg estimates) for population level assessments of the changes in
physiological impact of doping over the last 30 years, to undertaking individual rider assessments.
As I have posted before, the climbing speeds have gone up and down over the years, and this corresponds closely with the level of EPO use and other significantly effective forms of blood doping.
But that tells us nothing about the level of doping, only the level of
physiological impact doping has had on the professional peloton as a whole. All we can reasonably say is that the performance boost being attained has reduced, not that doping is more or less prevalent.
So on that basis, I totally agree, such statement by high profile people in the sport are somewhat falacious.
As for individual rider assessments, the problem is that the rate of performance change from current doping practices isn't significantly different to what could plausibly be argued as being attainable from non-doping means. I mean my racing W/kg would vary 15+% through a season. Does that make me suspicious?
Merckx index said:
What other argument could be used? The number of positives? If it's lower, does that mean the peloton is cleaner, or just that the riders are better at beating the tests? Anyone who thinks that power data are useless must also be totally agnostic on the question of whether the peloton is cleaner. Maybe you are, but very few other people following the sport are.
I think I've covered that above. IOW it doesn't deal with these issues either and it's a mistake to think it does.
Merckx index said:
Your false assumption here is that if we don't release the power data, followers of the sport will not form any opinion at all. Opinions are always going to be out there. If you think that by not releasing data, opinions will not be formed, you must have missed the Sky/Froome threads entirely.
Again, if power data are meaningless, why did Sky release data for Froome from 2011-2013? What was the point? Do you think they thought the data were totally worthless, and they released them just to placate a handful of critics in the Clinic? Even if that were the entirely the case, that shows that very strong opinions were formed even before any data were released. I don't see how those data could possibly make the situation worse. On the contrary, if SRM data are so much more reliable than timing climbs for individual riders, then why would you not want to release them? Do you think if you give better data to people following the sport, their opinions will become even more misinformed?
I agree that opinions will be formed whether or not such data are released, but I don't think the data will make those opinions any more or less valid. For starters we have people who proclaim there is a definitive W/kg mark = doping, which is of course just opinion, when there really isn't any such clear line.
As for why Sky did what they did, I have no idea. Media/PR reasons presumably. It doesn't pass the plausibility test for proving (sans-)doping status either way. I suppose damned if they do and damned if they don't. It's a no win strategy, because it doesn't prove anything.
Merckx index said:
Andy Coggan at least makes a debatable argument against releasing SRM data--that it's too expensive. That may or may not be a dealbreaker, but that is very different from saying the data are useless.
He may have, I don't specifically recall, although I definitely made this comment in my
The Elusive Dopeometer blog post.
Merckx index said:
Of course we will. As the article concludes, under low wind conditions, as well as in analysis of a large pool of riders, the differences between SRM and estimates from time are reduced to the point where we can make reasonable conclusions. Again, I'm not saying this will allow sanctions, but it will make us better informed--particularly about the overall state of the peloton.
Yes, we can make sensible conclusions about a population of riders, and as you rightly point out, this is inadequate for individual sanction.
A key point is knowing when such models are valid. As is evidenced by this thread, most don't get it and is why I have regularly suggested people put estimated error ranges on their W/kg numbers. The less well know the conditions, the greater the error.
Merckx index said:
I will grant you that there will be plenty of misinterpretation of any data. But so what? The fans in effect pay the salaries of the riders. Don't they have the right to see data bearing on how clean they are?
They have the right to know if riders are clean, but power data doesn't tell us that, which is my point.
All we can really say is that the impact of doping on physiological performance has declined, not that doping has declined.
Merckx index said:
Not always. I disagree very strongly with the implication that data like these can't help target riders more intelligently. It isn't always about the elite riders, it's also about sudden major improvements. People were talking about DiLuca in the Giro even before he was popped.
Do we need power meter data to see such changes in performance? Aren't race results sufficient?
Is knowing who to target really that hard to figure out?
Did any of those sufficiently prescient about Di Luca need his SRM data to suggest he might need extra scrutiny than a pro might already receive?
I don't have a solution or suggestion to what's needed to prove sans-doping status,
because it's an unobtainable outcome. It's a dilemma, I agree.