Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[Hugh Januss]

So a doper is now the benchmark for what is possible "undoped" ?

It's called evolution, doesn't usually happen quite this fast though.

 

[Turner29]

blah blah blah same old story again and again. Do you even ride a bike? Have you ever trained in your entire life? Do you realise that someone with the potential to become a GT winner would not show that potential at a young age if they were not trained appropriately at that young age, or indeed if they were clean and competing against doped up riders?

As doping controls become stricter and stricter, the "apparent" emergence of outlier performance becomes more possible. Conversely, those less naturally physically gifted, whose championship level performance relied upon doping would start to drift to the back of the pack.

Just like what happened on the climbs in this Tour...

 

[BroDeal]

Why do the clinic crazies seem to have a much better track record of detecting doping frauds than the science guys have?

Emperor's new clothes syndrome. There are always would-be advisors willing to rationalize to the king how great his new duds look. It is the rabble on the street who giggle, laugh at the absurdity of it, and is gauche enough to point out the emperor's tiny peen is showing.

Seriously. These guys could rationalize anything using the Krapcycle Defense.

 

[Turner29]

So a doper is now the benchmark for what is possible "undoped" ?

It was merely one piece of data to make a point. You don't have to believe his numbers if you do not want to...

Then, I ask you what is the benchmark that you propose to accuse riders by? What do you consider plausible performance and what is you evidence?

 

[Nick777]

Such as?

I'd be a world record holder if you transplanted me back to the 1920's

 

[Turner29]

Why do the clinic crazies seem to have a much better track record of detecting doping frauds than the science guys have?

No "science guy" here that I know of is denying that any specific rider is doping. All the science guys are trying to do is: a) explain plausible performance limits; 2) and the practical problems of using such to detect doping.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

No "science guy" here that I know of is denying that any specific rider is doping. All the science guys are trying to do is: a) explain plausible performance limits; 2) and the practical problems of using such to detect doping.

You science guys seem to think the subtext to your posts isn't obvious to us commoners.

Nor do you appear to appreciate the fact that science guys like Mr. Verified Facts was defending a study (with all of his usual humility) on a subject who was doped to the gills, and yet somehow the science guy conducting the study missed that the subject was doped to the gills...he attributed it to pork shoulder sized hearts and a smooth pedal stroke...

Yea, you science guys have been a weathervane that's thick on the pointy end.

 

[BroDeal]

blah blah blah same old story again and again. Do you even ride a bike? Have you ever trained in your entire life? Do you realise that someone with the potential to become a GT winner would not show that potential at a young age if they were not trained appropriately at that young age, or indeed if they were clean and competing against doped up riders?

Nice try. Froome did not start out competing against doped up riders. He started competing against low-level amateurs like everyone else starts. If he had the potential to top out at a 90+ VO2Max then his talent would have been obvious right from the beginning, just like it is when everyone starts out racing and notices those who naturally have a large engine despite limited training.

In fact, to use your own argument, since future GT winners have been spotted at a relatively young TRAINING AGE (ie: years of full-time training) in the past, this suggests that it may not require as many years of full time training for a highly talented athlete to develop into top 10 GT material.

Wow. Really. You think? The biggest gains come with initial training? Who would've thought? Brilliant.

Of course, it does not seem to have worked that way for Froome.

 

[Nick777]

blah blah blah same old story again and again. Do you even ride a bike? Have you ever trained in your entire life? Do you realise that someone with the potential to become a GT winner would not show that potential at a young age if they were not trained appropriately at that young age, or indeed if they were clean and competing against doped up riders?

I call BS on the bolded part.

 

[Turner29]

You science guys seem to think the subtext to your posts isn't obvious to us commoners.

Nor do you appear to appreciate the fact that science guys like Mr. Verified Facts was defending a study (with all of his usual humility) on a subject who was doped to the gills, and yet somehow the science guy conducting the study missed that the subject was doped to the gills...he attributed it to pork shoulder sized hearts and a smooth pedal stroke...

Yea, you science guys have been a weathervane that's thick on the pointy end.

To which study are you referring, so I can give an educated response, not babble...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Nice try. Froome did not start out competing against doped up riders. He started competing against low-level amateurs like everyone else starts. If he had the potential to top out at a 90+ VO2Max then his talent would have been obvious right from the beginning, just like it is when everyone starts out racing and notices those who naturally have a large engine despite limited training.



Wow. Really. You think? The biggest gains come with initial training? Who would've thought? Brilliant.

Of course, it does not seem to have worked that way for Froome.

Hey, if you want to slag off on the guy who got 5th place in the TT at the 2010 Commonwealth games, you go ahead.

I'm changing my tune. Obviously, the ride Froome put in is indicative of a clean rider because every single variable that could possibly be measured isn't known. Sure the science guys don't recognize that people aren't suggesting that Froome test positive for such a ride, only that it smells a lot like rides we've seen by other guys we know were doped to the gills...riders who showed more potential than 5th in a TT at the Commonwealth games a year before he was leader of the Vuelta, but that doesn't diminish their points in the slightest...

Nothing to see here, move on. The science guys have this all figured out, so we should retreat to our common homes, in our common neighborhoods, and teach our children the brilliance of cream filled snack cakes.

 

[Turner29]

You science guys seem to think the subtext to your posts isn't obvious to us commoners.

Nor do you appear to appreciate the fact that science guys like Mr. Verified Facts was defending a study (with all of his usual humility) on a subject who was doped to the gills, and yet somehow the science guy conducting the study missed that the subject was doped to the gills...he attributed it to pork shoulder sized hearts and a smooth pedal stroke...

Yea, you science guys have been a weathervane that's thick on the pointy end.

Do you all "commoners" lack short-term memory or is it just you? For the nth time, I am not defending any rider of doping. In addition, for the nth time, I am pretty skeptical of all professional athletes and PEDs, not just cyclists.

And, for the nth time, I have no problem addressing my doping concerns to a rider, as I did to Landis, in front of a large audience.

You really don't get it, do you?

 

[BroDeal]

To which study are you referring, so I can give an educated response, not babble...

Dr. Coyle, the researcher, if you can call his shoddy methods research, who was either blissfully unaware (stupid) or willfully ignorant (incompetent) that his research subject was the biggest doper in a sport rife with doping.

 

[Turner29]

Hey, if you want to slag off on the guy who got 5th place in the TT at the 2010 Commonwealth games, you go ahead.

I'm changing my tune. Obviously, the ride Froome put in is indicative of a clean rider because every single variable that could possibly be measured isn't known. Sure they don't recognize that people aren't suggesting that Froome test positive for such a ride, only that it smells a lot like rides we've seen by other guys we know were doped to the gills...riders who showed more potential than 5th in a TT at the Commonwealth games a year before he was leader of the Vuelta, but that doesn't diminish their points in the slightest...

Nothing to see here, move on. The science guys have this all figured out, so we should retreat to our common homes, in our common neighborhoods, and teach our children the brilliance of cream filled snack cakes.

Unreal how lost in the forest you are.

 

[Ferminal]

You don't have to believe his numbers if you do not want to...

Then, I ask you what is the benchmark that you propose to accuse riders by?

I'm not in the business of making accusations.

Personally I don't care much for some magic threshold where on one side you're clean and the other you're a doper. I'd rather comparisons be done on like data, so not comparing a timed GT climb to a P-N TT with SRM data to an hour record to some feat someone says they did clean. I don't think you can, I don't think it's right to, I don't want to say Rider X hit number Y therefore they are doped, zero doubt. I'd prefer an enquiry looking at comparable performances of riders in the past (who we are fairly confident in knowing whether or not they were doped) in similar settings. From there maybe we can say that it's plausible that these performances of Rider X are clean or it's highly doubtful that these performances of Rider X were "unassisted". Even then, you need a deeper case study of the individual as you're going to struggle to have confidence when the rider you're looking at has previously tested positive or something.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

To which study are you referring, so I can give an educated response, not babble...

Coggan isn't hiding who he is, or who he is an apologist for. I almost feel snarky to suggest you use the most amazing tool in the 21st century, so I won't spell out what it is exactly, but it's close at hand.

Call me the Riddler.

 

[BroDeal]

Do you all "commoners" lack short-term memory or is it just you? For the nth time, I am not defending any rider of doping. In addition, for the nth time, I am pretty skeptical of all professional athletes and PEDs, not just cyclists.

And, for the nth time, I have no problem addressing my doping concerns to a rider, as I did to Landis, in front of a large audience.

You really don't get it, do you?

No, you are just trying to stick to what you want to discuss while others want to point out other points beyond error-prone W/kg calculations. Who cares if somewhere in India, unbeknownst to himself, there is someone who has the potential to cleanly ride at 7 W/kg? It does not have any relevance to Froome and his miserable early racing career, which is what the discussion abou 6.5 W/kg is really about.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Unreal how lost in the forest you are.

Completely.Lost.

Only, unlike you genius science guys, I called riders, who are now known to be junkie freaks, long before you science dudes.

Yes I am the Lorax who speaks for the trees.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Do you all "commoners" lack short-term memory or is it just you? For the nth time, I am not defending any rider of doping. In addition, for the nth time, I am pretty skeptical of all professional athletes and PEDs, not just cyclists.

And, for the nth time, I have no problem addressing my doping concerns to a rider, as I did to Landis, in front of a large audience.

You really don't get it, do you?

Look Oppenheimer, you don't seem to get that I addressed Mr. Verifiable Facts and not you. If you are going to take things I write to him and about him personally, I would suggest therapy.

I don't know who you are...but we have something in common. I addressed Landis in front of an audience too...well, in front of the Clinic, but hey, its the hovel I inhabit.

 

[Turner29]

Dr. Coyle, the researcher, if you can call his shoddy methods research, who was either blissfully unaware (stupid) or willfully ignorant (incompetent) that his research subject was the biggest doper in a sport rife with doping.

If you really think that you are not only a total *** but giving yourself too much self-credit than you deserve.

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

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.

Is your self-esteem so low that you must continually attack people that don't know and don't have privy to all the facts?

 

[Turner29]

Look Oppenheimer, you don't seem to get that I addressed Mr. Verifiable Facts and not you. If you are going to take things I write to him and about him personally, I would suggest therapy.

I don't know who you are.

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.

 

[peterst6906]

Why do the clinic crazies seem to have a much better track record of detecting doping frauds than the science guys have?

I wouldn't go that far.

Every positive test is the result of some science guy working in a lab somewhere and the tests that help detect the occurrence of doping result from the work of science guys to develop and validate them.

There are a hell of a lot of science guys out there doing good science in order to catch cheats and to do so in a way that is verifiable.

In that regard, they are more conservative than the 'clinic crazies', but no less successful in detecting doping.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You are the one who needs therapy.

All I need is some sexual healing...but there's a visitor in my house at the moment, and I'm not a vampire.

 

[msjett]

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?

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

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I wouldn't go that far.

Every positive test is the result of some science guy working in a lab somewhere and the tests that help detect the occurrence of doping result from the work of science guys to develop and validate them.

There are a hell of a lot of science guys out there doing good science in order to catch cheats and to do so in a way that is verifiable.

In that regard, they are more conservative than the 'clinic crazies', but no less successful in detecting doping.

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.