Ryder's blood

[pmcg76]

His brake was rubbing?

Kinda obvious that his prep was wrong that day.

Yeah, Beloki and Ullrich too

 

[roundabout]

Yeah, Beloki and Ullrich too

Ullrich was sick IIRC and Beloki went from 2 minutes down to finishing s.t.

So yeah, 2 minutes of your 3.30 are quite explainable

 

[pmcg76]

Ullrich was sick IIRC and Beloki went from 2 minutes down to finishing s.t.

So yeah, 2 minutes of your 3.30 are quite explainable

But still rode 1.25 slower than 2001.

 

[Benotti69]

....personal attacks.........


Why were they faster in 2012? any number of reasons as has been pointed out a million times. Race conditions, race tactics, weather conditions, race route, there are so many factors that can affect times year to year.

A millions times? care to link 100 examples?


In 2008, Alpe di Pampeago was the first mountains stage(st 14) which are not always raced to the max. The following day was the 5 Col Classic, Pordoi, San Pellegrino, Giau, Falzarego and finishing on the Marmolada, an epic stage and the toughest of that Giro. At a guess I would say they were keeping their powder mostly dry for that particular stage, especially when the following day was the Plan des Cornes Mountain TT.

In comparison 2012 came on the 3rd last day when the overall victory was still up for grabs so nobody would have been holding back, all trying to gain time before the TT on the last day.

See, differing race circumstances at the minimun.

...........snipped...........

Don't worry, I don't expects answers. Just more avoidance and the usual waffling.[/QUOTE]

Minimum.

I'll let you live in your lovely little world where Garmin are the clean team, yet when asked to explain anomalies they cant and just throw out the usual excuses with nothing to back the talk up with.

No one can win a 3 week race clean against dopers, The advantage doping gives is too big. Hesjedal is a proven doper as is his DS and many of his team mates.

The testing is a joke, yet you want to try and tell me that a clean rider can beat dopers in a sport where every team is loaded with dopers, ex doper, enablers, doping doctors, dope dealers......


I am not worried.

 

[sniper]

Well if that 66km is flat or mostly flat and there is a huge distance between the first climb and the next one, Tonale-Mortirolo its neglible because it means they can cruise until the Mortirolo, therefore arriving relatively fresh.

A bit different if you are hitting a major Col every 30km, the cumulative wearing down effect will have more of an impact. None of the climbs might be as hard as the Mortirolo but the fatigue factor will play a bigger part.

No I am not arguing times should be faster in the 3rd week, the simple argument is that race conditions, tactics are different so therefore if riders are still battling for the win in the 3rd week, they are more likely to be going full-on than if things are mostly already decided. There are so many varying factors that it is pointless to even compare.

I posted about times on Alpe d'Huez 2003 V 2001. Why the time differences? Why a 3.30 time difference for Lance?

except of course when the claim is made that cycling has slowed down compared to the Dark era. In that case the comparison is useful.
When it points to the opposite, the data are suddenly pointless.

 

[Parker]

except of course when the claim is made that cycling has slowed down compared to the Dark era. In that case the comparison is useful.
When it points to the opposite, the data are suddenly pointless.

There's a difference between using a small amount of data to reach a specific conclusion and using a large amount of data to reach a general conclusion. (And even then I think there are some flaws in reaching that general conclusion)

 

[sniper]

There's a difference between using a small amount of data to reach a specific conclusion and using a large amount of data to reach a general conclusion. (And even then I think there are some flaws in reaching that general conclusion)

really?

could you link to that large amount of data showing cycling has slowed down?

even if you could, it wouldn't make Froome and Hesjedal look particular good, would it: if the trend is that times have become slower than in the 2000s, the ones that are bucking that trend are logically more suspect than others.

So unless you think cycling is 100% clean, you must admit that Froome and Hesjedal are among the most suspicious cyclists of present-day cycling.

 

[pmcg76]

except of course when the claim is made that cycling has slowed down compared to the Dark era. In that case the comparison is useful.
When it points to the opposite, the data are suddenly pointless.

My God, you guys are slow.

Comparing year to year is pointless unless you have the exact same factors, wind, route, tactics etc. Some years are fast, some are slow becasue of all the varying factors.

However, take the times over a period of time(3 years/5 years etc) and average them out, that is where it becomes more relevant because the outliers and varying factors will average themselves out giving a clearer view of things.

I demonstrated this in the Power Estimates thread using Alpe d'Huez as it is the most frequently climbed historical finishing Col in the Tour.

Average Top 5 time for 2001-03-06 is 39.57
Average Top 5 time for 2008-11-13 is 41.08

That is a trend. Times have slowed.

But. Is their outliers? Yes.

Average times for Top 5 by year.

2001: 39.24
2003: 40.49
2006: 39.03
2008: 41.14
2011: 41.50
2013: 40.31

If you extend it out to Top 10, it becomes more pronounced.

Now if someone wants to go through lots of differing climbs to do this, be my guest.

 

[Nick C.]

A millions times? care to link 100 examples?


In 2008, Alpe di Pampeago was the first mountains stage(st 14) which are not always raced to the max. The following day was the 5 Col Classic, Pordoi, San Pellegrino, Giau, Falzarego and finishing on the Marmolada, an epic stage and the toughest of that Giro. At a guess I would say they were keeping their powder mostly dry for that particular stage, especially when the following day was the Plan des Cornes Mountain TT.

In comparison 2012 came on the 3rd last day when the overall victory was still up for grabs so nobody would have been holding back, all trying to gain time before the TT on the last day.

See, differing race circumstances at the minimun.

...........snipped...........

Don't worry, I don't expects answers. Just more avoidance and the usual waffling.

Minimum.

I'll let you live in your lovely little world where Garmin are the clean team, yet when asked to explain anomalies they cant and just throw out the usual excuses with nothing to back the talk up with.

No one can win a 3 week race clean against dopers, The advantage doping gives is too big. Hesjedal is a proven doper as is his DS and many of his team mates.

The testing is a joke, yet you want to try and tell me that a clean rider can beat dopers in a sport where every team is loaded with dopers, ex doper, enablers, doping doctors, dope dealers......


I am not worried. [/QUOTE]

This is a funny place. One thread up I see this from Red Flanders (I think):
"I did not say winning = cheating. Did anyone? I said riding faster than any clean athlete ever and as fast or faster than the best dopers ever = doping. Which is true. Winning = Cheating is nonsense.

If you need to alter, twist or reframe things to continue a debate, maybe consider why that might be."

The post I respond to says otherwise. So confusing. Then again it's only a message board so what exactly should I expect.

 

[Benotti69]

My God, you guys are slow.

.............

No robust anti doping, little or no OOC testing, dodgy blood values, speeds allegedly slower, hiding from media for 8 months after being outed as a doper....and we are slow

 

[Netserk]

This is a funny place. One thread up I see this from Red Flanders (I think):
"I did not say winning = cheating. Did anyone? I said riding faster than any clean athlete ever and as fast or faster than the best dopers ever = doping. Which is true. Winning = Cheating is nonsense.

If you need to alter, twist or reframe things to continue a debate, maybe consider why that might be."

The post I respond to says otherwise. So confusing. Then again it's only a message board so what exactly should I expect.

Different posters with different opinions.

Who would've thought?!

 

[Benotti69]

This is a funny place. One thread up I see this from Red Flanders (I think):
"I did not say winning = cheating. Did anyone? I said riding faster than any clean athlete ever and as fast or faster than the best dopers ever = doping. Which is true. Winning = Cheating is nonsense.

If you need to alter, twist or reframe things to continue a debate, maybe consider why that might be."

The post I respond to says otherwise. So confusing. Then again it's only a message board so what exactly should I expect.

You need to clean up your post and get the quotes in correct order.

Is a forum, not an Anti doping agency.

I think if doping was no longer part of the fabric of the sport we would see and hear that monumental change, but all we hear is talk and nothing to back up that talk.

Take Ryder's blood values from his Giro win. When it was pointed out to Vaughters his 3rd week values showed an anomaly, Vaughters dismissed it with the excuse of machine calibration error and left it at that, just an excuse, nothing to demonstrate the machine was at fault.

plus ça change

 

[sniper]

My God, you guys are slow.

Comparing year to year is pointless unless you have the exact same factors, wind, route, tactics etc. Some years are fast, some are slow becasue of all the varying factors.

However, take the times over a period of time(3 years/5 years etc) and average them out, that is where it becomes more relevant because the outliers and varying factors will average themselves out giving a clearer view of things.

I demonstrated this in the Power Estimates thread using Alpe d'Huez as it is the most frequently climbed historical finishing Col in the Tour.

Average Top 5 time for 2001-03-06 is 39.57
Average Top 5 time for 2008-11-13 is 41.08

That is a trend. Times have slowed.

But. Is their outliers? Yes.

Average times for Top 5 by year.

2001: 39.24
2003: 40.49
2006: 39.03
2008: 41.14
2011: 41.50
2013: 40.31

If you extend it out to Top 10, it becomes more pronounced.

Now if someone wants to go through lots of differing climbs to do this, be my guest.

fair points.
A pity you didn't do 2012.
Anyway, so the trend is towards slower times.
Doesn't that make Froome's and Hesjedal's outliers all the more suspicious?

 

[pmcg76]

You need to clean up your post and get the quotes in correct order.

Is a forum, not an Anti doping agency.

I think if doping was no longer part of the fabric of the sport we would see and hear that monumental change, but all we hear is talk and nothing to back up that talk.

Take Ryder's blood values from his Giro win. When it was pointed out to Vaughters his 3rd week values showed an anomaly, Vaughters dismissed it with the excuse of machine calibration error and left it at that, just an excuse, nothing to demonstrate the machine was at fault.

plus ça change

Plus ca change indeed, posting misleading info even when pulled on it before.

It was even Dear Wiggo who corrected you on it. The anomaly was at the start of the Giro with a high figure that JV blamed on machine calibration. He said it was discussed with other team managers who concurred. Whether that is true or not, we have no real way of finding out.

There is no figures for later in that Giro that JV blamed machine calibration for.

You just keep peddling incorrect information as fact and try and pass it off as evidence. You clealy wouldn't make a good lawyer.

 

[pmcg76]

fair points.
A pity you didn't do 2012.
Anyway, so the trend is towards slower times.
Doesn't that make Froome's and Hesjedal's outliers all the more suspicious?

They didn't ride Alpe d'Huez in 2012, did they?

Having one suspicious time like Hesjedal has(maybe there are more?) means it is just currently an outlier.

Froome on the other hand has a few suspicious times we know off(Aix-3-Domaine, Ventoux, Alpe d'Huez) so that is more of a trend.

Thus because it is more of a trend, then yes it makes Froome way more suspect.

Based on that one climb, the trend has been toward slower times. Would need to do alot more research but Alpe d'Huez is on of the best examples because of its frequency, historical data etc.

 

[Nick C.]

You need to clean up your post and get the quotes in correct order.

Is a forum, not an Anti doping agency.

I think if doping was no longer part of the fabric of the sport we would see and hear that monumental change, but all we hear is talk and nothing to back up that talk.

Take Ryder's blood values from his Giro win. When it was pointed out to Vaughters his 3rd week values showed an anomaly, Vaughters dismissed it with the excuse of machine calibration error and left it at that, just an excuse, nothing to demonstrate the machine was at fault.

plus ça change

You missed the point. The quote was one guy says noone ever says winning=doping. One page down I read exactly that. There was a whole Dan Martin thread that inferred we won a Monument ergo he must dope or else he could not beat or hang with dopers. I get that "we are a forum not WADA or a court of law". But it is still somewhere between amusing and logically incoherent even coming from different people who are typically on the same side of the argument.

I appreciate the lecture on calibration. I got the point three years ago when it came up initially but I guess the horse still has a pulse.

 

[DirtyWorks]

But it is still somewhere between amusing and logically incoherent even coming from different people who are typically on the same side of the argument.

Somewhere between amusing and logically incoherent nicely summarizes the UCI's anti-doping activities. Unfortunately, it's all we have to work with.

 

[Nick C.]

Somewhere between amusing and logically incoherent nicely summarizes the UCI's anti-doping activities. Unfortunately, it's all we have to work with.

I read the Tenerife article. It's more like sad to something you would expect form a parody show.

 

[westerner]

I'm not suggesting anything untoward. But reality is that possible issues with athletes training where testing is difficult to non existent is a serious one for more than just Sky/Saxo in Tenerife. No need to lie on whereabouts like Rasmussen did in 2007, avoiding testing by training where the testers don't go is still very easy and no problem for athletes with means.

eg.

Pre Giro buildup in Canary Islands
Pre Vuelta in Maui


https://twitter.com/ryder_hesjedal/status/440182306436050944

https://twitter.com/ryder_hesjedal/status/489948044624814080

 

[Benotti69]

You missed the point. The quote was one guy says noone ever says winning=doping. One page down I read exactly that. There was a whole Dan Martin thread that inferred we won a Monument ergo he must dope or else he could not beat or hang with dopers. I get that "we are a forum not WADA or a court of law". But it is still somewhere between amusing and logically incoherent even coming from different people who are typically on the same side of the argument.

I appreciate the lecture on calibration. I got the point three years ago when it came up initially but I guess the horse still has a pulse.

So what do you do on Garmin?

Internship?

 

[Nick C.]

So what do you do on Garmin?

Internship?

type/write poorly apparently

 

[peloton]

So what do you do on Garmin?

Internship?

Good catch there.
Explains a lot.

 

[Benotti69]

type/write poorly apparently

of course.........

 

[GoodTimes]

My God, you guys are slow.

Comparing year to year is pointless unless you have the exact same factors, wind, route, tactics etc. Some years are fast, some are slow becasue of all the varying factors.

However, take the times over a period of time(3 years/5 years etc) and average them out, that is where it becomes more relevant because the outliers and varying factors will average themselves out giving a clearer view of things.

I demonstrated this in the Power Estimates thread using Alpe d'Huez as it is the most frequently climbed historical finishing Col in the Tour.

Average Top 5 time for 2001-03-06 is 39.57
Average Top 5 time for 2008-11-13 is 41.08

That is a trend. Times have slowed.

But. Is their outliers? Yes.

Average times for Top 5 by year.

2001: 39.24
2003: 40.49
2006: 39.03
2008: 41.14
2011: 41.50
2013: 40.31

If you extend it out to Top 10, it becomes more pronounced.

Now if someone wants to go through lots of differing climbs to do this, be my guest.

RE comparing climbing times from year to year, I have to agree that this method actually has some value. I think if multiple different climbs were added, it would start to and show meaningful trends.

You've stated you don't want to go through the exercise of collecting all of this data (and fair enough, I don't want to go through the time, either...). Bu, would you be able to compute the student t distribution for these years to show the variability and statistical relevance of the data, or provide me with the source data so that I can do the computation?

 

[pmcg76]

RE comparing climbing times from year to year, I have to agree that this method actually has some value. I think if multiple different climbs were added, it would start to and show meaningful trends.

You've stated you don't want to go through the exercise of collecting all of this data (and fair enough, I don't want to go through the time, either...). Bu, would you be able to compute the student t distribution for these years to show the variability and statistical relevance of the data, or provide me with the source data so that I can do the computation?

This is one source

http://www.climbing-records.com/2013/07/five-fresh-names-in-all-time-top-100.html

Another

http://www.fillarifoorumi.fi/forum/...km-h-VAM-W-W-kg-etc-%29&p=2041608#post2041608

As for those times that didn't make the list, you have to go back over historical data and work out the times of finishing placings and reports.

So if a time is in the top 200 but some of the other placings are not, calculate back adding on the difference in time. Also need to check if group all began climb together, usually did.