So Suddenly the Tour is clean. Where did this idea come from

[Nick777]

2006


The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

Nah, he was over 41 minutes that year.

 

[usedtobefast]

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Nah, he was over 41 minutes that year.

Nope.
Mativs original post stated: "Cadel has done Alpe d'Huez in around 40 minutes too" - it is a small point if your saying it was "over 41mins" but actually Mativs time is nearer.


Cadel started in the Landis/Kloden group at the bottom of the Alpe and they were chasing a break that included eventual winner Frank Schleck (who climbed AdH in 40:46).

Landis & Kloden finished @1:10 but climbed AdH in 38:34.

Evans finished @2:49 to Schleck - or @1:39 to the Landis/Kloden group he started the climb with.
Add 1:39 to Landis/Klodens ascent and he climbed it in 40:13.

 

[BigBoat]

http://teamsky.cyclingnews.com/tech...hich-is-harder-team-or-individual-time-trial/

Looking at those two power files I get a strong sensation cycling is exactly where it was in 2005, and perhaps slightly slower than 1998.

43rd placed Flecha.

 

[Anonymous]

Ferrari with a timely reminder that is was he who first tested evans and saw his potential
http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=indepth.view&id=123

ho hum

 

[maltiv]

Ferrari with a timely reminder that is was he who first tested evans and saw his potential
http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=indepth.view&id=123

ho hum

I find it quite hard to believe that they specifically contancted Ferrari only to test Cadels VAM, anyone could measure that. To me it sounds like he tested how well he responded to EPO...

 

[Markyboyzx6r]

Cadel needs Ferrari's praise like he needs another hole in his backside.

L'Equipe didn't really make much of Voeckler's lone chase, though. Neither did the commentators on France 2/3. I was stood there shouting at the TV like a madman, willing him to drop back. Europcar panic-ed, it seems. Plus, sending Rolland up the road in the lead group while the team had 3 men chasing on the descent seemed nonsensical.

Better to have a man on the podium than a man in the maillot blanc, I say. Sorry... that's off-topic.

 

[Anonymous]

the only thing that makes me slightly uneasy about this years tour is the similarity to 1999.

Cycling full of doping allegations, previous winner under a cloud of suspicion, cycling needs a new hero, back then it was the American returning from Cancer, who won the Tour clean. This year it was the rider considered by many to be clean, finally getting the victory he deserved to show that all is right in the world of cycling.

Cadel Evans is probably the best winner that the UCI could have hoped for.

Something from a few years back..

Tensions remained high during the winter months after the drug scandals of the 1998 Tour de France (TdF) . The return of the Grand Boucle fell under intense media scrutiny, and race management seriously considered the suspension of the Tour for a year. Defending Tour champion Marco Pantani was recently expelled from the Giro d'Italia , while in the race lead, because of an elevated hematocrat, level 2 % above the UCI's 50% acceptable level. He chose not to defend his TdF championship. Pantani's problem further increased race director Jean-Marie LeBlanc's anxiety during his on-going efforts to return the Tour to normalcy.

Three weeks before the Tour during the official Tour announcements, Leblanc tried to distance the Tour from the previous year's scandal. He banned both Frenchman Richard Virenque (a formerly expelled Festina rider) and the entire TVM team. Shortly after this announcement, cycling's governing body, the UCI ( Union Cycliste International ), entered the discussion. Because of improper notification (one month is required), the UCI re-instated Virenque. Earlier in 1999 the UCI took a similar action by shortening the drug related suspensions of the Festina riders. Of the 8 Festina riders expelled in 1998, 7 (most with new teams) were on the start line in Le Puy de Fou.

The Sociate de Tour de France was staggered by the ruling but pushed aggressively ahead. Doping controls were intensified, urine tests were doubled, and surprise blood tests were instituted. The message was clear, “cheaters will be caught.” The stage was set for a clean race, but the Grand Boucle still needed more, a new hero and a good will story to change the sagging perception of the race.

The 1999 Tour marked the miraculous return of American Lance Armstrong. After winning a 2-year battle with testicular cancer, Armstrong returned to the Tour with a bang. He covered the 6.8 km prologue course in 8 minutes 02 seconds to win the prologue and take the first Maillot Jaune (race leader's Yellow Jersey) of 1999. Armstrong held on July 4th , the American's patriotic holiday . The media began writing the beginning of a ‘feel good story'.

snip

The next day, Lance Armstrong rode onto the Champs Elysees in Paris to claim the 1999 Tour de France victory. With amazement, astonishment, and great admiration this TALL Texan crossed the finish line to rave reviews. His comeback from a deathbed to win the Grand Boucle , gave the TdF the goodwill story and new hero it so desperately needed.

http://www.cyclingrevealed.com/aug05/top25-22.html

lets fast forward ten years.

Tensions remained high during the winter months after the drug scandals of the 2010 Tour de France (TdF) . The return of the Grand Boucle fell under intense media scrutiny,

The Sociate de Tour de France pushed aggressively ahead. Doping controls were intensified, urine tests were doubled, the AFLD were brought in to do testing and surprise blood tests were instituted. The message was clear, “cheaters will be caught.” The stage was set for a clean race, but the Grand Boucle still needed more, a new hero and a good will story to change the sagging perception of the race.

The 2011 Tour saw the return to form of the rider many considered to be clean, Cadel Evans. The media began writing the beginning of a ‘feel good story'.

snip

The next day, Cadel Evans rode onto the Champs Elysees in Paris to claim the 2011 Tour de France victory. With amazement, astonishment, and great admiration this Australian crossed the finish line to rave reviews. His success after so many near misses, gave the TdF the goodwill story and new hero it so desperately needed

 

[Anonymous]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...t-only-cycling-is-associated-with-doping.html

"These days it doesn't exist anymore, they took the time to hunt down the cheats and today it is clearly a very clean sport."

 

[indurain666]

http://teamsky.cyclingnews.com/tech...hich-is-harder-team-or-individual-time-trial/

Looking at those two power files I get a strong sensation cycling is exactly where it was in 2005, and perhaps slightly slower than 1998.

43rd placed Flecha.

What? Pantani reached the top of the Galibier in 1998 in 5 C rain in a time that was only good enough for guys nowadays to get to the entry of the tunnel. Times are much slower nowadays compared to late 90s...not saying cycling is clean but check the numbers...

 

[BigBoat]

What? Pantani reached the top of the Galibier in 1998 in 5 C rain in a time that was only good enough for guys nowadays to get to the entry of the tunnel. Times are much slower nowadays compared to late 90s...not saying cycling is clean but check the numbers...

Bro, power has very little to do with speed. You have to look at power numbers that's the performance.

If it was all about speed then my mother riding at 30 mph with a 30 mph tailwind must be doped.

The FTP (funtional threshold power) on Flecha was close to 410 watts and he is meas-ling around in the 40-60 places, couldnt even win a stage. If he's FTP is 410 what was Thor's? 475 watts!!

I guarantee the best Lemond or Fingon would have done in this year;s TDF would have been what they got in the first epo Tour 1991. 6th or 7th....Tops. Heck probably more like 30th.

Doping still goes on, its evident in the amount of power you need just to ride the time trial stages without being eliminated.

Flecha was at 375 watts sitting at the back of the train drafting. Try holding 375, ha! Most doped pros and cat 1s in the USA wouldnt be able to hold the wheels let alone pull.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Holy **** @ those power numbers. Quite impressive.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I doubt it became cleaner in just one year. Contador for example rode Alpe Dhuez last year 5 seconds faster than Marco Pantani. In the Dauphiné obviously, but still.

It's just because Contador was lacking in form that people think it's cleaner now.

Wrong. He was 5 minutes slower than Pantani.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=8044

 

[Escarabajo]

Bro, power has very little to do with speed. You have to look at power numbers that's the performance.

If it was all about speed then my mother riding at 30 mph with a 30 mph tailwind must be doped.

The FTP (funtional threshold power) on Flecha was close to 410 watts and he is meas-ling around in the 40-60 places, couldnt even win a stage. If he's FTP is 410 what was Thor's? 475 watts!!

I guarantee the best Lemond or Fingon would have done in this year;s TDF would have been what they got in the first epo Tour 1991. 6th or 7th....Tops. Heck probably more like 30th.

Doping still goes on, its evident in the amount of power you need just to ride the time trial stages without being eliminated.

Flecha was at 375 watts sitting at the back of the train drafting. Try holding 375, ha! Most doped pros and cat 1s in the USA wouldnt be able to hold the wheels let alone pull.

Divide all those numbers by Flechas and Thor's weight and see what you get. If they are below 6 w/kg then they should be fine.

Remember that those guys are heavier than Hinault and Lemond.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Bro, power has very little to do with speed. You have to look at power numbers that's the performance.

If it was all about speed then my mother riding at 30 mph with a 30 mph tailwind must be doped.

The FTP (funtional threshold power) on Flecha was close to 410 watts and he is meas-ling around in the 40-60 places, couldnt even win a stage. If he's FTP is 410 what was Thor's? 475 watts!!

I guarantee the best Lemond or Fingon would have done in this year;s TDF would have been what they got in the first epo Tour 1991. 6th or 7th....Tops. Heck probably more like 30th.

Doping still goes on, its evident in the amount of power you need just to ride the time trial stages without being eliminated.

Flecha was at 375 watts sitting at the back of the train drafting. Try holding 375, ha! Most doped pros and cat 1s in the USA wouldnt be able to hold the wheels let alone pull.

Doesn't your "Thor must be 475 watts" point fall apart when you apply your own (correct) reasoning that speed is not an indication of power.
It matters little what placing either would have.

As we don't have the power numbers for the top GC guys the only data we have is the times from the climbs - certainly not definitive but whats noticeable is how consistent the slower times have been throughout this Tour and no obvious ET performance.

 

[acoggan]

Divide all those numbers by Flechas and Thor's weight and see what you get. If they are below 6 w/kg then they should be fine.

Remember that those guys are heavier than Hinault and Lemond.

Flecha's TT = ~400 W/~74 kg = ~5.4 W/kg.

All else being equal, he would have had to sustain ~460 W (~6.2 W/kg) to challenge for the win in the TT.

(Although CdA does not scale directly with mass, W/kg is still a reasonable surrogate for W/m^2 of frontal area, especially since 1) the final TT was not flat, and 2) Flecha is roughly similar in size to those who made the podium.)

 

[acoggan]

Flecha's TT = ~400 W/~74 kg = ~5.4 W/kg.

All else being equal, he would have had to sustain ~460 W (~6.2 W/kg) to challenge for the win in the TT.

Hmmm...thinking about it a bit, that certainly suggests that things haven't changed all that much.

 

[maltiv]

Bro, power has very little to do with speed. You have to look at power numbers that's the performance.

If it was all about speed then my mother riding at 30 mph with a 30 mph tailwind must be doped.

The FTP (funtional threshold power) on Flecha was close to 410 watts and he is meas-ling around in the 40-60 places, couldnt even win a stage. If he's FTP is 410 what was Thor's? 475 watts!!

I guarantee the best Lemond or Fingon would have done in this year;s TDF would have been what they got in the first epo Tour 1991. 6th or 7th....Tops. Heck probably more like 30th.

Doping still goes on, its evident in the amount of power you need just to ride the time trial stages without being eliminated.

Flecha was at 375 watts sitting at the back of the train drafting. Try holding 375, ha! Most doped pros and cat 1s in the USA wouldnt be able to hold the wheels let alone pull.

Which would result in a w/kg of 5,4 for Thor. That is certainly achievable without doping.

 

[Franklin]

1) the final TT was not flat

My god.. you are serious? The average speed clearly indicates the key factor are Aerodynamics. For all purposes the TT was not nearly hilly enough to just look at watts.

2) Flecha is roughly similar in size to those who made the podium.)

Are you just posting for the fun of it? We do not know the aerodynamics of Flecha and we certainly do not know it's comparable with the top. There is a lot more to aerodynamics than body size.

Amazing the nonsense supposedly "knowledgeable" guys post here.

 

[Winterfold]

Loving the way people just make stuff up to suit their argument eg Pistolero's time for Contador to climb the Alpe in the Dauphine last year. Such a spectacular fail - how did you think you were going to get away with that drivel?

It used to be that The Clinic had credible posters who were academically minded and who referenced their claims from a credible source.

ho hum

 

[acoggan]

My god.. you are serious? The average speed clearly indicates the key factor are Aerodynamics. For all purposes the TT was not nearly hilly enough to just look at watts.



Are you just posting for the fun of it? We do not know the aerodynamics of Flecha and we certainly do not know it's comparable with the top. There is a lot more to aerodynamics than body size.

Amazing the nonsense supposedly "knowledgeable" guys post here.

Riddle me this, Batman: across a group of cyclists ranging in size the way the peleton in the TdF does, what is the correlation between mass and CdA? (Hint: the answer can be found in the presentation I gave on field testing for USA Cycling.)

 

[Franklin]

Riddle me this, Batman: across a group of cyclists ranging in size the way the peleton in the TdF does, what is the correlation between mass and CdA? (Hint: the answer can be found in the presentation I gave on field testing for USA Cycling.)

You are not looking at average of the peloton mr. Coggan. You are comparing one specimen (who certainly isn't the most aerodynamic) versus a select few who are specialized in the TT. Even worse, the specimen is in an uncontroled environemt with a lot of guesses about his characteristics (you didn't put him through a windtunnel).

You simply take the wattages of this single specimen, add X percentage to get the right time and presto! But even you know that is quite wrong and could be of quite a lot... devaluating the whole scenario.

You actually state that Flecha needed 6.2 watt, which is high and thus an indication for doping. However a guy with a simlar weight+power and different aerodynamics would get a different result.

4% overestimated on 6.2 watt per kg means you dip under the 6 watt per kg. Are you going to tell me that you know exactly the aerodynamics of the riders?

Sorry mr Coggan, using Flecha's wattage and extrapolate it for him to win this TT and then conclude it's high and thus an indication for a dirty peloton is ludicrous.

So call me batman. I call you a pseudo scientist. One is a hero, the other... well... not so good

 

[acoggan]

You are not looking at average of the peloton mr. Coggan. You are comparing one specimen (who certainly isn't the most aerodynamic) versus a select few who are specialized in the TT. Even worse, the specimen is in an uncontroled environemt with a lot of guesses about his characteristics (you didn't put him through a windtunnel).

You simply take the wattages of this single specimen, add X percentage to get the right time and presto! But even you know that is quite wrong and could be of quite a lot... devaluating the whole scenario.

You actually state that Flecha needed 6.2 watt, which is high and thus an indication for doping. However a guy with a simlar weight+power and different aerodynamics would get a different result.

4% overestimated on 6.2 watt per kg means you dip under the 6 watt per kg. Are you going to tell me that you know exactly the aerodynamics of the riders?

Sorry mr Coggan, using Flecha's wattage and extrapolate it for him to win this TT and then conclude it's high and thus an indication for a dirty peloton is ludicrous.

So call me batman. I call you a pseudo scientist. One is a hero, the other... well... not so good

First, you seemed to have missed where I said "all else being equal".

Second, I drew no conclusions re. doping, merely pointed out that based on Flecha's data, it would appear that a 74 kg rider of average build/position/aerodynamics would need to produce about as much power to win ITTs as was true in, e.g., Armstrong's day.

 

[Franklin]

First, you seemed to have missed where I said "all else being equal".

Second, I drew no conclusions re. doping, merely pointed out that based on Flecha's data, it would appear that a 74 kg rider of average build/position/aerodynamics would need to produce about as much power to win ITTs as was true in, e.g., Armstrong's day.

There is a fundamental flaw which is pointed out in University:

You can not use the average outcome of a sample to draw conclusions about a single specimen of that sample.

Secondly all else equal is only possible in a lab environment on controlled parameters.

Now where are the flaws in the flecha case:

1. Did Flecha use the most efficient lines? In other words, would a specialist with a similar output score better? Considering Flecha had nothing on the line it's almost certain he didn't go to the edge.
2. Flecha, Martin and Cadel started at completely different times, hours apart of each other. Weather conditions will almost certainly have differed.
3. Flecha is not the average 74 kg rider. In fact there is no such person. The average of the sample says little about the single specimen.

A comparison between Cadel/Martin and Ulrich/Armstrong probably would be more useful, as you would be comparing the actual winners but they didn't ride this parcourse at the same cOnditions.


Mr. Coggan, the idea of using Flecha to extrapolate the wattage of the winner and using that to see if it's clean is flawed in the extreme. Ph D. or not, that is not scientific at all.

 

[acoggan]

Mr. Coggan, the idea of using Flecha to extrapolate the wattage of the winner and using that to see if it's clean

Again, your reading comprehension seems to be lacking: I drew no conclusions as to whether the winner was doping - indeed, I do not believe that such a conclusion could be drawn even if Martin's power were known. All I have done is point out that, based on Flecha's data, there doesn't seem to be much difference in the power a rider of his (Flecha's) size/position/equipment choice would need to generate to win.