• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. 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!

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

Page 9 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2009
3,687
2
0
Visit site
acoggan said:
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.

My reading comprehension is fine, thank you very much.

We are in the clinic, in a topic about the peloton becoming cleaner. Based on Flecha's performance you state that it seems it hasn't changed.


acoggan said:
acoggan said:
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.

Of course above statement is false as I pointed out, but there you have it.


But mr. Coggan, how can some one of your pedigree manage to make a statement as flawed as that?

Even if you could plot Flecha's performance with an averaged value (it would be mindbogling bad science, but there we go), you actually only have a limited set of data on Flecha which makes this exercise futile (unless you have access to all Flecha's files I assume you are just using a few data points which are published).

And even if you could it still wouldn't work considering it's not a labaratory. Weather+cornering (taking risks) would surely give enough uncertainty to offset it more than 4%, which would put it under the 6 watt line or way above it.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Visit site
Franklin said:
We are in the clinic, in a topic about the peloton becoming cleaner. Based on Flecha's performance you state that it seems it hasn't changed.

"It" being the approximate power (power:CdA, really) seemingly required to win TT stages in the TdF, not the frequency/efficacy of doping.

Franklin said:
mr. Coggan, how can some one of your pedigree manage to make a statement as flawed as that?

Simple, really: I didn't make any such statement.

Franklin said:
Even if you could plot Flecha's performance with an averaged value (it would be mindbogling bad science, but there we go), you actually only have a limited set of data on Flecha which makes this exercise futile (unless you have access to all Flecha's files I assume you are just using a few data points which are published).

And even if you could it still wouldn't work considering it's not a labaratory. Weather+cornering (taking risks) would surely give enough uncertainty to offset it more than 4%, which would put it under the 6 watt line or way above it.

To quote the Great Communicator: there you go again. To wit: who said anything about 6 W/kg (or any other value, for that matter) being evidence of doping? I certainly didn't.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
2
0
Visit site
acoggan said:
Simple, really: I didn't make any such statement.

Amazingly enough I quoted you literally.

So there we have it, flawed methodlogy, abuse of statistics, not checking your own posts.

If I was talking to a random poster it would be funny, but with your claim to fame... geez. Then again, I saw posters rip you to shreds earlier, so why am I even surprised.

I'm ending it here as you obviously fail to grasp how to work with statistics (and this sample is not homogenous).
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Visit site
Franklin said:
Amazingly enough I quoted you literally.

Clearly you did not, as I never said anything about doping.

Franklin said:
So there we have it, flawed methodlogy, abuse of statistics, not checking your own posts.

I also did not perform any statistical analyses, and I don't need to check my own posts because I know precisely what I wrote (and the data I had in mind when I wrote it).

Franklin said:
I'm ending it here as you obviously fail to grasp how to work with statistics (and this sample is not homogenous).

More relevantly (and correctly), you have taken my words out of context and attempted to claim that I have said something that I have not.
 
Time out.

I assume if one looked at Flecha's Stage 20 data one would have also looked at Chris Anker Sørensen's data and saw that he did 334w/64kg = 5.22 w/kg but finished 22 seconds faster than Juan Antonio Flecha, despite putting out both less w/kg and less absolute watts.

We understand the scientific reasons why we might have expected the opposite, but to see a heavier, less lanky rider put out more w/kg (as a proxy to w/CdA) to go slower? Yes, conditions vary between time trials and it could happen in principle but it turns out there is a confounding factor - Flecha was on O,Symetric rings: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150243157507183&set=pt.26676437182&type=1&theater

More often than not, when cyclists switch from round to Rotor Q-Rings or O,Symetric rings the slope increases ~1-5%. In addition, the fact there is no longer constant angular velocity fools crank based PMs into over reporting power, as has been discussed in other power based forums. Of course, the bigger the "deformation" in the chainring the bigger this effect will be and the O,Symetric rings are the worst offender.

What I am driving at is that all signs point to Flecha's power being over-reported, easily ~5% given all of the factors and CAS's data where he only had to ride at ~84% of his FTP vs. Flecha having to ride at ~95% of his FTP with the quoted data. A 5% reduction in Flecha's data as a model has the winning ride at 5.9 w/kg instead of 6.2 w/kg. Not to mention that it is probably more around 5.8 w/kg based on that Tony Martin is still yet slightly more massive than Flecha and has undoubtedly been through much more aero testing as a time trial specialist than Flecha.

These of course are just estimates (note *everything* measured is an estimate - even "calibrated" SRM data...) but 5.8 w/kg is *much* more believable than 6.2 w/kg - especially when people start throwing around obviously incendiary comments at the state of the current peloton compared to the past.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Visit site
acoggan said:
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.

Well, there's reason that Flecha isn't typically competing for the win in TT's then, isn't there?

Sorensen did ~5.2 W/kg and beat Flecha by 20 seconds. And Sorensen isn't exactly known as a TT specialist. While Flecha may need to do 6.2 W/kg to win the TT, it's highly doubtful that Martin needed anywhere near that much wattage.

Also, having talked to someone who rode the TT, his general impression was that there was significant amount of time to be gained by either knowing the course really well, or risking your life. Given all that, I think it's impossible to make a determination as to just how much wattage it took for a guy with good aerodynamics and a pedigree of success in time trials to actually win the time trial; but my guess is that it was significantly less than 6.2 W/kg. Therefore, I think it's hard to say whether or not "things have changed" based on the TT.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
2
0
Visit site
acoggan said:
also did not perform any statistical analyses, and I don't need to check my own posts because I know precisely what I wrote (and the data I had in mind when I wrote it).

You are funny.. you say that mass correlates with CdA, which is clearly statistical data. This will undeniably be true if you take a peloton as a whole, but individuals will certainly deviate. You use this statistic as argument why you can raise Flecha's wattage to get Martin's time. To make matters worse a TT is more than just pumping watts. It would be an amusing but futile exercise if you left it at that, but you state that wattages per Kg needed are the same as in Armstrongs time. This is ridiculous as there simply is no way to make such a statement.

Flawed methodology and abuse of statistics.

And mr Coggan. Look at the subject. Now what would "not much changed" imply with that in mind? What would saying everything is the same as in LA's time imply? What imaginary context did you have in mind?

V3R1T4S said:
Not to mention that it is probably more around 5.8 w/kg based on that Tony Martin is still yet slightly more massive than Flecha and has undoubtedly been through much more aero testing as a time trial specialist than Flecha.

Don't forget Martin more than likely took more risks and took corners more aggressively.

131313 said:
Sorensen did ~5.2 W/kg and beat Flecha by 20 seconds. And Sorensen isn't exactly known as a TT specialist. While Flecha may need to do 6.2 W/kg to win the TT, it's highly doubtful that Martin needed anywhere near that much wattage.

Also, having talked to someone who rode the TT, his general impression was that there was significant amount of time to be gained by either knowing the course really well, or risking your life. Given all that, I think it's impossible to make a determination as to just how much wattage it took for a guy with good aerodynamics and a pedigree of success in time trials to actually win the time trial]

And there we have it. Thank you 131313 :)

To mr. Coggan, this is why your exercise is completely bogus.
 
V3R1T4S said:
We understand the scientific reasons why we might have expected the opposite, but to see a heavier, less lanky rider put out more w/kg (as a proxy to w/CdA) to go slower? Yes, conditions vary between time trials and it could happen in principle but it turns out there is a confounding factor - Flecha was on O,Symetric rings: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150243157507183&set=pt.26676437182&type=1&theater

More often than not, when cyclists switch from round to Rotor Q-Rings or O,Symetric rings the slope increases ~1-5%. In addition, the fact there is no longer constant angular velocity fools crank based PMs into over reporting power, as has been discussed in other power based forums. Of course, the bigger the "deformation" in the chainring the bigger this effect will be and the O,Symetric rings are the worst offender.
We don't know whether or not the SRM slope on Flecha's bike had been adjusted to account for this.

All I see is:
Fletcha rode a given time & W/kg.
That recorded power may or may not be corrrect.
If correct, then for him to ride a winning time would require this to go up to 6.2W/kg
That's about what used to be required in Armstrong's day.

I don't see anywhere it suggested that the winner actually rode at 6.2W/kg

If anyone understands the in and outs of aerodynamics on performance, it's Dr Coggan. The Schlecks could probably learn a lot from him about ways to make tall slim guys super aero.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
2
0
Visit site
Alex Simmons/RST said:
If correct, then for him to ride a winning time would require this to go up to 6.2W/kg

No, this is already flawed from the premise. He could also take a lot more risks and gain time.

I don't see anywhere it suggested that the winner actually rode at 6.2W/kg

Did you read mr. Coggan's two posts about Flecha? He certainly said that it suggested not much had changed. You can't spin it into something else.

If anyone understands the in and outs of aerodynamics on performance, it's Dr Coggan. The Schlecks could probably learn a lot from him about ways to make tall slim guys super aero.

I have reason to doubt his abilities in this field considering his methodology is blatantly flawed. I'm sure he's a fine coach, but it's clear that some other knowledgable people (the Science of Sport for instance) are having issues with his methodology as well.

As a coach it's fine to use general principles. But in this discussion the uncertainties are so important for the eventual outcome that we can't draw any conclusions as precise as mr. Coggan did, even if the methodology was correct, which clearly it isn't. I would have hoped he would know the limits yet he is adamant about his methodolgy.

So maybe a good coach, but most definitely not the definitive authority here on power, aerodynamics and timetrials.
 
Franklin said:
No, this is already flawed from the premise. He could also take a lot more risks and gain time.
Not enough to change the equations of motion for a cyclist that much though.

Franklin said:
Did you read mr. Coggan's two posts about Flecha? He certainly said that it suggested not much had changed. You can't spin it into something else.
Yes I did read them. I didn't interpret it to mean anything other than what he wrote.

Franklin said:
I have reason to doubt his abilities in this field considering his methodology is blatantly flawed. I'm sure he's a fine coach, but it's clear that some other knowledgable people (the Science of Sport for instance) are having issues with his methodology as well.
No offense to the SOS guys (I like chatting with them), but Dr Coggan would know an awful lot more about the physics of cycling that those guys.

Have a read of this paper for instance and note the authors:
Martin, J.C., D.L. Milliken, J.E. Cobb, K.L. McFadden, and A.R. Coggan. Validation of a mathematical model for road-cycling power. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 14(3): 276-291; 1998

This paper and the models have certainly stood the test of time, again and again. There have been refinements for application on velodromes to account for the uniqueness of that environment, but these are small order functions.

Franklin said:
As a coach it's fine to use general principles. But in this discussion the uncertainties are so important for the eventual outcome that we can't draw any conclusions as precise as mr. Coggan did, even if the methodology was correct, which clearly it isn't. I would have hoped he would know the limits yet he is adamant about his methodolgy.
Exactly what was wrong with the conclusion he drew, i.e. that Flecha, in order to win the TT, would have required to put out more power? Seems a no-brainer to be honest.

Sure, some more aggressive cornering is one factor but all that means is you get off the gas later before corners and on the gas earlier after exit (or indeed take some corners in such a manner that you don't need to stop pedaling, or you descend faster in coasting sections, reducing time spent not pedaling), all resulting in more time pedaling hard and increasing average power as a result.

A simple examination of power meter files comparing technical and non-technical TTs would show you that.

It's certainly my own experience as well, indeed it was my ability to do just (attacking the cornering) that that saw me beat my national TT champion at a recent UCI world cup road TT just 3 weeks after he put a minute into me on a non technical course. My power went up, his didn't.

Not that the Grenoble Stage 20 TT was really all that technical.

Franklin said:
So maybe a good coach, but most definitely not the definitive authority here on power, aerodynamics and timetrials.
Dr Coggan is not a coach. He's a scientist.

I'd venture he probably knows more about the relationship between power, aerodynamics and time trials than most in here.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
2
0
Visit site
Alex Simmons/RST said:
Not enough to change the equations of motion for a cyclist that much though.


Yes I did read them. I didn't interpret it to mean anything other than what he wrote.

Ah yes, the claim nothing much seems to have changed is just there for fun.

No offense to the SOS guys (I like chatting with them), but Dr Coggan would know an awful lot more about the physics of cycling that those guys.

Have a read of this paper for instance and note the authors:
Martin, J.C., D.L. Milliken, J.E. Cobb, K.L. McFadden, and A.R. Coggan. Validation of a mathematical model for road-cycling power. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 14(3): 276-291; 1998

This paper and the models have certainly stood the test of time, again and again. There have been refinements for application on velodromes to account for the uniqueness of that environment, but these are small order functions.

I know you have shown over the years you really like his books and articles, but what he is claiming here is quite of the deep end.

Our great scientist is abusing statistics and using flawed methodology. You do not have to be an expert to shoot a whole in his methods, as these rules bout statistics are pretty even.

The average of a sample says nothing about a single specimen of the sample. Mr. Coggan blatantly does that as is shown by his snotty referral to his own article. However that article might work in general and might be indicative, it's certainly not precise enough to estimate the TT winners Watt per kg.

Keep in mind that a 4% deviation is enough to blow his "nothing much has changed" clearly out of the water.


Exactly what was wrong with the conclusion he drew, i.e. that Flecha, in order to win the TT, would have required to put out more power? Seems a no-brainer to be honest.

Now, now, now... be a good lad and read what he said: he used Flecha as he is supposedly indicative of Martin's and Cadel wattage as he's the same size/weight.

Flawed methodology ahoy.

Sure, some more aggressive cornering is one factor but all that means is you get off the gas later before corners and on the gas earlier after exit (or indeed take some corners in such a manner that you don't need to stop pedaling, or you descend faster in coasting sections, reducing time spent not pedaling), all resulting in more time pedaling hard and increasing average power as a result.

A simple examination of power meter files comparing technical and non-technical TTs would show you that.

BWUHAHAHAHA.. ok say what? If you corner more aggressively you also make a lot less metres. Also, you brake less which definitely gains "free" power.

It's certainly my own experience as well, indeed it was my ability to do just (attacking the cornering) that that saw me beat my national TT champion at a recent UCI world cup road TT just 3 weeks after he put a minute into me on a non technical course. My power went up, his didn't.

Did your watt per Kg go up because you cornered better... amazing :rolleyes:

Not that the Grenoble Stage 20 TT was really all that technical.

Dr Coggan is not a coach. He's a scientist.

I'd venture he probably knows more about the relationship between power, aerodynamics and time trials than most in here.

Scientists err all the time. And he just made some errors which are so glaring it hurts to look at them. This is not the first time he's been criticized for similar errors and not just here. His articles and stances have been accused of sloppy and lazy science. Rightly so it seems.

Doesn't it make you wonder he hasn't been able to refute a single point?

Mr. Coggan's articles and research certainly work for training as what he says in general works. But if he's using that research to make an estimate of what Flecha needed to win the TT and then say that shows what Martin+Cadel needed is just hokey.

acoggan said:
Flecha is roughly similar in size to those who made the podium

Just to drive home the point he was claiming a lot more than just fool around with Flecha's numbers ;)
 
Franklin said:
BWUHAHAHAHA.. ok say what? If you corner more aggressively you also make a lot less metres. Also, you brake less which definitely gains "free" power.
Hmmm. I think you might have gone to the Frank Day school of trigonometry. How many metres do you think are saved on such a course by cutting the lines?

It's not distance you save by cornering aggressively (in fact you might actually add distance) - it's the ability to enter and exit corners faster because of the lines chosen.

Braking and coasting are both zero power events.

Franklin said:
Did your watt per Kg go up because you cornered better... amazing :rolleyes:
No, I was able to sustain higher power because of aggressive cornering compared to someone who wasn't. That's the point - if you are more aggressive with cornering, your average power will be higher than if you aren't.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
2
0
Visit site
Alex Simmons/RST said:
Braking and coasting are both zero power events.

You are not serious I hope.

I'll give it one shot to explain: if you brake you loose speed. To get back to that speed takes power, more than to maintain it. Same with coasting.

About the cornering, the same principle applies. You use less power as you leave the apex at a higher speed. This cost less power, not more.

About less metres: on a 50 mile course, depending on the curves, this will certainly shave of seconds. Not going unnecessarily from left to right and then back again saves metres. Knowing to stay at the left hand so you line up well for the next corner saves metres and time. Knowing where on which places there is cover for wind saves energy (hence scouting).

Your denial that efficient riding is hardly important is simply to defend your untenable position. In reality it's very important.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
Visit site
Franklin said:
'...'About the cornering, the same principle applies. You use less power as you leave the apex at a higher speed. This cost less power, not more.'...'

I did a bit of a double take reading Alex's latest posts too, but actually I think he has a point. It's true that you require less power, to finish in the same time as the guy who entered the corner slower. But it's not necessarily true that you use less power. Instead, you might decide to work harder before and after the corners, go faster, and hand the guy his @ss.
 
Franklin said:
You are not serious I hope.

I'll give it one shot to explain: if you brake you loose speed. To get back to that speed takes power, more than to maintain it. Same with coasting.

About the cornering, the same principle applies. You use less power as you leave the apex at a higher speed. This cost less power, not more.
I'm talking about power output, not speed.

When coasting or braking, you are not pedaling = more time at zero power.

More time at zero power = lower average power.

Yes, efforts to re-accelerate are at higher than one's average power, however since there is a curvilinear relationship between power and the duration we can sustain it*, it's not a zero sum game, IOW those sections of above average power don't outweigh the time spent not pedaling.

* It's why one who could maximally sustain say an average of 300W for an hour by constant effort, wouldn't have a snowball's hope in Hades of sustaining an hour riding 30 seconds at zero watts followed by 30 seconds at 600W, repeated 59 more times.

It's a pretty basic principle. So yes, I am serious.
Franklin said:
About less metres: on a 50 mile course, depending on the curves, this will certainly shave of seconds. Not going unnecessarily from left to right and then back again saves metres. Knowing to stay at the left hand so you line up well for the next corner saves metres and time. Knowing where on which places there is cover for wind saves energy (hence scouting).
Let's say a line which is shorter saves a "few seconds". That would be about 50 metres. Not that I think one should give away 50 metres out of 80,000 but then you contradict yourself by saying one should look for the fastest line (e.g. looking for shelter, or lining up for the next corner etc) - all of which might add distance.

IOW you are agreeing with me - the fastest way to ride a course is not necessarily the shortest line around the course. That was my point.

Franklin said:
Your denial that efficient riding is hardly important is simply to defend your untenable position. In reality it's very important.
Where exactly have I denied anything about efficient riding of a course?

If anything I have been discussing ways for years on how to best apply energy over a course for the fastest time.

I've even modeled it and provided a methodology to quantify how much time can be saved in solo timed cycling events by expending energy at the best rate on various parts of a given course.
 
Jul 19, 2010
347
0
0
Visit site
Less doping or different doping?

From a compliance point of view it's clearly harder now than it was a few years ago for a rider to load himself up with EPO, certain steroids, testosterone, etc. Since the alternatives apparently aren't as effective as these detectable products, the doping that a cyclist does will be less effective, in absolute terms, than what he could have done (was doing) a few years ago. However, what matters for racing is relative effectiveness, not absolute effectiveness. The optimum thing would be a difficult to detect regimen with the consequence that at the end of a three week tour the rider is fresher than his competition, still capable of pulling up a big hill close to the winner, and comfortable enough to win the final time trial if need be.

That the top riders go up big hills more slowly than they did a few years ago, that they generate less power, or the same power for shorter generations, seems to be well established, at least in very general terms. What does it mean? Some want to conclude that it means there is less doping. This doesn't seem at all justified. If one supposes (it is reasonable for a scientist to include reasonable suppositions in a model) that almost all of the top cyclists are doping, then the conclusion is not they are doping less, rather that they are doping differently, because the most effective doping methods are too easily detectable, and the price for being caught has become to high.

To me this suggests that the development of effective tests, and things like the biological passport, is effective at least in changing the habits of the riders. It seems naive to think they have stopped doping - the marginal benefits are still too great. What drives doping is obviously money - some folks can be happy doing what they love without winning the big prize - but most are more ambitious - or don't see the problem with doing a little something on the side to double or triple or more their incomes - what creates the incentive to dope in professional sports is the huge difference between the winnings/salaries of a very small top tier and the rest (who may in many cases actually just as good). At lower levels, it is the prospect of advancing to the higher level - keeping alive the dream of being Lance Armstrong. Better testing and the like doesn't change any of that - but it can change the means that are employed, and it seems to me the interpretation of the evidence consistent with the hypothesis that they all dope is that they have changed how they dope.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
2
0
Visit site
Alex Simmons/RST said:
I'm talking about power output, not speed.

When coasting or braking, you are not pedaling = more time at zero power.

More time at zero power = lower average power.

This is to simple: braking and coasting can be done at the same stretch, for example a descent. In that case braking might lead to less "zero power time" and yet to a worse time. Otoh, braking late for a corner and coasting less can give less "zero power time" and to a faster time. Average power is connected to the final time, but it's not so clear that we can estimate within a few percent.

In essence we are basically agreeing here, but taking different viewing angles. It's clear why this is so bad for mr. Coggan's calculations. If Flecha brakes all the time, his average power is ineffecient. Someone with better technique and the same average power does better. If Flecha coasts more, or at lower speeds, the same principle applies, he will have a slower time, which is what is in the end the bottom line!


So what if the guy with the better technique needs less maximum power to get that same average output.. he will still be faster. This in itself is why mr. Coggan's calculation is never going to be close enough to say that the winner needs the same watt per Kg as in Armstrongs era. It could be more, it could be less, there are to many uncertainties. That he stands with this and comes with a selfwritten article about average CdA is preposterous. In this case he needs to be precise otherwise it's futile. Applying an average CdA on a specific sample is quite simply wrong to make a statement like this.

IOW you are agreeing with me - the fastest way to ride a course is not necessarily the shortest line around the course. That was my point.

If that's your point you fully agree mr. Coggan is just fooling around here. Because a few metres saved here, a bit more efficient there adds up. Of course you don't just save metres, the point is you can be more efficient by a combination of these things. And as we can also see in descents, this adds up a lot.

This is just another nail in the coffin of estimating Cadel's output by extrapolating Flecha.

Because all your didling around avoids that key issue where I called up mr. Coggan. or do you agree that you can estimate within 5% Cadels output because of what Flecha did? Sidestepping is fun, but do you agree with that claim? And yes, it's clearly there in his post, no weaseling around interpretation possible.

Do you claim that my doctor can closely estimate the output of another guy with my height and weight? Because mr. Coggan claims that he knows Cadels CdA is close to Flecha's. This estimate then gives him enough ground to say: "Not much seems to have changed since Armstrongs time."

Mr. Coggan afaik never worked with either Maritin, Cadel or Flecha and has no access to windtunnel data. He also has no idea how efficient either of them rode. His 6.2 estimate is extremely rough and could easily fall 5% lower, thus indicating it really changed since LA. As a scientist you would think he knows this and posts a caveat. instead he first defends his claim, then denies this claim. Considering his stance about LA I'd say he made a rather biased estimate.

I'm done here, the claims made by mr Coggan are bogus.
 
Oct 18, 2009
456
0
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
Today, i heard the ES studio say they thought the Tour is now cleaner.

Then Harmonn, who often declares people clean because he likes them, said, with so much excitement in his voice, that people were now saying the Tour is clean, and then went on with joy about how great this news was.

A lot of people on the forum, preumably but not all, Cadel fanboys, have said Cadel is the first clean winner. One asks if there is something more than xenophobia preventing them from saying that Sastre was also clean.

Worst of all, i randomly switched over to France news or whatever its called and in the worst report on cycling i have ever seen (including the question "can the sport survive without Lance Armstrong"), it was said that everyone is happy that the Tour is now clean.

It went to a panel that was there to discuss politics of whom no one knew anything about the Tour, and the questioner asked "Can I believe in cycling again". Someone, who had obviously been told to watch 5 minutes of the Tour before hand and had answered the Lance question by saying "well yes there is this ummm Tom fickler" procceeded to say that there are drug tests so the Tour must therefore be cleaner

What, how, where, why when?

What am i missing. Why is the Tour suddenly clean, and whatsmore, why are all the people saying its clean, refusing to give any explanation as to how they recieved this glorious information.

What do they know that I dont?

It seems to me someone started a rumour, and people just got very excited.

One key point that i want to mention is that this is NOT the first time people have said cycling is suddenly clean, based on nothing, and they were not correct on previous occasions.

Or is there actually something behind this? Im not disputing that it might be cleaner. I dont have evidence to the contrary but im asking if there is evidence to support this idea.

And importantly, why would the change be so sudden?
Why after 20 years of doping, would it there be a immediate change from dirty to clean. Its been less than 12 months since Contador and Mosquera, its the same year as Ricco got caught again and Sinkiewitz, and all of a sudden July 2011 its all clean again. Why? What great variable changed between February and July 2011?

TeamSkyFans said:
I think there is a big difference between clean and cleaner.

The climbing statistics would suggest that riders are doping less.

The complete failure of radioshack (what riders made it through the crashes) to do anything suggests they are doping a lot less

The fact that on two mountains stages the gruppetto managed to miss the time cut despite the leaders climbing slower then previous years suggests that even the grupetto are doping less.

Of course 95% are still doping.

They are just doping a little less.

Haha an entertaining thread. I'm tending to agree with you guys and I think that a popular winner has prompted people to agree that the tour is cleaner. I guess if people are satisfied with the winner they are less inclined to think about things like doping. But if they were butthurt they would surely complain that the tour was full of drougés. On the other hand maybe Cadel is relatively a good deal cleaner and we've witnessed something quite remarkable .. I don't know.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
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.

Nice work. I stand corrected, as the man with the orthopaedic shoes once said.
 
Oct 16, 2009
3,864
0
0
Visit site
The 2006 Alpe times are scary. Even with the Puerto bust, Flandis and Klödi were doped to the gills. Imagine how fast Jan and Basso--or even worse, Armstrong--would've gone up that year, if Floyd did 38:34. Only Ulle, Pantani and Lance have gone up faster than Landis and Klöden did in 06.
 
Franklin said:
This is just another nail in the coffin of estimating Cadel's output by extrapolating Flecha.

Because all your didling around avoids that key issue where I called up mr. Coggan. or do you agree that you can estimate within 5% Cadels output because of what Flecha did? Sidestepping is fun, but do you agree with that claim? And yes, it's clearly there in his post, no weaseling around interpretation possible.
Given Flecha's TT power file, along with a little more information, such as a detailed course elevation profile (it wasn't quite but nearly an out and back course), and a bit of info on overall wind conditions (although that's not totally necessary), I could make a pretty decent estimate of Flecha's CdA (I would have to assume a Crr value, but have a fair idea of what's likely).

Then we know the power to drag ratio (W/m^2) to ride Flecha's time, and knowing the mass of the winner (or Cadel) can very reasonably extrapolate the W/m^2 required by the winner (or Cadel).

In fact I could quantify how well or otherwise Flecha's pacing was and give you a range of power outputs for the winner (or Cadel) from good to excellent pacing.

Having modeled this a lot with data from Pros (e.g. Pinotti, Miller) to amateurs, it is my experience that excellent/winning TT riders naturally pace excellently, which isn't really a surprise since it's a factor that contributes to winning.
 
Alex Simmons/RST said:
Given Flecha's TT power file, along with a little more information, such as a detailed course elevation profile
If someone could save me the time and supply a WKO+ or SRM file for Flecha's TT, along with a gpx file of the exact TT course (or a map my ride reference), and body mass for Flecha, Martin & Evans, I can run some models when I get a chance.
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
Visit site
May 26, 2009
3,687
2
0
Visit site
Mrs John Murphy said:
Question - why have Cunego's performances improved since being implicate in Mantova. Anyone would think he has said '**** it I am going down so I might as well Contador it up while I can'.

You are making stuff up... his performances took a nosedive since 2008. Now he gets a top ten in a weakened field where clearly the speeds are lower than in many many years.

Saying his performance improved is ridiculous.

On a side note, pray tell, as you clearly judged and juried Contador.. what is "Contador it up"? Eat contaminated steak? :rolleyes:

I'm so glad that real experts and judges handle this instead of the CCC (Cycling Clinic Clan). The ideas of proper procedures here harken back to the Spanish inquisition.