Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

Page 356 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 19, 2024
133
296
1,230
This is an argument of the form "this is so because so it is". When comparing running and cycling, one should also note that in cycling drafting is the big thing and the majority of time in every race is spent in a tight group, aka peloton. That does not work in running and contributes towards results being closer in cycling, if anything.

That's what I was saying, wasn't it.? Cycling as opposed to running, skiing, skating etc, allows for the use of propulsion external to the rider. What exactly is fueling? If it is eating, then there is no difference between cycling and long distance running (like marathon and beyond). If it is batteries, then that's my point. Training? Implying that training in running is unnecessary, aren't we?

Same can be said about any runner who broke a long standing record. Or do runners live for centuries and run until they are many decades old?

You are free to pick any other record from any distance running or anything similar where the gain made was over 10%.

Why can't we discuss this? New rules set by you? Also, please do help yourself to the perusal of that vote result. 40% of participants here think that those "accusations" are far from absurd. Another 45% believe that Pogo is on some heavy duty doping program at least comparable with full-on EPO of old.

That brings us to the interesting question. What exactly are you trying to accomplish here where the majority consensus is very far from your "grey-zone" mantra? Seriously, what's wrong with going to the main Pogo thread and rejoicing in his "grey-zone" fueled accomplishments?
It's a bad comparison on two fronts (at least)
1) the 3000 metres reace is not a pure endurance event, there is a significant energy contribution from anaerobic glycolysis throughout the race it's a lot more comparable to track cycling e.g. the individual pursuit. I am not aware of any pursuit cyclists winning mountain stages (or Ingebritsen having a go at 10 K or the marathon).
2) In running (and gait in general), there is a continuous and significant exchange between mechanical and elastic energy. Muscles generate mechanical energy, and a portion of that energy—estimates suggest up to 50% in some cases—is temporarily stored as elastic energy in tendons (and to a lesser extent in muscles) during the stretch-shortening cycle. This stored elastic energy is then released, contributing to mechanical work and improving movement efficiency.
However, cycling is impact-free (which is why it's good for older people duh :) ) and this exchange does not take place. Why is this important. Because it's facilitated to a significant degree by the surface on top of which athletes run as they contribute to the storage of elastic energy and return to mechanical. There is a deliberate drive by the IAAF (edit: and venues) to install track surfaces that maximise that exchange hence aiding the athletes and bringing down times.
The same effect is also enhanced by the shoe midsole and considerable capital has been spent to achieve that.
As I said. Bad comparison.
 
Sep 14, 2009
6,302
3,562
23,180
I can atleast defend with my stance unlike others who claim Pogacar is doped up the gills but can't explain what he's taking or doing :tearsofjoy:
I don't think your defense of "grey zone" methods (which is a made-up definition by the way, it's either legal or not legal), with one example that isn't even accurate, is really any better then the race performance evidence that is reported on in the thread.

🦆

EDIT - on second thought, I would say the defense of a nebulous and non-existent grey zone is worse than simply observing biomechanics and physiology at work.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Stablo and topcat
Jul 4, 2016
3,525
6,321
19,180
It's a bad comparison on two fronts (at least)
1) the 3000 metres reace is not a pure endurance event, there is a significant energy contribution from anaerobic glycolysis throughout the race it's a lot more comparable to track cycling e.g. the individual pursuit. I am not aware of any pursuit cyclists winning mountain stages (or Ingebritsen having a go at 10 K or the marathon).
2) In running (and gait in general), there is a continuous and significant exchange between mechanical and elastic energy. Muscles generate mechanical energy, and a portion of that energy—estimates suggest up to 50% in some cases—is temporarily stored as elastic energy in tendons (and to a lesser extent in muscles) during the stretch-shortening cycle. This stored elastic energy is then released, contributing to mechanical work and improving movement efficiency.
However, cycling is impact-free (which is why it's good for older people duh :) ) and this exchange does not take place. Why is this important. Because it's facilitated to a significant degree by the surface on top of which athletes run as they contribute to the storage of elastic energy and return to mechanical. There is a deliberate drive by the IAAF (edit: and venues) to install track surfaces that maximise that exchange hence aiding the athletes and bringing down times.
The same effect is also enhanced by the shoe midsole and considerable capital has been spent to achieve that.
As I said. Bad comparison.
Ingebritsen has the Norwegian record in the 10k
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raest
Apr 29, 2019
76
124
3,880
I don't think your defense of "grey zone" methods (which is a made-up definition by the way, it's either legal or not legal)
Is the grey zone not stuff that is technically allowed to some extent but is not entirely in the spirit of clean sport? I'll wager a good few TUEs fall into that category.

I think of it as the distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance - one is criminal and the other is mean spirited. If the defence is "but I didn't break any law", then the person is in the dubious grey zone.

I'd be confident that the majority of successful professional cyclists capitalise fully on the grey zone - it would remiss of them not to.
 
May 3, 2023
886
1,262
6,180
I don't think your defense of "grey zone" methods (which is a made-up definition by the way, it's either legal or not legal), with one example that isn't even accurate, is really any better then the race performance evidence that is reported on in the thread.

🦆

EDIT - on second thought, I would say the defense of a nebulous and non-existent grey zone is worse than simply observing biomechanics and physiology at work.
Says the guy who's defense consists of evading every single question :tearsofjoy: When I defend my stance I bring examples and don't shy away from answering questions, you should try it too.

With the absence of answers I'll assume that you have no answers to what Pogacar is taking and that your only ''proof'' (if we even can call that proof:tearsofjoy:) to claim him being a cheater is that he beat one of Armstrong's KOM or like that other guy said, that he is motor-doping :tearsofjoy:
 
Feb 20, 2012
53,938
44,324
28,180
While I agree that PdB performance is ridiculous indeed, however:
1) the previous record (Pantani's) is not even close to the best climbing performances of the 90's (so the relative w/kg improvement should be done vs best AdH or Hautacam rides) and then we would be talking about 2-4% range.

2) those mountain stages lasted many hours while your relative improvement refers only to 40 minutes, which isn't totally correct as fatigue accumulates also before the final MTF. There's a reason why gaps explode at the end of hard races and you get ridiculous relative differences for the final sections: gaps build "virtually" even when guys ride together (various levels of cumulative fatigue among the riders). Obviously such effect never happens in "sterile" track&field runs.

3) Other factors also influence cycling speeds i.e. weather conditions, pacing and maybe (?) also bike technology (compared to 30 years ago). PdB was a perfect storm in terms of pacing: Pogacar was paced hard by JV, who wanted to destroy him but instead delivered him record breaking pace.
Fatigue in the top 3 of GC is is a bit overrated because they artificially tend to slow down to the pace of like the 15th best climber in the race, and when a lot of climbs are literally done at 85% of threshold for the top 2 or so they are really a lot fresher than many would like to believe.

There's a pretty good reason Pogacar and Vingegaard never even dropped higher performances in unipuerto stages, and the simplest reason is they weren't even that tired when they started PdB.

I also think a flat section between the final 2 climbs really helps with recovery before the final climb, especially if it even goes false flat downhill a little bit.

Also, new asphalt as propagandized by @Mayomaniac, and way underestimated drafting as propagandized by @Red Rick (seriously why are the highest estimates always on 7% climbs) - also likely play a role. Finally, PdB is a climb that IIRC often has a tailwind and often has high W/kg estimates despite race situations suggesting otherwise.

So in summary, I'd think the 6.88 W/kg estimate is pretty likely to be too high, but that doesn't take away much from the fact that the performance was some alien-on-crack ***.
 
Sep 14, 2009
6,302
3,562
23,180
Says the guy who's defense consists of evading every single question :tearsofjoy: When I defend my stance I bring examples and don't shy away from answering questions, you should try it too.

With the absence of answers I'll assume that you have no answers to what Pogacar is taking and that your only ''proof'' (if we even can call that proof:tearsofjoy:) to claim him being a cheater is that he beat one of Armstrong's KOM or like that other guy said, that he is motor-doping :tearsofjoy:
Are you trolling? I think anybody who reviews my responses can see that I have not evaded a question. Have another look, one of my responses is about as frank as it can be.

I have also not really been dwelling on a particular American or on the motor aspect. I have spoken about the evidence I can see in terms of biomechanics, and also it has been brought up on numerous occasions in this thread and others about human physiology and what can be reasonably expected (and not). I think you are trying to ignore that though, and I don't think I need to restate what other people have stated.

I believe the only example you have brought forward is the possibility that the big teams illegally used carbon monoxide rebreathing as a performance enhancer (which is, by the way, not grey, but actually a banned method/use). I would agree, it is likely they at least tried this out. So, at least you agree that Pogi is doping
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stablo and topcat
Sep 14, 2009
6,302
3,562
23,180
Is the grey zone not stuff that is technically allowed to some extent but is not entirely in the spirit of clean sport? I'll wager a good few TUEs fall into that category.

I think of it as the distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance - one is criminal and the other is mean spirited. If the defence is "but I didn't break any law", then the person is in the dubious grey zone.

I'd be confident that the majority of successful professional cyclists capitalise fully on the grey zone - it would remiss of them not to.
I basically agree!

However, when it comes to doping infractions, I like to keep it black or white (just like WADA 🤪 ). I totally understand that some people will put ethically or morally questionable methods that aren't technically illegal in the grey zone. But to me, if it's not cheating, it's not cheating (although it might be really stupid for your health and ethically dubious is heck)
 
May 4, 2025
1
9
15
(Long-time lurker, first-time poster, hi fellow cycling fans!)

I think a lot of the discussion here boils down to two types of evidence. Within prediction/forecasting, there's the notion of "Inside View" and "Outside View." The Inside View looks at the specifics of the case in question; the Outside View looks only at similar cases, with the specific case a "black box" whose details we don't know. For example, the Inside View might say: "based on its internal characteristics, this particular highway construction project should cost A amount and take B years." And the Outside View might say: "every similar project has cost X amount and taken Y years; knowing literally nothing about the specifics of the new project, we should expect it to look similar." From there, much of the art of prediction comes down to deciding how to weight both types of evidence.

In this framework, the Inside View argument that Pogacar is doping (= one of: EPO, blood bags, motors, or novel pharmacology) boils down to:
  • his notoriously dirty support structure (Gianetti, Matxin, and many others) - I don't think anyone is defending this group?
  • specific otherworldly performances like PdB, stretching the limits of human performance
  • certain oddities, like the PdBF bike change, the dispute over Pog's bike after last year's WC, or the astonishing acceleration at Mur de Huy
And the Outside View case rests on:
  • the fact that, for much of pro cycling's history, elite riders used pharmacology to boost performance - especially those at the very top
  • the fact that drug tests and the biological passport have often failed to catch anyone, with only police raids or whistleblowers sufficing (= lack of failed tests is not meaningful)
  • per above: the fact that we've only known the specifics of cheating in hindsight. Folks were suspicious in, say, 2005, but only later did we learn the details of Operation Puerto.
  • the fact that many of cycling's best-ever performances (Pantani, Basso 2006, Verbier, LA's Tour run, etc) are known to be dirty, and Pog is producing or exceeding such performances

Anyway, I read @pelotonIQ as requesting a strong argument from the Inside View. We've seen arguments advanced, none of them airtight. And, crucially, I'll grant that the Inside View case is not that strong on its own. However, many folks are also responding with arguments from the Outside View, which I personally find compelling. (Note that, in previous cycling eras, it was a good bet to heavily weight the Outside View, even when that meant living with weak Inside View evidence like a lack of positive tests.)

I argue that the two types of evidence combined add up to a likelihood that Pogacar is doing something beyond the "gray area." And I also argue that we don't need to look inside the Inside View's black box (= state Pog's exact methods) to hold that view.
 
Last edited:
May 3, 2023
886
1,262
6,180
I believe the only example you have brought forward is the possibility that the big teams illegally used carbon monoxide rebreathing as a performance enhancer (which is, by the way, not grey, but actually a banned method/use). I would agree, it is likely they at least tried this out. So, at least you agree that Pogi is doping
They didn't use it illegally, they used it when it was wasn't banned. It later got banned and teams stopped using it. That tells us that top teams are always looking for non-banned advantages even if said method may or may not get banned in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yaco
May 3, 2023
886
1,262
6,180
In this framework, the Inside View argument that Pogacar is doping (= one of: EPO, blood bags, motors, or novel pharmacology) boils down to:
  • his notoriously dirty support structure (Gianetti, Matxin, and many others) - I don't think anyone is defending this group?
  • specific otherworldly performances like PdB, stretching the limits of human performance
  • certain oddities, like the PdBF bike change, the dispute over Pog's bike after last year's WC, or the astonishing acceleration at Mur de Huy
The motor-doping accusations are absurd. How would one go about motor-doping when the bicycles get checked with magnetic resonance devices, tablets with thermal imaging, and X-ray technology to detect hidden motors or other illicit equipment?

The bicycles are scanned pre-race, post-race and the UCI performs random checks based on tip-offs or specific suspicions. As of now, no world-tour team has ever been officially caught for motor-doping. Motor-doping in world tour doesn't exist, but it's still very good that they check for it.

And the Outside View case rests on:
  • the fact that, for much of pro cycling's history, elite riders used pharmacology to boost performance - especially those at the very top
  • the fact that drug tests and the biological passport have often failed to catch anyone, with only police raids or whistleblowers sufficing (= lack of failed tests is not meaningful)
  • per above: the fact that we've only known the specifics of cheating in hindsight. Folks were suspicious in, say, 2005, but only later did we learn the details of Operation Puerto.
  • the fact that many of cycling's best-ever performances (Pantani, Basso 2006, Verbier, LA's Tour run, etc) are known to be dirty, and Pog is producing or exceeding such performances
The biological passport was introduced to cycling in 2008. All of your examples mentioned are prior to that date :tearsofjoy:
 
Jul 4, 2016
3,525
6,321
19,180
They didn't use it illegally, they used it when it was wasn't banned. It later got banned and teams stopped using it. That tells us that top teams are always looking for non-banned advantages even if said method may or may not get banned in the future.
It is not currently banned, but it is regulated and restricted. Performance enhancing use was already banned under S2.1.2: https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/2025list_en_final_clean_12_september_2024.pdf
 
Oct 30, 2023
5,313
8,198
16,180
2020 = 1991, Val Louron (Greg Lemond ko)

Beille = Gewis 1-2-3 , 1994

so we can assume we are in the mid 90s. 1995?

in 1995 there were no tests for EPO.

It took 10 years to have anti-doping tests for EPO.
The question remains when the public learned about EPO.

Did fans know about EPO in 1995?



these performances will continue for years, someone has to speak up.

If you know something speak up, open a profile on X, write an anonymous email to a newspaper, do something.
Yes everyone understood athletes were using ped, particularly steroids and there was a clear understanding significant scientific achievement in blood enhancement was going on. The use was considered progress in human achievement. Never mind the nonsense someone like lemond is trying to sell about that time in his rearview mirror. Rules much less testing and enforcement weren’t of anyone’s concern.

Two things happened that changed views on rules and enforcement forever
1. Long standing baseball records were being shattered. This got the attention of the older power structure in professional sports when their history was being wiped out.
2. Athletes started dying from the things they were doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: snipeheem
Jul 4, 2016
3,525
6,321
19,180
@topcat The example of CO-rebreathing was to show that teams are always on the lookout for legal ways to improve their abilities. Like another user said, CO-rebreathers are only the top of the iceberg.
Once again, the CO-rebreather is and was banned if used to improve abilities. So we have no examples of legal ways of boosting performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noob and Ripper
Oct 13, 2024
168
316
1,530
I have been reading the latest, sometimes heated, discussions in this thread with interest.

I also do not believe in motor doping, I really do not see how they would keep this hidden for so long, even if you don't xray the bikes I just don't consider it likely.
For me more likely are tests simply not picking up everything. A poster before in this thread correctly highlights parts about accuracy of tests in other fields, e.g. diagnostics.
But still we can talk long about false positives and negatives, about accuracy, sensitivity etc. Or have a discussion about whether the performance improvement is physically impossible when relatively comparing to other sports.

That is all not needed when we do not address the big elephants in the room: Giannetti and co.

One can say it is addressed er cetera. But I think it isn't. It is the clear downside of putting Armstrong as the big evil doping genious. This largely made others get off easier or even still be in play to this day. Of course many teams have people with a doping history but some are clearly horrible examples such as Giannetti.
So what we see today in the Dutch cycling news is that Giannetti is welcomed everywhere, interviewed everywhere but not asked one critical question. It's all praise. I believe this is wrong, I really do not understand why we think it is OK that this guy is in the pro peloton and I also do not understand that Pogacar wants to be with him if you claim to be clean.

So instead of trying to find things that may not even be there (i.e. motor doping or doping at all), let's just focus on what is there: the bad history and bad people still in play. Let's first focus on cleaning the house. You will not estinguish a fire if you keep the guy who puts fuel on the fire.

Then a totally other concept that I think contributes to the lower critical opinion towards Gianetti and so on is that nowadays people are quite egocentric in a way that it is all about the GOAT. You see this in many sports. Pogacar is the GOAT so he is our messiah, a god if you will et cetera. I wish we'd stop this adoration and look through that fake layer.

Anyway that is just my two cents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noob
Apr 29, 2019
76
124
3,880
From the Wikipedia page on blood doping:

Detection for autologous blood doping​

Autologous blood doping detection is done indirectly via CO rebreathing technique...

A joke or wonderful irony!
 
Feb 27, 2023
683
847
5,180
Let us then draw (in our heads) the graph of the deduced Pogo+bike system produced power as a function of time. Up to the moment the acceleration starts, we have a constant 600W (horizontal line on our graph). Then we have an instantaneous in our model (very quick in reality) jump to 600+540=1140W. At the moment acceleration begins, the speed is still 6m/s, so first term in that sum (power going into potential energy increase) is still 600W. Then the speed starts growing, and the first term grows as well (say, linearly) from 600W to 900W. The acceleration is still in place during that whole second period and the power producing it (the part of it going into kinetic energy increase) is still (in our model) a constant 540W. Thus the power grows from the initial value of 1140W to the final one of 900+540=1440W. Now the acceleration is finally done, and the power drops instantaneously (in our simplified model) to the new constant value of 600+300=900W where it continues until the finish or close to it. So we indeed have a peak power of over 1400W which had to be maintained for at least a couple of pedal strokes. The latter would require, according to our earlier calculation, a force of 2 (two!) Pogo's body weights. And he still exerted that seated?!!! Are you going to give me that break or do I have to take it from you? :)

Remember also that we've totally neglected the supralinear dependence of the constant velocity component of the required power on the velocity itself. That power consists -- when going up a steep hill -- of the "gravity fighting" component and that producing work against air and rolling resistance (plus a bit of internal friction as well). Now, the first component, as we noted, is the dominant one on a hill like Huy, and it exhibits linear dependence. But the air resistance at 9m/s is already quite significant exceeding that at 6m/s by a factor of approximately 1.5^3=3.3 (rounding down to your benefit). So, in our model, that constant component of power, to which Pogo+bike system goes to after the acceleration phase is done, would be more than 900W.

Now that we have done -- at your prompt -- these simple approximate calculations, I actually start thinking that the power of Pogo's bike assist that he seemingly activated by an under-hood button press was more than even 500W (easy-peasy for a brushless+lipo system -- I know that from experience). In fact, the likely reason he did not stand on the pedals and looked somewhat "disjointed" during that acceleration phase was that the assist -- "dialed' by the old ghoul Mauro -- was so strong that he was literally afraid to lose his balance by standing on the pedals. That also explains his unhappy look at the finish.:)

P.S, You can easily feel the power dependence we discussed here by doing, for example, a standing time trial start. In the beginning you really mash the pedals (standing, of course) and can literally feel the power flowing through you (it is still easy at this point as you are totally fresh). Then you reach your intended cruising speed (say, 45 km/h) and, in spite of your speed being the highest so far, can get back on the saddle as the power demand has just dropped.

A little extension of that analysis while you are refreshing the laws of classical dynamics in your memory. What we described was -- as was explicitly stated -- a much simplified model good for obtaining ballpark figures. In the Muur de Huy reality, the acceleration phase probably lasted a bit longer and the acceleration itself was not constant, tapering off towards the end of the acceleration phase. What was (approximately) constant is the e-assist power likely initiated by that under-brake-hood button press. That power likely stayed approximately constants almost to the finish, possibly tapering off somewhat due to the controller's heat management function (but, given cool and rainy weather, that effect probably was not very pronounced). So the real Pogo+bike power output profile likely looked something like the following.

Before the acceleration phase, we have around 600W (possibly a bit less since overall that was not a fastest Muur climb). Then assist goes on and pushes the total power to something like 1100-1200W (remember that initial 1140W in the simplified calculation) where it stays throughout the whole acceleration phase. Pogo himself possibly adds an extra 100 almost instinctively (this is the "go" moment, after all). As we know, the result of this almost constant system power output is the acceleration behaving as a decreasing function of time (we could even write a differential equation to obtain that dependence, if we felt like it). Qualitatively, the reason for that decrease is that the increasing speed makes more of the total power go into work production against gravity (and air resistance) or, equivalently, into potential energy increase. So less is left to contribute to the kinetic energy gain (aka acceleration).

After the acceleration phase is over, the Pogo+bike system settles into constant 900W (or maybe even a bit less) power output mode, simply to make sure that the speed up the Muur does not go into some comical 40+ km/h territory. But, with power assist activated, it likely keeps pumping that 500-600W into the road (or, rather, into potential energy). So Pogo himself can ease into a pleasant 300W. That readily explains his easy looking nose breathing finish noticed by everyone.

That's some solid background. Much better than philosophy. :) You should have no difficulties following these calculations and their meaning.

Was feeling a bit lazy on Friday afternoon and decided to write that differential equation mentioned before and see what its solution gives, just for kicks. For simplicity, we are going to neglect air and rolling resistance on a steep climb like Muur de Huy. Later, these terms can be included as well if anybody feels like it. Let P_0 be the power right before Pogo+bike system acceleration and let P_max be the total power during the acceleration phase. The general differential equation of the rider+bike motion stating that the total power is equal to the time derivative of the total (potential + kinetic) energy then reads:
mg*sin(a)*v + mv*v'=P,
where sin(a) is the sine of the inclination angle of the given climb, v' is the acceleration, and P is the total power. If the speed is constant, the second term is zero, and we can find the steady speed on the climb given the power. So let us assume 600W constant before the attack and let us use the gradient of 14% -- that is the typical on the slopes on the Muur where the attack took place. Allowing some token amount (say, 50W) for air and rolling resistance and assuming 72kg rider+bike mass, we obtain the steady speed of 5.6 m/s (20.2 km/h) that makes perfect sense.

Now let us consider the acceleration phase. We need to integrate the ODE above from time 0 (when acceleration begins) to the time when it ends. The initial speed is 5.6 m/s, and we assume the final one to be 50% more, i.e. 8.4 m/s or 30.3 km/h. We can use, for example, the variable separation technique to solve that ODE. The solution with the above boundary conditions is as follows.
T=(1/(g*sin(a)))(b*ln((b-v_0)/(b-v))-(v-v_0)),
where T is the total duration of the acceleration phase, v is the final speed, and b =P/(mg*sin(a)), P being the total power.
We can now, assuming v=1.5v_0=8.4 m/s, plug various values of P and calculate the value of T -- how long the acceleration to the final speed lasted.

Recalling that the air resistance is going to grow about three times when the speed increases by 50%, we assume that the extra power required to overcome it at the final speed to be equal to 150W. For the duration of the acceleration phase itself, that power grew from 50 to 150W, so we will assume an average of extra 100W, for simplicity. So let us say Pogo helped himself to 500W worth of assist and added 100W of his own (remember that he looked somewhat labored in the beginning of his attack). Pushing 700W seated is already no small task as we know. So we plug P=700+500-100=1100W for useful total power and obtain T=3.7 s, so pretty quick initial "burst" as we saw. To maintain that final speed, the total power of 550*1.5+150=975W is needed, so Pogo himself would be responsible for 975-500=475W which is not that bad and would further decrease toward the finish as the slope flattens. Thus his nose breathing weak celebration everyone witnessed.
First of all I would like to thank you for the nice discussion. Second, I am sorry to all the folks who are not that much into physics, my post will contain some numbers as well and this whole back and forth with @Casual cyclist may be more suited for a physics forum, but maybe some not so technically inclined people will find these posts interesting as well.
I finally had some time today to think about what you wrote and do some analysis on my own. Below is the segment I want to analyze. This is from when the attack took place until 20 seconds after. I chose this segment because I can see from the broadcast that Healy needs 24s to ride this segment. FYI on the Discovery broadcast that lasts 2:25:24 hours the attack happens at 1:58:31 (basically when the director cuts to the frontal view of Pog) and it lasts until 1:58:51 when Pog is at point A. Healy passes point A at 1:58:55.


Now, I did some modeling and I believe I got the constants pretty spot on.
It is a shame I cannot use LaTeX, but here is my DE:
P(t) = dE/dt = m*g*sin(\theta)*v + m*v*v' + k*v + q*v^3 (for these speeds I assume that the rolling resistance (RR) is constant)
m = 72kg (Pog+bike)
g = 9.81m/s^2
k = 3.6 kg*m/s^2
q = 0.25 kg/m
\theta = 0.2 rad (we see from the Strava file that the average slope of the segment of interest is 20% and the angle is small enough so sin(\theta) = 0.2). I have to add that the model could be improved here by making the angle be a function of time, but I believe even this constant value is good enough to illustrate my ideas.
Rewritten for v (the speed) it is:
v' = P(t)/m/v - g*sin(\theta) - k/m - q/m*v^2
Let us now turn to modeling the input power P(t). I suggest we use the following model:
P(t) = IP+EP*(1-exp(-t*10)),
where the Initial Power (IP) is the steady state power before the attack and the Extra Power (EP) is the increase of power during the attack. This makes it so that the maximum power is reached after about 0.5s after the attack.
Let us try to infer what the IP should be. According to Strava, in the 14s before the attack the slope is 10.4% and his average speed is 5.36 m/s and that would require about 450W (I am including the RR and Aerodynamic Resistance (AR) at this speed), so IP = 450W. Now what should the EP be in this model so that he covers a little more than 98m in 20s? The answer is about 320W.
Let us now see what does this model predict graphically.


Let us do a sanity check. As argued before, the KE increases as the power increases but eventually the increase in KE goes to 0. The increase per unit time in PE is higher for higher total power input. The RR and AR are small but non-negligible as you correctly argued. Notice the interesting point where the AR=RR (just put of curiosity, nothing to do with the analysis). You might argue that your analysis assumed 6m/s at the beginning of the acceleration and 9 m/s at the end at a constant slope much smaller than what I have here. OK, but the reality is that Pog attacked at the steepest point and when the gradient changed so there is not such a big change of the KE of 1500J as in your model but a mere 572J in mine (I computed the integral under the d(KE)/dt curve).
Edit: You predicted accurately that it would take about 3s to reach max velocity.
If we assume a more modest EP = 180W for Healy the (equivalent) model for Healy would be something like this:


Note that it would take 4 more seconds to cover the 98m, so we are on the right track.

Now, I argue, Pog's power output of 450W + 320W = 770 W is doable whilst seated. Easily doable I would say since I managed to do about 600W seated for about 10s. Therefore, I do not see any evidence for motor doping by Pog during the FW race.


Let us now turn to your analysis. First, you argue that for some reason it is not enough to just increase the power from 450W to 770W, but you need an additional power to accelerate (I still do not understand why). Please look at the curves above and verify that everything is kosher so to speak. In any case, just to indulge you and for my understanding as well, I tried to model your assumptions as well. Here is what I get:


The parameters for this model are as follows:
P(t) = (exp(-t/4)/2+0.7).*(IP+EP*(1-exp(-t*10))),
where IP = 450W and EP = 520W.
Note that some of the KE was converted to PE near the end (lower speed), so the lower total energy at the input. However, this does not seem to be a good model (maybe I did not do justice to all of your thoughts, assumptions and considerations).

To conclude, I believe there is no evidence for motor doping stemming from Pog's performance on FW's final climb.

P.S. If you find the model interesting and want to play around with it, I can share the MATLAB code with you.
 
Last edited: