The FTP Passport

[Markyboyzx6r]

Maybe so. I was thinking in terms of riders seeing large improvements on new teams due to more effective coaching (I'm certain that the high level of expertise we assume is not actually there in a lot of top level teams) or innovative coaching/training regimes.

If these would be explained with the BP (constant values presumably if done fairly), what would be the point of a threshold passport?

Another issue - where do sprinters/puncheurs fit into this? I doubt Kittel takes any interest in his FTP over 40mins as long as he can ride with the autobus.

Aye. Good point re Kittel, but my response to that would be that full disclosure power data (I called it Big Data in my earlier post, I was being all grandiose!) would be just as interesting for sprinters as for GC contenders. The same rules would apply - performance measured longitudinally, taking in all variables of sprinting conditions, would give us lots of interesting data which may not necessarily detract from the sporting element. But the doping issue isn't so much an issue of the sprints, it's an issue of the GC. That's not to be condescending to the sprinters, but I like seeing the sprinters in the autobus, scratching to make the time limit (e.g. Kittel). What I don't like seeing is former sprinters winning the KOM!

Performance spikes (i.e. outside of the 95% CI for that particular rider), should warrant special 'attention' from the anti-doping body. If we take Lemond, for example, his 95% CI would be very different to, say, mine. That interpersonal difference will be great. But my July shouldn't be a certain percentage above my June, my intrapersonal pattern should be consistent - especially mid season.

I'd also take issue with the idea that 'training systems' change performance in cycling. I you train as a professional cyclist, the 'marginal gains' will be tiny. You don't go from VO2max of 75ml.kg.min to 85ml.kg.min. Doesn't happen naturally, we all know this. Similarly, you don't (or at least shouldn't) see elite level AT/FTP as %VO2max change that much in season, tiny percentage points at best. BP and Big Data can raise these red flags if/when they happen.

You can't hide in plain sight. In the same way that we could analyse the GC riders W/kg, we could measure the sprinters max Watts under equivical conditions.

I'd never need speak to the wife again if I had all that data to play with. I could entertain all my friends in the pub about Kittel on 2nd wheel as opposed to 3rd wheel power differences between 2014 and 2015. They'll find me fascinating.

 

[meat puppet]

Not directly as I'm not an expert of the subject in cycling terms but I do have knowledge of the variations that can arise in other enduracne sports. I am fairly sure that some riders performance levels will change after team changes due to doing things differently otherwise coaches probably wouldn't have jobs. In some cases changes could be quite large.

Not surectly linked to climbing but I'll refer once again to Nico Roche's statement in his book that he didn't even have a TT bike at home to train on at a time when he was a TDF top 10 aspirant. This implies that there was considerable variation in expertise/performance resourcing across the top level of the sport 4-5 years ago and it seems likely that there is still some considerable headroom for improvement in a lot of teams now.

To the above para: highly debatable. This is basically the marginal gains argument but not in so many words. It assumes there be big enough differentials in managing training load among teams that are in and of themselves decisive. Well, not buying it. I think it is more sound to assume teams know their physio 101 and are capable of application as a working hypothesis.

And even if such changes occur, we are back to square one: why exactly did someone improve drastically in a new team?

Kudos to the OP, this is an interesting idea!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

To the above para: highly debatable. This is basically the marginal gains argument but not in so many words. It assumes there be big enough differentials in managing training load among teams that are in and of themselves decisive. Well, not buying it. I think it is more sound to assume teams know their physio 101 and are capable of application as a working hypothesis.

And even if such changes occur, we are back to square one: why exactly did someone improve drastically in a new team?

Kudos to the OP, this is an interesting idea!

Yeah I am highly doubtful that the problem as stated by simoni exists at all.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Not surectly linked to climbing but I'll refer once again to Nico Roche's statement in his book that he didn't even have a TT bike at home to train on at a time when he was a TDF top 10 aspirant. This implies that there was considerable variation in expertise/performance resourcing across the top level of the sport 4-5 years ago and it seems likely that there is still some considerable headroom for improvement in a lot of teams now.

Wiggo has been riding his roadie all year. Jumps on the pursuit bike for a month or so and is going to the comm games.

A rider on the forum here was UK road champ and pursuit champ and hated training for pursuit. Would do some 3-4 minute efforts in the weeks leading up to nationals and win.

As much as specificity can make a difference, not having a TT bike to train on is not going to make as much difference "at home", whenever that is. Training camps they will have them, and I think it's misguided to take too much heed of a rider complaining to that level of detail.

 

[simoni]

That's fair enough - I can't prove what I'm saying as I have no first hand experience and am just joining the dots as I see it.

However, one thing we need to bear in mind though is that anti-doping works on individuals rather than teams. If we accept that every team is close to the ceiling in terms of performance support at a team-wide level is it still safe to assume that every rider is currently part of a setup that maximises their performance? This seems very relevant to me - I've seen a number of examples of athletes moving coaches and seeing performance change dramatically, not necessarily for the better.

If nothing else, I think this debate demonstrates how well specified these systems need to be do have a practical use (i.e. to catch cheats).

 

[Dear Wiggo]

However, one thing we need to bear in mind though is that anti-doping works on individuals rather than teams. If we accept that every team is close to the ceiling in terms of performance support at a team-wide level is it still safe to assume that every rider is currently part of a setup that maximises their performance? This seems very relevant to me - I've seen a number of examples of athletes moving coaches and seeing performance change dramatically, not necessarily for the better.

Look there is definitely an element of that - performance wise - as in competition results. The physical element will not improve all that well, IMO, but can go down because people over train their athletes. Then there's the mental element - confidence, etc, which can also have a real impact.

At school, maths was my best subject, and my performance in the subject was directly proportional to the teacher's ability. I didn't get dumber, I just gelled with the teacher or didn't. Gelling usually lead to respect and enhanced focus. There is no doubt in my mind that the people you are relying on can have a mental impact that leads to changes in performance.

I don't think someone can talk you into improving 10% though. Definitely could mismanage you down 20%.

It would be more common in the scenario you mention, for the athlete to go down due to mental differences, vs go up because they were having poor training and suddenly had good training - at the level of cycling we are discussing.

This is not to say a psych would be of use though. You can have the best sports psych in the world, but if your team manager / owner promises to let you ride for yourself at the Tour then makes you ride for someone else, your head is going to be in the wrong place.

 

[Nicko.]

Wouldn't this 'periodic measurement' just become another 'target race' that requires the same 'preparation' as the real ones?
I mean, the wiggle room in the BP can be used whereever, whenever, no?

Or would the 'periodic measurement' be unannounced?

Bump.

If I where, say Horner, and I had to annually prove that I had the physical properties that indicates that I could sustain, say 6.5W/kg for an hour, I'd prepare for that test just like a GT.

After that display of inherent capacity, I could ride under the radar all year, no questions asked

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Bump.

If I where, say Horner, and I had to annually prove that I had the physical properties that indicates that I could sustain, say 6.5W/kg for an hour, I'd prepare for that test just like a GT.

After that display of inherent capacity, I could ride under the radar all year, no questions asked

So what's the simplest solution to this?

 

[Nicko.]

In the spirit of improved cheat-detection, I posted this in the "dogs-for-drugs' thread:

1. EVERY Pro Tour rider has to visit a UCI-designated "pee- and blood sample" test facility once a month, year round. A sub-maximal ergometer test is also completed (for health reasons, of course...)
2. Pee and blood sampled are collected in competitions as is done now.
3. OOC testing is carried out as normal.
4. Here's the piece de resistance:
EVERY sample of EVERY rider is analysed at the end of the year, at one time, in one lab, rider & counsel present, with every sample threated and compared longitudinally.
Patterns will emerge between years, within the year, between planned and OOC tests, between teams (!) and between team "doctors".
Costs will be reduced, accuracy improved, legal counterattacks rare.
YEAH!!!
Apply liberal punishment, make all data public, put suspicious players under official observation.
Store half of the sample material for the future.

Done.

Post-thought: This idea could work if the storage method/time between extraction and analysis is stable and/or predictable.

 

[Merckx index]

Some great responses, thanks. I can’t address them all, and other posters have done an excellent job, but just a few points.

Veloclinic has done some excellent work, and yes, I think he has been working in this direction. I don’t know how much he is tracking individual riders, comparing a current performance with past ones, but he’s certainly set up to do some of this.

The problem of riders “preparing” for the test. There are several possible solutions. One is not to announce the tests in advance, just as is the case with the passport and other doping tests OOC. A second possibility is to do the test, or at least some of them, at a time when it’s difficult for a rider to dope. Remember, riders target certain major races, and “prepare” for them. It’s very difficult, really quite impractical, for a rider to be juiced up the entire season. The difficulty could be further increased by timing the blood passport and traditional doping tests during these periods. The rider who “prepared” for his power test would then run the risk of failing one of these doping tests.

But here’s another possibility I’ve been toying with. How about for a period of several days, maybe more, before the test, the rider has to be observed 24/7? It has long been pointed out that the only certain way to prevent riders from doping is to watch them all the time, and it has just as often been pointed out that this is completely impractical. But it might be more practical for a relatively short period of time, with the team responsible for the monitoring. At the very least, you could make certain a rider wasn’t transfusing blood a few days before the test. And since the team is doing the monitoring, rather than some representative from the UCI or WADA, the invasive or intrusive aspect of this might be lessened.

Regarding the power meter issue, let’s be clear about one thing. It isn’t necessary for every rider, even every GC contender on some mountain stage, to have an SRM. One or two are all that are necessary. Once you know the power a rider put out to achieve a certain time, you have in effect controlled for wind and other factors. Any other rider who was on that climb with him can have his watts/kg determined from his time. So all that’s really needed is an agreement that a few select riders on every climb would have power meters, and this could be determined randomly.

In my OP, I said the UCI or other authority would have access to the teams’ power data. That could be avoided if necessary. The team could code the riders, and provide the power data to the UCI with the identities coded. Then during a race, the power values of each rider could be communicated to the UCI again in terms of coded identities. Of course at that point anyone at UCI who wanted to could work backwards and pretty much figure out who was who, but the point is, the initial team data would be completely protected. Not entirely, of course, because on most teams it’s easy to know who has highest power/weight ratio, but again, these values are not being made available to the general public.

 

[acoggan]

I'd also take issue with the idea that 'training systems' change performance in cycling. I you train as a professional cyclist, the 'marginal gains' will be tiny. You don't go from VO2max of 75ml.kg.min to 85ml.kg.min. Doesn't happen naturally, we all know this.

Not sure who these data are from, but I suspect Bradley McGee.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Not sure who these data are from, but I suspect Bradley McGee.

In which case he was 17 in 1993, and 23 in 1999.

If we look at the change from 21 to 23, it's only 1.2 ml/min/kg, which proves the point being made by Markyboyzx6r.

Good work, Coggan.

 

[acoggan]

In which case he was 17 in 1993, and 23 in 1999.

If we look at the change from 21 to 23, it's only 1.2 ml/min/kg, which proves the point being made by Markyboyzx6r.

Good work, Coggan.

I'm not sure what point these data "prove", other than the fact that VO2max (even when expressed in L/min) is not fixed even in world class cyclists. Mostly I just thought they were interesting.

(BTW, relative to body mass VO2max doesn't really change w/ development.)

 

[Markyboyzx6r]

I'm not sure what point these data "prove", other than the fact that VO2max (even when expressed in L/min) is not fixed even in world class cyclists. Mostly I just thought they were interesting.

(BTW, relative to body mass VO2max doesn't really change w/ development.)

ACOOGAN - that's some good data there, and interesting. But if we take this as a theoretical sample (there's no point in getting into who it might be), the interesting data points are after the 3/4 months base training...

12/1993 - 79.8 ml.kg.min.
11/1995 - 80.1
12/19966 - 79.2

So there was no change in 3 years in his O2 uptake, give or take etc. So, if we can measure this cyclist's VO2, say, 1 week out from a grand tour - and do that over a 3 year period, the results will be relatively consistent. Stands to reason doesn't it? Even if we take out the bodyweight variable, the tale is the same...

5/1994 - 6.14 L.min
5/1999 - 6.20 L.min

Very consistent. There's no 'spikes' there. We know the Watts, we'd know the HR, we'd be able to compare that rider on that mountain with what has been previously measured, we'd see the 'spikes'. Even if we (the public) couldn't see the results of lab testing, independent doping analysis/control COULD.

This is before we even begin to take into account BP data, which will just add to the story. ACoogan always adds good scientific to Clinic discussions, and I'm not saying that transparent data would be the cure-all or disagreeing that physiological data has to be referenced in relatives rather than absolutes, but despite all the caveats there is a reasonable rationale for a shift to full disclosure.

Good thread, this.

Mark

 

[Netserk]

Not sure who these data are from, but I suspect Bradley McGee.

So you use data from a dirty rider to show what can happen naturally?

 

[jw1979]

The problem of riders “preparing” for the test. There are several possible solutions. One is not to announce the tests in advance, just as is the case with the passport and other doping tests OOC. A second possibility is to do the test, or at least some of them, at a time when it’s difficult for a rider to dope. Remember, riders target certain major races, and “prepare” for them. It’s very difficult, really quite impractical, for a rider to be juiced up the entire season. The difficulty could be further increased by timing the blood passport and traditional doping tests during these periods. The rider who “prepared” for his power test would then run the risk of failing one of these doping tests...

...snip...

Regarding the power meter issue, let’s be clear about one thing. It isn’t necessary for every rider, even every GC contender on some mountain stage, to have an SRM. One or two are all that are necessary. Once you know the power a rider put out to achieve a certain time, you have in effect controlled for wind and other factors. Any other rider who was on that climb with him can have his watts/kg determined from his time. So all that’s really needed is an agreement that a few select riders on every climb would have power meters, and this could be determined randomly.

I think you have good intentions, but forcing riders to do maximal tests during the season is impractical on a variety of levels. Just to name a few...
- a rider can be in the middle of a hard training block
- a rider can be nursing an injury
- a rider may have just had a huge blowout with his wife
- a rider may be burnt out from previous races
- a rider may be sick, but not yet know it
- a rider may lack motivation
- a rider may not do well on a static/stationary trainer
- etc. etc. etc.

Also, it's way off the mark to think you can give a power meter to one or two guys and be able to estimate the power of everyone else on that same climb. You can't account for wind differences in terms of where they are in the pack, whether they are sitting or standing, etc. Plus, they don't all use the same tires, which can make for a big difference. There are too many variables. Like Alex said, you'll never be able to sanction someone based on them putting out a lot of power. You can only target test them, and the top guys are targeted already.

It's just not feasible. I'll be a cyborg running around inside my computer like Tron before this happens.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I think you have good intentions, but forcing riders to do maximal tests during the season is impractical on a variety of levels. Just to name a few...
- a rider can be in the middle of a hard training block
- a rider can be nursing an injury
- a rider may have just had a huge blowout with his wife
- a rider may be burnt out from previous races
- a rider may be sick, but not yet know it
- a rider may lack motivation
- a rider may not do well on a static/stationary trainer
- etc. etc. etc.

Exactly the same things happen now with the BP, so just handle them the same way.

It doesn't have to be on a static trainer.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Like Alex said, you'll never be able to sanction someone based on them putting out a lot of power. You can only target test them, and the top guys are targeted already.

Not only does the BP not allow you to sanction someone, but it requires years of data and then expert analysis, etc, etc.

I do not think MI was intending for this to be a sanctioning device, but a targeted testing device.

And we have plenty of examples where the top guys are not targeted at all, even in competitions where they are winning.

It's just not feasible.

It's significantly less invasive than the BP - and hence, I would suggest very feasible.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I don't think the issues of practicality, reliability and the proper parsing of legitimate/illegitimate reasons for performance change have been addressed to make this particularly useful approach.

Natural performance variability is already wide and varied and multifactoral and of a scale that is sufficiently large to mask doping impacts. Riders are not robots.

What we need is evidence of doping, not evidence of performance.

All inspecting performance does is suggest some who might be worth targeting more closely. Yet that is already obvious from actual racing results.

The example of JTL was given as someone for whom performance changes were not obvious and having power meter data from his early days may have made a difference. Yet his performances were obvious enough for him to be talent spotted and given a contract by a world tour team.

Performance measurement is, IMO, useful for a population wide assessment to spot trends, but the signal to noise ratio is way too low when applied to an individual for it to be reliable, or at least to add to what's already obvious/known about who to target from their actual results.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Not only does the BP not allow you to sanction someone, but it requires years of data and then expert analysis, etc, etc.

Analysis of power data would be no different.

I do not think MI was intending for this to be a sanctioning device, but a targeted testing device.

And we have plenty of examples where the top guys are not targeted at all, even in competitions where they are winning.

Exactly my point. We already know who's winning and should be targeted.

Identifying who to target is not the problem.

The problem is obtaining evidence of doping when/if they are doping.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Analysis of power data would be no different.


Exactly my point. We already know who's winning and should be targeted.

Identifying who to target is not the problem.

The problem is obtaining evidence of doping when/if they are doping.

I think you're missing the point I raised earlier: the neo pros who are getting domestique roles by doping to the elite level. They are not winning, so at best they get randomly tested.

So yes, the problem is identifying who to target.

Unless you mean to say only the guys at the top or winning are doping? That you only need to dope to win, that being Jens Voigt and not winning anything is completely doable clean and should not need to be targeted?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I think you're missing the point I raised earlier: the neo pros who are getting domestique roles by doping to the elite level. They are not winning, so at best they get randomly tested.

So yes, the problem is identifying who to target.

I think you're right, I'm not getting what you are saying.

Presumably they are getting results sufficient to earn them elite domestique roles and hence suggests they are obvious targets for testing? Or do pro team scouts look for the riders that race crap? Just exactly what am I missing here?

How is power meter data going to tell us whether their level of performance has been attained naturally or otherwise? As neo pros presumably they are making a big step up in terms of training, racing, commitment and support, and with that performance would ordinarily improve. It can of course also have been supplemented via doping.

Unless you mean to say only the guys at the top or winning are doping? That you only need to dope to win, that being Jens Voigt and not winning anything is completely doable clean and should not need to be targeted?

No, I don't mean to say that. Indeed I've made that very point before in my blog post last year on the topic and earlier in this thread, i.e. not everyone who dopes is seeking to set maximum power or W/kg values while racing. Indeed it's often the opposite, you seek to minimise energy expenditure.

IOW power data is only going to be of much use when you know the data represents maximal/near maximal effort, which is only applicable to the GC and stage win contenders on selective climbs and TTs, and who are already obvious targets. It tells you nothing about sub-maximal performance, which is what the majority do.


As a general unrelated to the above comment, I think some are way over estimating the quality and level of training/coaching support pro riders get from their teams, let alone understanding of power data and physiology. It's not the pinnacle often made out. Some teams are better than others, but many are relatively limited/amateur. Big difference between professional and professionalism.

A lot of riders are commodities left to fend for themselves and are expected to get themselves ready for race day, and can be readily tossed aside as necessary to be replaced with another.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Here's what you said:

We already know who's winning and should be targeted.

I respond: domestiques aren't winning - that's not their remit. There's 198 riders in the Tour de France, there's going to be less than 20 winners - stage, jersey and GC.

So no, we don't know who's doing out of the ordinary performances based on their winning, nor do we necessarily know who should be targeted based on their race results.

To which you reply:

Presumably they are getting results sufficient to earn them elite domestique roles and hence suggests they are obvious targets for testing? Or do pro team scouts look for the riders that race crap? Just exactly what am I missing here?

Do pro team scouts look for the riders that race crap? I am guessing not. But once a domestique has been selected, they certainly don't race to win. Domestiques protect the team leader. Their chances for winning are random, and typically few and far between.

Or maybe I am missing something here?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Here's what you said:



I respond: domestiques aren't winning - that's not their remit. There's 198 riders in the Tour de France, there's going to be less than 20 winners - stage, jersey and GC.

So no, we don't know who's doing out of the ordinary performances based on their winning, nor do we necessarily know who should be targeted based on their race results.

To which you reply:



Do pro team scouts look for the riders that race crap? I am guessing not. But once a domestique has been selected, they certainly don't race to win. Domestiques protect the team leader.

Or maybe I am missing something here?

OK, so we don't have electrons at cross purposes because I think we are possibly talking about different set of riders:

- the team scouts comments and issues with neo pros I'm making are about those not already with a world tour pro team contract. IOW they must be doing pretty well result wise in conti level racing in order to come to the attention of a world tour team scout. We don't need power meter to see those results. They are obviously good enough to catch the attention of a scout without a power meter.

- for the ones that have a team job to do (either at conti or world tour level), then you completely agree with me: they are not racing in a manner that produces a mean maximal power outcome needed to assess whether a performance or performances might be considered suspicious/worthy or targeting for doping controls*, and hence power data is of little value in identifying additional suspects in these groups.

- the corollary is that the ones that do provide such mean max performances, i.e. the GC and stage win contenders, are automatically obvious doping control targets due to their results and hence having power data isn't adding to the list of those to target.


* putting aside problems with that as an approach in any case.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

- for the ones that have a team job to do (either at conti or world tour level), then you completely agree with me: they are not racing in a manner that produces a mean maximal power outcome needed to assess whether a performance or performances might be considered suspicious/worthy or targeting for doping controls*, and hence power data is of little value in identifying additional suspects in these groups.

No, I don't agree with you at all.

If someone is putting out submaximal power and showing an improvement of 10% of their best ever figure, to then drop off before the stage finish, after stripping the peloton back to 10 riders, they are not winning, they are not performing on the results sheet, but they are doing ridiculous performances that could potentially be picked up in an FTP passport styled system.

Here's what happens:

Sky trains in 2012.
USPS trains back in the day.

Then there's a thread in the clinic, posters point out the trains or the performances and say, "not normal".
The response is usually along the lines of: fanbois say, "you have no proof", others say, "there was a tailwind". Or, "it's physiologically possible".

That sort of conversation (pointing out abnormal performances only to have them be defended using bias arguments ("you hate Brits")) is not interesting - typically devolving into the average conversation found in The Clinic. Add in some actual historical + contemporary data, and the conversation gets much more interesting.

I'm not saying it's easy or as simple as snapping your fingers to implement the FTP passport, but I do believe it would add a useful element to the discussion.

Not all that long ago they did health checks on TdF riders and released weight, etc, stats. People wised up to power and potential and now they no longer do that. So let's bring all that back too.