The FTP Passport

[Alex Simmons/RST]

OK then, I don't really get it.

All the world tour riders are already targets and should accordingly be tested with sufficient robustness. I just don't see how power data adds to that fact.


It's not my fault you don't find the conversation interesting. A topic was put up for discussion and debate. I'm raising what I consider to be valid issues in response to that. I have no problem with considering an idea. But for it to be of any real value, it needs to demonstrate it's efficacy, let alone practicality in being an anti-doping strategy. I'm pointing out some of those issues.

It seems like you'd prefer the discussion be interesting rather than to be useful.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It's not my fault you don't find the conversation interesting. A topic was put up for discussion and debate. I'm raising what I consider to be valid issues in response to that. I have no problem with considering an idea. But for it to be of any real value, it needs to demonstrate it's efficacy, let alone practicality in being an anti-doping strategy. I'm pointing out some of those issues.

It seems like you'd prefer the discussion be interesting rather than to be useful.

To clarify: this discussion is interesting, and useful. Even if you write things like "you completely agree with me", which is patently false, and a little off-putting. [ETA: I modified my previous post to try and make it clearer what I meant when I said, "the conversation is not interesting".]

Most of the other threads in the clinic - discussing Froome, Nibali, etc, start off interesting, but quickly devolve when the fanbois jump in and say "you have no proof", "you're anti-Sky", "you're anti-British", "you're not a sports scientist", etc, etc. That's not so interesting. The bickering and the insults and the backbiting, yadda yadda.

I find data and its discussion more interesting. That's the sort of stuff I am looking for. Actual rider weights instead of people claiming they can tell a rider's weight by looking at them. Historical power would add an interesting angle to the discussion.

OK then, I don't really get it.

All the world tour riders are already targets and should accordingly be tested with sufficient robustness. I just don't see how power data adds to that fact.

So you are no longer saying, "winners are already targeted"? Now you're saying "all pros are targeted"?

I provided an example above that made sense to me - I tried to make it clear, apologies that it wasn't. At the moment, sometimes the GC leader is tested, usually the stage winner, and then some randoms. How are those randoms selected? FTP (or similar) figures from in-race performances would seem to make more sense than [test rider # = rnd(198)].

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I provided a very simple example above that made sense to me - I am sorry you don't get it. At the moment, sometimes the GC leader is tested, usually the stage winner, and then some randoms. How are those randoms selected? FTP (or similar) figures from in-race performances would seem to make more sense than [test rider # = rnd(198)]. That seems really obvious to me.

To further clarify: one way randoms are selected is based on biopassport. But at the start of GTs, often all riders or a great number of them, are tested PRE-COMP which is considered IC.

Testing is slow. As evidence by the 2013 Giro when diLuca finished, despite submitting a positive sample before the Giro start.

Power data is ready immediately after the stage, and (making lots of assumptions of reliability aside) not that difficult to parse and summarise. You just need a $1k computer, not a $100k Sysmex 2000.

Plus you can grab that data the entire race, without puncturing the skin of a rider or getting them to pee in a cup or lose some blood.

If someone is doing something dodgy in-race during a GT, their BP may not pick it up as testing takes a long time and is not fed back through the system quickly enough. Power data could be.

ETA: BP testing costs a lot. Power data not so much. And you could get tonnes of it vs BP data, where the average OOC testing is 3 / year for riders. Mainly because of the cost.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'm ignoring MI's "let's test riders at certain points of the year outside competition", and going straight for the, "let's grab power files from in-competition".

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

To clarify: this discussion is interesting, and useful. Even if you write things like "you completely agree with me", which is patently false, and a little off-putting. [ETA: I modified my previous post to try and make it clearer what I meant when I said, "the conversation is not interesting".]

That was because I thought you were on that point. But you've set me straight on that point.

Most of the other threads in the clinic - discussing Froome, Nibali, etc, start off interesting, but quickly devolve when the fanbois jump in and say "you have no proof", "you're anti-Sky", "you're anti-British", "you're not a sports scientist", etc, etc. That's not so interesting. The bickering and the insults and the backbiting, yadda yadda.

I concur. Equally though there are threads started without any actual data, just opinion, so I suppose it's inevitable such tactics will emerge.

I find data and its discussion more interesting. That's the sort of stuff I am looking for. Actual rider weights instead of people claiming they can tell a rider's weight by looking at them. Historical power would add an interesting angle to the discussion.

Sure it's interesting. Heck discussion of rider's power and what it means has been a mainstay for me for over a decade. I'm just not convinced it'll add much to the anti-doping cause.

So you are no longer saying, "winners are already targeted"? Now you're saying "all pros are targeted"?

No, I'm simply saying they should be, not that they are.

IOW a key issue IMO is a lack of robust testing, not one of who to test.

Based on the fact that over half the podium getters of all euro pro races over last 25 years have a doping infraction of some kind suggests to me that all pros are obvious targets. We don't need a power meter for that.

I provided an example above that made sense to me - I tried to make it clear, apologies that it wasn't. At the moment, sometimes the GC leader is tested, usually the stage winner, and then some randoms. How are those randoms selected? FTP (or similar) figures from in-race performances would seem to make more sense than [test rider # = rnd(198)]. That seems really obvious to me.

I'm saying that's woefully inadequate testing. It's not robust.

If a domestique does a massive turn on the final climb to shed hangers on, or does a massive pull for 1-2 hours leading up to that point so hard it prevents any form of attack, well again that's pretty obvious from watching the race and doesn't need a power meter to ID them.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

To further clarify: one way randoms are selected is based on biopassport. But at the start of GTs, often all riders or a great number of them, are tested PRE-COMP which is considered IC.

Testing is slow. As evidence by the 2013 Giro when diLuca finished, despite submitting a positive sample before the Giro start.

Power data is ready immediately after the stage, and (making lots of assumptions of reliability aside) not that difficult to parse and summarise. You just need a $1k computer, not a $100k Sysmex 2000.

Plus you can grab that data the entire race, without puncturing the skin of a rider or getting them to pee in a cup or lose some blood.

If someone is doing something dodgy in-race during a GT, their BP may not pick it up as testing takes a long time and is not fed back through the system quickly enough. Power data could be.

ETA: BP testing costs a lot. Power data not so much. And you could get tonnes of it vs BP data, where the average OOC testing is 3 / year for riders. Mainly because of the cost.

Lab testing takes time. So speed up the lab testing process.

Dramatically increase the volume of testing and I'm pretty sure unit cost will fall considerably.

Unless a sanction will result from a power meter file then sanction process will be no quicker since it will still require a lab result.

If anti doping was serious, then the funding and amount of testing would need to be at least an order of magnitude greater than is currently the case.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Power data is ready immediately after the stage, and (making lots of assumptions of reliability aside) not that difficult to parse and summarise. You just need a $1k computer, not a $100k Sysmex 2000.

ETA: BP testing costs a lot. Power data not so much. And you could get tonnes of it vs BP data, where the average OOC testing is 3 / year for riders. Mainly because of the cost.

Without knowing before hand who you want to target, you also need tamper proof accurate power measurement devices on all rider's bikes, that will work without need for pre- and during ride calibration. At a GT, that's perhaps 300+ power meters and recording devices.

If you have to selective fit such a device to a rider's bike because they are today's target rider, well that's no longer blind testing, the rider is pre-armed with knowledge their data is being recorded.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Without knowing before hand who you want to target, you also need tamper proof accurate power measurement devices on all rider's bikes, that will work without need for pre- and during ride calibration. At a GT, that's perhaps 300+ power meters and recording devices.

If you have to selective fit such a device to a rider's bike because they are today's target rider, well that's no longer blind testing, the rider is pre-armed with knowledge their data is being recorded.

Yep, which is why upthread I said I am ignoring the whole "reliable" aspect of data - in terms of calibration and untampered with data. It's an issue, no question.

ETA: Hang on. You even quoted my post where I said

Power data is ready immediately after the stage, and (making lots of assumptions of reliability aside) not that difficult to parse and summarise. You just need a $1k computer, not a $100k Sysmex 2000.

Reiterating (making lots of assumptions of reliability aside) for effect - and then say, "oh but the data might not be reliable". But then ignore the 2 points in its favour? Hmmm.


If the premise of an FTP passport is not useful, then getting reliable data is a non-issue - there's no point in doing either.

If it is useful, then working on a way to get that reliable data is just a step in the process. Not dissimilar to the BP getting reliable hema parameters - something that took time to work out but now has a process in place (how the subject is positioned, 2 hours post race / training, etc) that removes (or at least seeks to remove) the variability inherent in that process, including WADA laboratory accreditation.

Quarqs recalibrate when coasting, so that's going to help as one example, right?

Bottom line, blood & urine testing will always take time - and be expensive, as the equipment to test is expensive, and takes time, the techs are expensive, the equipment needs to be calibrated, etc, etc. Labs can't just ramp up throughput, they need techs and machines and what not to do it. Compared to processing power files, the resources are significantly greater.

Could not agree more that more testing, with quicker turn around, is necessary. But if you can get better targeted testing more quickly, for the price of processing some power files, it seems like a good idea to me.

 

[SeriousSam]

Even assuming away all practical issues relating to data reliability, gaming the measurements etc, we'd need an unrealistically good model of un-enhanced performance variation over time if anomalies in the FTP passport were to be used for sanctioning athletes because that requires a very low false positive rate.

And even if that model was good enough for the average pro cyclist, there is variation across cyclists in performance variation over time o) so the error rates of the FTP passport would be worse for the sort of cyclists that would win if everyone was clean.

I think performance based methods to identify dopers aren't conservative enough for sanctioning (unlike looking for substances where if you find them, you can be damn sure they doped because it's so unlikely they'd be there otherwise) though they could be useful for other purposes. They'd certainly be interesting and something like the FTP PP would definitely be a huge improvement over labeling every >6w/kg climb as not normal.

 

[Markyboyzx6r]

AlexSimmons, I have to lean towards Dear Wiggo in this discussion. The last 25 years of TdF winners have been doped, so testing isn't working. More testing will not yield more positives. If the objective of doping is to artificially boost power, leading to increased speed and endurance, then measure that speed/endurance, and from that (and this is the important bit) see which riders need to be targeted for a full investigation.

If we had ALL of Chris Froome's power/HR/BP data, from neo-pro onwards, wouldn't that give us an insight into how his performance has developed over time? We've already seen that elite endurance performance does not suddenly change, change is progressive. I've said it before in this thread, if his performance underwent a sudden upshift like it did pre-Vuelta '11 pre-contract renewal, that would be an immediate marker, because that doesn't happen here in the clean world - it only happens in the parallel universe moral vacuum that is pro cycling.

The power data is inarguable. It's the 'output' of doping 'input'. Currently, riders are allowed (like Horner in 2013 Vuelta) to say they've got 'good form' but with longitudinal data we will be able to call them out on that. The technology is there, we have what we need to make cycling a cleaner sport. Fewer needles, better racing, a proper endurance sport rather than a collection of mountain time trials.

Horner in Vuelta 2013 is a good example of how this testing WOULDN'T work, however. He goes away to train in the USA, comes back with incredible 'form', and he can argue, quite legitimately, that he's found that form through natural means (altitude etc).

But, imagine if the UCI had access to all his power files. They could hand those over to anti-doping and they would see 'spikes', markers which give a message as clearly as BP anomolies. The difficulty comes after that - the data shows he's been doping, but what sanction can be put on a rider who hasn't 'tested positive'. None, you can't. You can't catch that doper.

But we, the cycling public, know he's a doper. There's clear evidence via the power data that he's a doper. He can't get a contract renewal as sponsors won't pay for a doper. The public boo him at races. - These are very real possibilities, thus we end up in an environment where public, sponsors and the UCI would be almost self-cleansing. Riders wouldn't go for that one big win, 'cause they'd be called out for the fraud they are. Prize money is nothing compared to sponsorship money.

That could have been Horner in 2014, he had trouble getting the contract as teams all knew how he'd won the Vuelta - but it wasn't, because it was his word against ours, and as someone once said, he likes his word.

So...

1. One-make power monitors
2. Full disclosure power files
3. Spikes in perormance to be investigated.
4. All data in public domain.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Even assuming away all practical issues relating to data reliability, gaming the measurements etc, we'd need an unrealistically good model of un-enhanced performance variation over time if anomalies in the FTP passport were to be used for sanctioning athletes because that requires a very low false positive rate.

And even if that model was good enough for the average pro cyclist, there is variation across cyclists in performance variation over time o) so the error rates of the FTP passport would be worse for the sort of cyclists that would win if everyone was clean.

I think performance based methods to identify dopers aren't conservative enough for sanctioning (unlike looking for substances where if you find them, you can be damn sure they doped because it's so unlikely they'd be there otherwise) though they could be useful for other purposes. They'd certainly be interesting and something like the FTP PP would definitely be a huge improvement over labeling every >6w/kg climb as not normal.

I don't think anyone is saying use this data power - in isolation - for sanctioning. Not at all. Targeted testing at best.

And there's no error rate per se. Like the BP, it would be fed into a system to track parameters.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Yep, which is why upthread I said I am ignoring the whole "reliable" aspect of data - in terms of calibration and untampered with data. It's an issue, no question.

ETA: Hang on. You even quoted my post where I said



Reiterating (making lots of assumptions of reliability aside) for effect - and then say, "oh but the data might not be reliable". But then ignore the 2 points in its favour? Hmmm.

I noted the issue. But yes, I consider it to be a significant practical flaw. So for sure, let's carry on, on the basis that the available power data is mostly perfect from an ideal anti-doping tamper-proof power meter.

That still leaves other significant flaws.

If the premise of an FTP passport is not useful, then getting reliable data is a non-issue - there's no point in doing either.

Agree. I need quite some convincing that such a passport can reliably parse out natural and unnatural performance changes.

If it is useful, then working on a way to get that reliable data is just a step in the process. Not dissimilar to the BP getting reliable hema parameters - something that took time to work out but now has a process in place (how the subject is positioned, 2 hours post race / training, etc) that removes (or at least seeks to remove) the variability inherent in that process, including WADA laboratory accreditation.

Sure, but the cost of doing so will be substantially more than you make out. The ideal anti-doping tamper-proof power meter is just not available and would have to be developed. Ref below.

Quarqs recalibrate when coasting, so that's going to help as one example, right?

OK, well since you've brought us back to practical implementation issues around power data, I'll address this.

For a start, power meter calibration is not the same as setting a torque zero which is probably what you mean. The former requires a deal of work to be done with the bike and requires other equipment. The latter is an operation that varies somewhat depending on the power meter and needs to be done before and occasionally during a ride. I'll address the torque zero as I suspect that's what you mean.

At present, a Quarq does not have an auto torque zero. It requires user input to perform a torque zero, either via a back pedal process (which introduces an unknown error due to the fact it makes an assumption about a bike variable it can't measure), or requiring rider to unclip and perform the function manually.

SRM have an unreliable auto zero. I've demonstrated that in blog posts documenting experiments. The only reliable means to torque zero an SRM is for the rider to unclip and perform the function manually.

P2M claim to have a reliable auto zero, but I am unconvinced on that given it's also a crank based meter, any zeroing while a rider is clipped in will always be subject to erroneous crank torque errors, or if the filter is so strong as to avoid that (which they've told me is the case), then it quite probably isn't zeroing when it should. So it too really needs the rider to unclip and perform a manual zero operation.

None of the above three meters provides a marker in the data stream of when a torque zero change occurs (either via an auto zero or manual zero operation). It doesn't exist in the data stream and isn't simply a firmware issue one can readily address. Indeed I've often commented on the issue over many years as it's a data quality change log that's sorely missing from power meter data.

If you understand how power data is calculated, you'll realise that's quite problematic, especially if we are using such data for the purposes of determining potential anti doping outcomes / sanctions.

Auto zeroing of crank based power meters is in my experience unreliable. I've written about this issue before. Reliable zeroing requires rider to perform the function. Would you permit a rider to calibrate the lab test equipment?


Garmin team won't even use their own Vector power meter.

Pioneer as we've seen are not yet up to standard given the quality of data so far provided.

Stages clearly isn't going to help the cause for obvious reasons biomechanical reasons.

I can't see a requirement to force everyone to ride a Powertap equipped wheel going anywhere. Ironic as it's the one power meter with an auto zero that usually works well when the meter is functioning correctly, and provided the zero point is not too far out to begin with, else it doesn't work at all and needs to be manually reset by the rider. An example of when that can happen is a wheel or head unit change over.

Bottom line, blood & urine testing will always take time - and be expensive, as the equipment to test is expensive, and takes time, the techs are expensive, the equipment needs to be calibrated, etc, etc. Labs can't just ramp up throughput, they need techs and machines and what not to do it. Compared to processing power files, the resources are significantly greater.

Of course, but IMO without adequate resources and commitment, it will never happen.

Could not agree more that more testing, with quicker turn around, is necessary. But if you can get better targeted testing more quickly, for the price of processing some power files, it seems like a good idea to me.

Good to agree, and of course forum discourse usually focusses on differences rather than agreement.

I however remain unconvinced that power meter data is necessary to make those targeting decisions. Beyond the obvious leading contenders for GC and stage honours, watching the race is sufficient to pick others out. That's about as cheap as it gets.

As for costs, what about the issue of the cost of covering all the domestique's bikes with our ideal anti-doping tamper-proof power meters.

Else if budget is limited and you just pick a few to put the devices on, well again they will know in advance their data is being recorded. May as well tell them that morning they are getting their random drug test that afternoon.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Good to agree, and of course forum discourse usually focusses on differences rather than agreement.

I've written incredulously more than a few times that the testing amounts to 3 OOC blood tests on average, per year, per rider.

Three.

It's patently ridiculous.

Not all urine samples are tested for EPO.

And the Giro testing Veloclinic analysed for Ryder's victory highlighted - at least for me - how ridiculous their testing protocol is. Crazy.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

AlexSimmons, I have to lean towards Dear Wiggo in this discussion. The last 25 years of TdF winners have been doped, so testing isn't working.

I've already said that the testing is/has been woefully inadequate. As we know, it's more a test for dopes than dopers.

More testing will not yield more positives.

But what about testing with frequency and robustness that would actually work or be far more likely to detect, or better still, prevent doping?

The issue here is whether power data will be robust enough to either:
- lead to an anti-doping sanction (which I'm pretty sure most dismiss as not the aim or plausible)
- make a sufficient difference to how we actually target limited dope test resources, i.e. better than simply examining race results and watching the race

I need to be convinced on the latter for the reasons I've already outlined.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I've written incredulously more than a few times that the testing amounts to 3 OOC blood tests on average, per year, per rider.

Three.

It's patently ridiculous.

Not all urine samples are tested for EPO.

And the Giro testing Veloclinic analysed for Ryder's victory highlighted - at least for me - how ridiculous their testing protocol is. Crazy.

+1000



Edit:
What if that were an order of magnitude greater, i.e. at least 30 random OOC tests per year, plus in-competition testing?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Also, I'm not suggesting that this is this only solution.

I also think resources devoted to effective investigative approach is also required, e.g. people with skills and experience such those a federal level police/detective might have. Amazing what a good investigator can uncover if given the resources.

 

[Catwhoorg]

(I know using non-elite data is not necessarily sound but bear with me for a few moments)

That's the VO2 Max estimate from some middle aged guy running race results over several years. (2010 was when I started doing cardio seriously again for about 20 years. 2014 I lost fitness due to an injury)

Now the variability over the course of a year is quite large, but the best results from 2011 -2014 are actually fairly closely aligned. This is pretty much what VAM estimates give us rather then power meter readings.

I want to specifically throw out a series of half marathon races in 2013

October 6th 36.43 (2:00:00)
October 26th 41.77 (1:46:47)
November 10th 41.95 (1:46:23)
November 28th 39.46 (1:52:06)

The step change in the 3 weeks at the start of that sequence taken in isolation could look suspicious, but in reality it was a hot and humid day (poor conditions) and it was very much a tune-up race. (cf Dauphine for the Tour).
Otherwise a 15% bump in form would set-off alarm bells in some.

The only thing I think that there needs to be is clarity in rider weights for major events. (Public weigh-ins, or at least measured and announced at the team reveals).

With that piece of data, then the time based estimates of ability become a whole lot clearer. You can safely assume that riders at the head of the race are actually trying hard to win in, so are truly going maximally.

15% bump between races with different goals within the season may not be an issue. A true 15% bump based on publicly declared weights for a goal race for the season from what a rider has been doing for a few years could be pretty strong evidence of something amiss. (and reason to target test a whole lot more).

 

[Bumeington]

In Micheal Hutchinson's latest book he states a Vo2 max of 85ml/kg/min when first tested and later speaks of his joy at hitting 90ml/kg/min. Not sure where this idea that VO2 max doesn't change much comes from and as others have mentioned "preparation" will increase VO2 max anyway - or am I wrong in this assumption?

Maybe in a well trained professional athlete it shouldn't change too much but how will that change the excuses wheeled out at the moment for big improvements (e.g. training for a different thing/drinking - wiggo or not training properly/being ill - froomey)

 

[Dear Wiggo]

In Micheal Hutchinson's latest book he states a Vo2 max of 85ml/kg/min when first tested and later speaks of his joy at hitting 90ml/kg/min. Not sure where this idea that VO2 max doesn't change much comes from and as others have mentioned "preparation" will increase VO2 max anyway - or am I wrong in this assumption?

If you could provide more inforrmaton than "random author's latest book", we could determine information pertinent to the data point.

If it's the cyclist, then cool, but it has significant information missing.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

In Micheal Hutchinson's latest book he states a Vo2 max of 85ml/kg/min when first tested and later speaks of his joy at hitting 90ml/kg/min. Not sure where this idea that VO2 max doesn't change much comes from and as others have mentioned "preparation" will increase VO2 max anyway - or am I wrong in this assumption?

He describes why VO2 max is not as important in determining performance potential.

FTP is a % of VO2 - and his % (ie his FTP) remained the same mostly, due to his % going down or his % going up but his efficiency going down, etc.

FTP is a good measure.

 

[Merckx index]

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.

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.

How do you know this? One of my points is that by collecting a lot of data, we would have a better idea of how much variation does occur in power values. The very fact that teams do not test riders regularly in this manner now is evidence that we don’t have enough information to conclude much. Froome, it seems, had one V02 test back in 2008 or so, I can’t remember when. He’s never had one at Sky. How can we possibly say how much variation he would exhibit? Wouldn’t you think Sky would want to find out? And even if they didn’t have to release the identities of specific riders, couldn’t they release the data itself?

Have you ever tried to find out the V02max, let alone other power-relevant data, from well known riders of the past? For most, it doesn’t seem available, and when it is, it’s usually from a single measurement. Can you point me to a series of measurements over the years on Lemond? Or Indurain? Pantani? Ullrich? Armstrong? So on what data are you basing your assertion that the variability is too great?

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

Before the passport was designed, people could have said, what we need is evidence of EPO, not evidence of hematocrit variability. HT can vary depending on many factors. But after a lot of monitoring, it was concluded that normal ranges can be defined for individuals. The criteria are not as clear-cut as a gel pattern (not that the EPO test is that clear-cut, either, for that matter), or a mass spec peak, but there are changes achieved by doping that can be confidently ruled not explainable by other factors.

It’s the same principle with power. Yes, there is going to be some variation, which creates a lot of fuzziness. But to argue that there are no power changes that might strongly suggest doping—without first collecting and analyzing a lot of data—seems to me premature.

Undoubtedly there will be a lot of individual variation, but the same is likely true of the passport. What I mean is that some individuals probably have larger natural fluctuations in blood parameters than others, which means it will be harder to establish a variation is the result of doping for them. The allowable range they can get away with is greater. I would expect a similar situation with performance, but that doesn’t mean it might not be very useful in identifying at least some riders.

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

No, it isn’t. As I stated in the OP, a main rationale for this proposal is that a performance that could be normal for one rider could be abnormal for another. To say that who needs to be targeted is obvious from racing results is like saying who needs to be targeted is obvious from HT. A high HT does not necessarily mean doping, and a low HT does not necessarily mean not doping. It’s really the same with performance.

Again, look at DiLuca. Based on his performance at the Giro, he wasn’t a prime candidate for targeting. He wasn’t among the race leaders. But he was racing better than expected. I think a lot of people here suspected him (his past obviously helps there, too), but had he not tested positive, having hard data would have made the suspicions much more credible. And DiLuca was noticeable because he had a recent racing record for comparison. Someone newer and less known might have done the same thing DiLuca did and flown completely under the radar.

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.

Nobody is claiming that power monitoring will detect all doping. That’s sort of like arguing we shouldn’t have a blood passport because many riders can juice without triggering the red flag.

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.

Like Hincapie? Many of these domestiques bury themselves on a large portion of a key climb. Are you saying they aren't making maximal efforts? Look at Martin the other day. He's not a GC contender. You think he wasn't going all out on that climb, until he dropped off?

Without knowing before hand who you want to target, you also need tamper proof accurate power measurement devices on all rider's bikes, that will work without need for pre- and during ride calibration. At a GT, that's perhaps 300+ power meters and recording devices.

I don’t understand why people keep making this point. You don’t need a power meter for every rider. One or two riders on a climb will do it. Frankly, you could create a machine that would go up the climb, designed to have air and rolling resistance similar to a cyclist, and calculate the power value from that. It could be done, but it’s not necessary if you have one or two riders with power meters. If you have reliable power data, plus the time on the climb, you can correct for wind. Other sources of variation are not going to make that much difference. As long as there is no sanctioning possible, being off by a few % in estimates is not a big deal.

 

[acoggan]

Not sure where this idea that VO2 max doesn't change much comes from

Me either. Even in someone who has been training diligently for years, VO2max may vary +/- ~10% between the peak and nadir of fitness. As well, while under carefully standardized conditions in a single lab over a short period of time the CV for repeated measurements of VO2max is +/- ~2%, the CV could well be double that under the scenario envisioned.

More broadly, I agree with your comments (that I snipped for brevity) regarding the stability of performance itself in elite athletes.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Me either. Even in someone who has been training diligently for years, VO2max may vary +/- ~10% between the peak and nadir of fitness. As well, while under carefully standardized conditions in a single lab over a short period of time the CV for repeated measurements of VO2max is +/- ~2%, the CV could well be double that under the scenario envisioned.

More broadly, I agree with your comments (that I snipped for brevity) regarding the stability of performance itself in elite athletes.

But as your VO2 max post proved - it's mostly unchanged when at the peak. To suggest a 10% change between nadir and peak matters seems disingenuous in the context of this thread and its intent.

If your VO2 post was not to disprove the post you quoted, I am very curious what you were posting it for, and why you quoted the post you did.

 

[acoggan]

But as your VO2 max post proved - it's mostly unchanged when at the peak. To suggest a 10% change between nadir and peak matters seems disingenuous in the context of this thread and its intent.

If your VO2 post was not to disprove the post you quoted, I am very curious what you were posting it for, and why you quoted the post you did.

The point of sharing the graph was to demonstrate how variable VO2max is, even in a world-class cyclist who has (presumably) been training for a long period of time. That the highest values achieved/achievable might show a plateau isn't really relevant unless you are willing to assume that every pro cyclist is always at their genetic limit every season at whatever time you choose to test them. That's not a reasonable assumption, especially since training to maximize your VO2max and training to maximize your performance in, e.g., the TdF are really two different things.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The point of sharing the graph was to demonstrate how variable VO2max is, even in a world-class cyclist who has (presumably) been training for a long period of time. That the highest values achieved/achievable might show a plateau isn't really relevant unless you are willing to assume that every pro cyclist is always at their genetic limit every season at whatever time you choose to test them. That's not a reasonable assumption, especially since training to maximize your VO2max and training to maximize your performance in, e.g., the TdF are really two different things.

How variable it is? It didn't look variable at all, once he hit 21. If anything it looked very stable.

Or were you, in fact, comparing his junior, 17 year old VO2 max to his senior, 20+ year old professional bike rider VO2 max - given they were the VO2 max values in the post you quoted?

As for assuming a pro cyclist is always at their genetic limit every season at whatever time you choose to test them - bahahahhahahahaa. Sure thing.