Thibaut Pinot's training data

[GoodTimes]

Which if you think about it, is amusingly ironic.

I like a good piece of irony, but have to admit that this escapes me

 

[mrhender]

Some more info here:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/raci...ibaut-pinot-made-podium-tour-de-france-143163



And if not mentioned. It is Pinot's brother and Grappe who is behind...

 

[acoggan]

I like a good piece of irony, but have to admit that this escapes me

They published the data in part to set a standard for transparency, but chose a traditional and not an open-access journal. (I'm sure it never occurred to them, but I'm easily amused.)

 

[skidmark]

Some highlights for those that like numbers.

Study dates between 2008-2013 (age 18-23), uses all training and racing power data minus 5% thrown out because of errors (e.g. power meter stops working, electrical interference from tv motos etc.).

Conclusion: Power outputs over all duration increase and this correlates with an increase in training load (more duration and more frequent intensity).

Numbers:

Weight (for target races) 2008 = 62kg
Weight (for target races) 2012-13 = 65kg
VO2 max = 85ml/min/kg
Total distance 2008 = 14733 km
Total distance 2013 = 29383 km

2008 powers: 5 mins 6.4W/kg, 10min 6.0 W/kg, 20min 5.7W/kg, 30 min 5.4W/kg, 60 min 5.0W/kg

2012-13 powers (picked best each year but not much change): 5 mins 7.4 W/kg, 10 min 6.9W/kg, 20 min 6.5 W/kg, 30 min 6.1 W/kg, 60 min 5.7 W/kg

Edit: Since we're in the clinic here is my 2 cents. 2000s style doping seems unlikely given the correlation between training load and power, no sudden improvements, he improves steadily year on year until 2013 when there's not much improvement over 2012. Micro-dosing etc. can't be ruled out, maybe Pinot needs it to achieve his current training load and recover properly. I'd go for clean as I'm not too cynical and I like his credibility with transparency like this.

Thanks for the summary, Bumeington. Much appreciated.

 

[acoggan]

Here's how the data appear when analyzed using the WKO4 power-duration model:

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.892926167396349.1073741829.378267952195509&type=1

FWIW (which really isn't much), Pinot's progression seems generally comparable to what I'd guesstimate mine to have been over the same age range (although I maxed out about where he started).

 

[DirtyWorks]

So basically all the crying in here for JV to release the data of his riders would acomplish absolutely nothing.

The paywall discourages discourse on the topic. What are we supposed to do if few can read the article? Please be specific.

Pinot does it and all the usual suspects either say they suddenly cant comment on it because they are not qualified or the data would be impossible to tell if the rider was clean or not.

There are a couple that participate here that could comment on it with some depth and expertise. When that doesn't happen on your schedule The Clinic 12 are personally attacked?

That's a great way to come up with an excuse to pretend cycling is clean, shut down any discussion, but that's about it.

But it sounds like it would be a complete waste of time for someone like JV to release this data. People already have their own minds made up. Thats fair enough but dont ram your own point down other peoples throats and then plead ignorance when it come to reading data.

What data has been released has anomalies explained away as calibration errors and whatnot. And no, it wouldn't be a complete waste of time. It would take considerable time to digest anyway as non-clinic participants would comment elsewhere. If learned opinion doesn't happen on your schedule, what does that mean?

Please take a moment to reflect on your sense of entitlement.

 

[Tonton]

I just saved $39 not by switching to Geiko, but by surfing the net and getting bits and pieces of Pinot's training data that some have commented on since its release. I don't have the entire publication, then, but enough pieces of the puzzle to get some kind of a clue.

And I agree that we are missing '14. And I agree that he could have doped since he was 16. And I agree that he may be micro-dosing and benefiting from loopholes in the passport.

However, props for publishing it. We want transparency, don't we? I wish Wiggo, Dawg, and the rest did the same. I also understand if the data was suspicious, it wouldn't have been published. Having said that, Pinot's data at last year's TdF was "realistic". So, some of us will give him the benefit of the doubt, and some won't. I just hope that we can respectfully disagree, unlike what I have read so far.

PS: Benotti69, Pinot clean vs. Valverde clean: I disagree. There's no such thing as a clean Valverde. Maybe last July we had clean Pinot beating a dirty Valverde , who knows.

 

[Arnout]

They published the data in part to set a standard for transparency, but chose a traditional and not an open-access journal. (I'm sure it never occurred to them, but I'm easily amused.)

Well, it's a scientific release. The authors wrote it for a publication paper, not necessarily for anti-doping crusaders. It's standard practice to be honest, if you're trying to publicize your work.

 

[acoggan]

Well, it's a scientific release. The authors wrote it for a publication paper, not necessarily for anti-doping crusaders. It's standard practice to be honest, if you're trying to publicize your work.

I was referring to an open-access peer-reviewed journal, not a lay magazine.

But as I said, I'm sure the irony never really occurred to them, nor does it really matter (since the data are also in the lay press)...I just found it amusing.

 

[acoggan]

BTW, here are the raw data (off one of the graphs) should somebody else want to play with it, but can't access the full paper:

Power (W/kg)
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
1 18.1 18.3 18.4 18.7 20.4 19.3
5 17.3 17.1 17.6 17.4 19 18.1
30 11.9 13 13.2 12.5 12.4 13
60 9.6 9.4 9.3 9.3 9.9 10.5
300 6.4 6.9 7.2 7.2 7.4 7.2
600 6 6.4 6.7 6.6 6.8 6.9
1200 5.7 5.9 6 6.2 6.5 6.4
1800 5.4 5.8 5.7 5.8 6.1 6.1
2700 5.2 5.5 5.4 5.6 5.8 5.9
3600 5 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.6 5.7
7200 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.1 4.8 5
10800 4.3 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.9
14400 3.7 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.6 4.9

 

[acoggan]

we are missing '14.

The paper was accepted on 20 September, but there is no indication when it was actually submitted.

Regardless, they may have omitted 2014 simply to keep things apples-to-apples (i.e., only compare full years).

 

[Benotti69]

...snipped...

PS: Benotti69, Pinot clean vs. Valverde clean: I disagree. There's no such thing as a clean Valverde. Maybe last July we had clean Pinot beating a dirty Valverde , who knows.

I dont believe Valverde has ever ridden clean since he turned pro.

I am happy that a rider releases data but why only training data? Why not racing data for the same period? Why not this years data where he podium the TdF?

There will always be questions till we the sports shows a complete change and those who criticise me for asking for more, remember this is pro cycling!

 

[acoggan]

why only training data? Why not racing data for the same period? Why not this years data where he podium the TdF?

The power data are from both training and racing (minus a small percentage they considered invalid).

As I indicated previously, the lack of data from this year could simply be due to timing.

 

[Tonton]

I dont believe Valverde has ever ridden clean since he turned pro.

I am happy that a rider releases data but why only training data? Why not racing data for the same period? Why not this years data where he podium the TdF?

There will always be questions till we the sports shows a complete change and those who criticise me for asking for more, remember this is pro cycling!

+1

And for the record, I agree with you most but not all the time, and I give you that: you're consistent. That deserves respect.

 

[Arnout]

Since it's a proper publication it obviously cost work to compile it, write about it, let it be reviewed by peers etc. So a final dat of September probably means the draft was finished in March or April.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Power data can be valuable, but only as part of the puzzle. Just like knowing a single blood test's values, it does nothing unless it can be analyzed with other parameters.

Good for him for releasing the data. But it doesn't sound like (I'm not going to be paying to look) there is any mention of his passport data. The numbers from Coggan give a nice little trend, but what can we compare it to? Even the "clean power data" thread stickied at the top doesn't have the longitudinal angle. Anything saying it is normal or not is just speculation.

I think we can agree he's not alien. But that doesn't mean he isn't a donkey turned greyhound (or any other animal a little slower than a racehorse...), or if he is a genuine clean talent.

 

[acoggan]

Since it's a proper publication it obviously cost work to compile it, write about it, let it be reviewed by peers etc. So a final dat of September probably means the draft was finished in March or April.

Seems reasonable. I started pulling the data together for this paper almost a year to the day before it was first published online (although I did miss a couple of months of work due to a crash):

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1089860314002936

 

[Dazed and Confused]

It should be a requirement to release this type of data when riding at the PCT/WT level.

So when Pinot rips up the field in '15 will the data only land in Grappe's lap or will the stuff be made public?

Anyway good move by Pinot.

 

[IzzyStradlin]

I think we can agree he's not alien. But that doesn't mean he isn't a donkey turned greyhound (or any other animal a little slower than a racehorse...), or if he is a genuine clean talent.

If he's doping, he's not getting much boost. There are age group riders I ride with that get close to those numbers.

 

[burning]

I think that this is a very good step, even though is it definitely not a earth-shattering data to identify who is doping or not. I really don't understand why some of guys here are mad at Pinot because he didn't released his race data. I'm pretty sure that guys like veloclinic, vetoo or Ross Tucker will make the comparison vs TDF 12 and 14. I look forward to those kind of analysis to see if these numbers are consistent with this race numbers.

 

[Arnout]

I think that this is a very good step, even though is it definitely not a earth-shattering data to identify who is doping or not. I really don't understand why some of guys here are mad at Pinot because he didn't released his race data. I'm pretty sure that guys like veloclinic, vetoo or Ross Tucker will make the comparison vs TDF 12 and 14. I look forward to those kind of analysis to see if these numbers are consistent with this race numbers.

Race data is included actually. I made this post on a whim last night so only scanned the information.

 

[May0maniac]

If anyone wants the paper, send me a PM with your email address and I'll send it to you.

 

[GoodTimes]

If anyone wants the paper, send me a PM with your email address and I'll send it to you.

durrrrrrr

Shouldn't this be the sort of post that gets you banned? I mean, you are openly advertising the fact that you are improperly distributing intellectual property.

And this is from a guy who really appreciates the concept of open access scientific journals.

 

[thehog]

If anyone wants the paper, send me a PM with your email address and I'll send it to you.

thehog@hogindustries.com

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

so you have no idea? Yet you want me to comment when i am not a sports scientist?

If you don't want to answer my question don't but please stop trying to get around it.