Thibaut Pinot's training data

[Big Doopie]

Trust me - I know it. Pinot is clean.

same here.

pinot = clean

just cuz he beats a doper like piti just means piti not so good and dope made him. just like clentadoppucci. myths created by the dope.

 

[Big Doopie]

Well, the VO2max of his coach is 79mL/min/kg. That 6mL/min/kg may seem small but it’s the difference between a fit human and a superfit world class cyclist.

lol.

so lemond WAS a freakin' FREAK!!

holy crapola!!

 

[Merckx index]

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

Thanks much for this. I assume the numbers on the left are time in seconds, so his FTP as of 2013 was in the 5.9-6.1 range. As others have said, that is believable, without being proof of cleanliness. It's reasonable to believe there are riders who could put out that much power without doping, even if we don't know yet if Pinot is one of them. That's an important first step.

A second important conclusion just from these data is that his FTP has pretty much peaked; based on his past, he might increase his power a little in the future, but not very much. If he did 6.3 watts/kg on a 40' climb next year, a fairly precise measurement (not based on time alone with uncertain wind, etc., conditions), we could regard that as extremely suspicious. For many of us, that level of power would be suspicious for anyone, but Pinot has now provided the beginning of an FTP passport, so for him it would be particularly suspicious.

And as someone else mentioned, beyond what we can or can't deduce from these data, it does indicate that most riders do have such data, even if they aren't showing it. In the Armstrong thread, we've been discussing a very interesting document from the 90s that shows a lot of power data for him, as well as blood work and other tests. It all makes it harder and harder to believe that such data aren't available, even if kept under wraps, for other top riders.

 

[Granville57]

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:

I was bored (obviously). I believe you intended something closer to this:



................................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

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

It all makes it harder and harder to believe that such data aren't available, even if kept under wraps, for other top riders.

Something like:
http://www.srm.de/news/road-cycling/le-tour-de-france-stage-20/

http://www.srm.de/news/road-cycling/le-tour-de-france-stage-19/

http://www.srm.de/news/road-cycling/tour-de-france-stage-18/

 

[nhowson]

Trying to prove a negative never satisfies anyone does it?

 

[Benotti69]

Trying to prove a negative never satisfies anyone does it?

Pinot's data is welcome. But it does not prove anything as it cannot prove a clean rider or a doper.

But if the whole peloton put out their data along with rigorous independent testing then we can start to make 'guestimates'.

Pinot could be on a program, how do we know one way or the other? Festina was 1998 and French teams have to face serious possible criminal sanctions for doping. Maybe this year their 'programs' along it new PEDs have allowed them to compete again. We just dont know.

 

[Tonton]

Pinot's data is welcome. But it does not prove anything as it cannot prove a clean rider or a doper.

But if the whole peloton put out their data along with rigorous independent testing then we can start to make 'guestimates'.

Pinot could be on a program, how do we know one way or the other? Festina was 1998 and French teams have to face serious possible criminal sanctions for doping. Maybe this year their 'programs' along it new PEDs have allowed them to compete again. We just dont know.

Of course. It has to start somewhere though? As sad as it may be, this step by Pinot did more for clean cycling that all McQuaid and Cookson have accomplished in their entire life

I hope that he his clean. If he is not, with retro-active testing, he just set a time bomb that will explode to his face in around 2020. I can't believe that he would be foolish enough to go down that road if he were not clean.

But we have learned that all that glitters in July on the Champs Elysees is not always gold, rather fool's gold indeed. So to some previous posts: it's not doing pseudo science for one to try to understand what one sees. Maybe it's the beginning of intelligence, actually

In any case, Pinot just put the other guys on alert: rest days at next year's TdF will be brutal. You'll see more cops than some countries have inhabitants. So if you want to beat me on my turf, you'd better come clean

 

[Benotti69]

Of course. It has to start somewhere though? As sad as it may be, this step by Pinot did more for clean cycling that all McQuaid and Cookson have accomplished in their entire life

If clean i agree.

I hope that he his clean. If he is not, with retro-active testing, he just set a time bomb that will explode to his face in around 2020. I can't believe that he would be foolish enough to go down that road if he were not clean.

We have seen so many 'foolish' to go down routes that blew up in faces.....

But we have learned that all that glitters in July on the Champs Elysees is not always gold, rather fool's gold indeed. So to some previous posts: it's not doing pseudo science for one to try to understand what one sees. Maybe it's the beginning of intelligence, actually

In any case, Pinot just put the other guys on alert: rest days at next year's TdF will be brutal. You'll see more cops than some countries have inhabitants. So if you want to beat me on my turf, you'd better come clean

Pinot has certainly put it up to everyone else to release data for an extended period. But I hope Pinot will continue to release data.

 

[Tonton]

We have seen so many 'foolish' to go down routes that blew up in faces.....

The 2014 TdF and the happiness it created gave a huge relief to a government that is failing, in a country financially in shambles. The People is no mood to forgive yet another liar. I can't find an equivalent to express what would happen to him, except that, as we Gauls say: the sky would fall on his head.

And in order to avoid that the other Sky (the one that is raining yellow jerseys) falls on his head next year, in more ways than one, it's a good move for Pinot. He thinks that he is as good as anyone on an even playing field, the course in '15 is great for him. If he wins, he's a national hero.

 

[thehog]

The 2014 TdF and the happiness it created gave a huge relief to a government that is failing, in a country financially in shambles. The People is no mood to forgive yet another liar. I can't find an equivalent to express what would happen to him, except that, as we Gauls say: the sky would fall on his head.

And in order to avoid that the other Sky (the one that is raining yellow jerseys) falls on his head next year, in more ways than one, it's a good move for Pinot. He thinks that he is as good as anyone on an even playing field, the course in '15 is great for him. If he wins, he's a national hero.

Agreed. Like a good chess player he is 2 moves ahead of the game.

 

[Benotti69]

according to


https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily/status/531497794239201281/photo/1


Pinot put out numbers greater than known TdF doped winners.

 

[acoggan]

Parker: search the (rn now groups.google.com) archives where Coggan said basically the same thing about Armstrong. It's enlightening.

Good luck w/ that.

 

[acoggan]

Thanks much for this. I assume the numbers on the left are time in seconds

Correct.

, so his FTP as of 2013 was in the 5.9-6.1 range.

I calculate it to be just over 6.1 W/kg last year (and just over 6.2 in 2012).

 

[acoggan]

Interesting to compare Froome and Pinot's self reported, training, W/kg. Froome say he did 6.95 w/kg for 30 minutes. Pinot says his best is 6.1 for 30 minutes

That is a massive difference.

Indeed it is, and indeed it is.

 

[Race Radio]

according to


https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily/status/531497794239201281/photo/1


Pinot put out numbers greater than known TdF doped winners.

The numbers in the study are from training. I do not think he has put out anything close during a race

 

[veji11]

according to


https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily/status/531497794239201281/photo/1


Pinot put out numbers greater than known TdF doped winners.

The problem with those numbers is the race circumstances : in this year's tour de France most of the big climbs were to finish the stage and were ridden at a fast pace with all riders giving their best : when Nibali attacks with 7/8kms to go on a climb, riders behind him give all they have for that long. It is not the same as a group of 7/8 leaders riding together till the 2ks mark as we have quite often seen.

Last year's TDF saw quite quickly on the last climb a scattered field giving it all : Nibali first, then Péraud/Pinot/Valverde/TVG/Bardet giving it all, then the others.

If one was to compare for example with 2011, the diffence was massive : in 2011 we had on almost every big moutain stage a group of 6/10 big favourites riding together at a moderately high tempo till the very last hundreds of meters, so they weren't going all in until the very very end, ergo the fairly low power numbers.

I am not saying this one is clean and this one isn't, but that general numbers such as the ones you quote, which average power output for all the big climbs, are very very very misleading, because this power output is very dependent on how the race unfolded. Power outputs on a last climb once the riders are in attack mode giving it all, is a lot more telling. One can compare a lot better what Froome did at Bonascre in 2013 with what Nibali did at pla d'Adet for example, rather than the whole average.

 

[veji11]

The numbers in the study are from training. I do not think he has put out anything close during a race

Numbers in the Pinot study are from training AND racing.

 

[MagniflexOlmo]

The section "SRM Data Analysis" says the data is from training and competition. The "Results" section say the data was collected from 1727 trainings and 481 competitions. The clue to it being race data is in the 1st 4 hour value being so low....

I bought the article the other day since my lad was first year junior this year and I was most interested to compare data and see what his tour podium chances will be in six years ;-)

My impression of Pinot's data is it all looks exceedingly plausible ( i.e. non-doped ) since Pinot's second year junior data is not so different to what I'm seeing, and a fifteen percent improvement to U23 is what I guestimated. I'm still struggling with the SRM a bit though, and wonder what data they had to throw out and for what reasons.

This was the first season we collected a full year's worth of data and really started analysing it. The max values we got for intervals of up to one minute were all set in training. i.e. Sprinting up a short incline when the rider is fairly fresh and rested. These are pretty reproducible. Pinot's values here are nothing special, and the spike in 2012 is probably due to him doing a block of sprint training that he doesn't normally do. At the other end of the scale it's no surprise that Pinot's 4hr value improves so much - Juniors don't race 4 hours, so that first 2008 value would be a long training ride. Whatever, it's those 5 to 20min max values which are interesting for Pinot.

Despite "training hard", all the 5 minute to 3 hour max values we collected are race values, which reduces the number of "interesting" datasets considerably. This is also the area where the values get pretty variable. Certainly there are a few wet / cold races where power was maybe 10% down, and there were also a couple or races days which perhaps shouldn't have been race days where the power was down. But on the other side we have 3 files which are 10% up on all the others, and these are the maximal between 10mins and 1hour. Sure, the lad was really on a good day and was riding like his bum was on fire, but was it really that good? You look a file like this and check : was the SRM calibrated - yes - normal calibration errors wouldn't give you 10%. had the SRM just undergone large temperature change (e.g. come out of hot car) - no - Had the chainrings swapped - no.

The paper says they corrected for "artifacts, incorrect calibrations and speed sensor faults". Well certainly speed doesn't affect power readings, but I wonder what constitutes an "artifact". Is there anyone else out there with experience like this? Do athletes sometimes have "float" days.

 

[MagniflexOlmo]

Further to my last post, of course everyone jumps on best power values for riding up mountains, but would it not be reasonable to assume that Pinot's best values might be set at sea level riding a TT or somewhere else? My lad's best 10 to 30 min times were set in criteriums ... his TT's, so far were crap in comparison.

 

[Ferminal]

HMMMMMMMMM, No replys to this. After all the crying on here for Data and the first time a rider really puts out a serious amount and it all goes quiet. No comments about "well done" or anything.

Come on guys where are all you doubters?

Im looking at you Benotti, you pretty much always have something negative to say.

Lets hear ya.

lol, not people's fault it's a vanity exercise Pinot's brother and mate such that it's behind a paywall, I'd be more concerned if people were giving journal publishers their money. Hopefully someone's uni has access to it and has ripped it.

 

[Ferminal]

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

Cheers for posting.

Whatever 2014 is, it wouldn't differ too much from the surprisingly uniform trend. I'm not sure where any improvement can come from though, so he's never going to win a GT when you consider Froome etc are >6.0 for an hour (in a TT at least). Without checking they are probably broadly consistent with estimates though I'm not sure about 2013 (seems like his 2014 performances were closer to that) though I could be overstating his 2012.

Edit: If all the useful observations are from actual race days it would be good for them to release the raw files or at the very least the day.

 

[sniper]

The numbers in the study are from training. I do not think he has put out anything close during a race

the text above/below the graph quite clearly says these are output data from the nrs 1-3 in the GC of the TdF from 2000-2014 during the major climbs.
says nothing about training.

 

[sniper]

The problem with those numbers is the race circumstances : in this year's tour de France most of the big climbs were to finish the stage and were ridden at a fast pace with all riders giving their best : when Nibali attacks with 7/8kms to go on a climb, riders behind him give all they have for that long. It is not the same as a group of 7/8 leaders riding together till the 2ks mark as we have quite often seen.

Last year's TDF saw quite quickly on the last climb a scattered field giving it all : Nibali first, then Péraud/Pinot/Valverde/TVG/Bardet giving it all, then the others.

If one was to compare for example with 2011, the diffence was massive : in 2011 we had on almost every big moutain stage a group of 6/10 big favourites riding together at a moderately high tempo till the very last hundreds of meters, so they weren't going all in until the very very end, ergo the fairly low power numbers.

I am not saying this one is clean and this one isn't, but that general numbers such as the ones you quote, which average power output for all the big climbs, are very very very misleading, because this power output is very dependent on how the race unfolded. Power outputs on a last climb once the riders are in attack mode giving it all, is a lot more telling. One can compare a lot better what Froome did at Bonascre in 2013 with what Nibali did at pla d'Adet for example, rather than the whole average.

perhaps the main 'problem' is that the data contradict the thesis that the peloton has drastically slowed down?

 

[Benotti69]

The problem with those numbers is the race circumstances : in this year's tour de France most of the big climbs were to finish the stage and were ridden at a fast pace with all riders giving their best : when Nibali attacks with 7/8kms to go on a climb, riders behind him give all they have for that long. It is not the same as a group of 7/8 leaders riding together till the 2ks mark as we have quite often seen.

Last year's TDF saw quite quickly on the last climb a scattered field giving it all : Nibali first, then Péraud/Pinot/Valverde/TVG/Bardet giving it all, then the others.

If one was to compare for example with 2011, the diffence was massive : in 2011 we had on almost every big moutain stage a group of 6/10 big favourites riding together at a moderately high tempo till the very last hundreds of meters, so they weren't going all in until the very very end, ergo the fairly low power numbers.

I am not saying this one is clean and this one isn't, but that general numbers such as the ones you quote, which average power output for all the big climbs, are very very very misleading, because this power output is very dependent on how the race unfolded. Power outputs on a last climb once the riders are in attack mode giving it all, is a lot more telling. One can compare a lot better what Froome did at Bonascre in 2013 with what Nibali did at pla d'Adet for example, rather than the whole average.

I dont think TdFs have been soft pedalled since EPO was introduced to the peloton. So I think the average outputs are a pretty good indication that the speeds and power outputs are not below EPO levels. In some instances they are higher.