Thibaut Pinot's training data

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 13, 2010
3,317
0
0
The Hitch said:
Well to answer your original question, if an expert said that it really wouldn't be that big a deal, and certainly not grounds for someone like Benotti to change his opinion.

All the expert is saying here is that it is possible for the performance to be clean. It is also however possible for the performance to be dirty.

The term "what would be expected of a clean rider" and similar terms that have been used in the media, is a bit misleading as it implies the data leans to the conclusion of cleanliness, when it does not.

A more accurate way to put it would be "data that could have come from a clean rider, but could also have come from a doped one".

Because afterall plenty of people who's performances easily fell into the- looks clean catergory were dopers, eg Frei.

Secondly lets remember that the "experts" don't neccesarily have the best track record on this. Remember Grappe said Armstrong was clean based on his data.
Note: I am no saying that one piece of data proves anyone is clean.

This paper could prove nothing. However, I am interested to see if posters start seeing more data from riders how it will impact the thought process on doping esp. given how some posters go on about it all the time.

If releasing data makes no difference then why bother asking for it? Seems that some posters pick the evidence or data when it suits their argument and then ignores it or claims it as irrelevant when it does not.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Don't be late Pedro said:
Note: I am no saying that one piece of data proves anyone is clean.

Then why ask a poster a question about whether they will change their opinion based on one piece of paper when you are saying it proves nothing?


Don't be late Pedro said:
This paper could prove nothing. However, I am interested to see if posters start seeing more data from riders how it will impact the thought process on doping esp. given how some posters go on about it all the time.

If releasing data makes no difference then why bother asking for it? Seems that some posters pick the evidence or data when it suits their argument and then ignores it or claims it as irrelevant when it does not.


One Swallow does not make a summer.
 
Aug 13, 2010
3,317
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Then why ask a poster a question about whether they will change their opinion based on one piece of paper when you are saying it proves nothing?
Where did I say it proves nothing?

One Swallow does not make a summer.
So you are saying that it makes no difference?
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Don't be late Pedro said:
Where did I say it proves nothing?

here.

Don't be late Pedro said:
Note: I am no saying that one piece of data proves anyone is clean.



Don't be late Pedro said:
So you are saying that it makes no difference?

No. But it is interesting that the data does not include Pinot's biggest performance to date. So while I welcome that a rider is providing some data, but he is not providing all the data. Maybe he will release it at a later date.

But without rigourous independent testing the data is just that data. Pinot could be a donkey who with limited doping becomes something else.
 
Aug 13, 2010
3,317
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Just because it does not prove he was clean does not mean it proves nothing. Besides, how can you prove someone is clean?

Benotti69 said:
No. But it is interesting that the data does not include Pinot's biggest performance to date. So while I welcome that a rider is providing some data, but he is not providing all the data. Maybe he will release it at a later date.

But without rigourous independent testing the data is just that data. Pinot could be a donkey who with limited doping becomes something else.
But if it covers him up until that age of 23 that would still include him getting a top 10 in the Tour and a stage win.

As the thread starter asked to keep on topic and this might be moving away I might find another more relevant thread where we can continue this discussion?
 
May 17, 2013
7,559
2,414
20,680
This publishing of Pinot's data confirms the obvious: riders and team DO possess a massive amount of data about the riders. If ALL cared about a clean sport, the said data should be made public. There are doctors, doping experts who would give us their thoughts, in the media, or who knows in forums like this one. The amount of transparency would increase dramatically.

I give props to the Pinot camp to make that first step, and if it is what I hope it is, they may have gained the high ground versus others and also earned the right to ask others to do the same. I hope that he's clean. I don't think that anyone (not living in Austin) in their right mind would take that kind of a chance to alienate so many: other riders/teams won't be pleased.

I can't pretend to be the most objective here. I know. I'll keep watching. But now that he published his data, a lot of people are going to be watching too...

Benotti69: une hirondelle ne fait pas le printemps, It's true. It's also true that it would take pulling the guys' guts and using hundreds of spectometers to study his cavities to convince you that he's clean ;)
 
Mar 4, 2011
3,346
451
14,580
Tonton said:
This publishing of Pinot's data confirms the obvious: riders and team DO possess a massive amount of data about the riders. If ALL cared about a clean sport, the said data should be made public. There are doctors, doping experts who would give us their thoughts, in the media, or who knows in forums like this one. The amount of transparency would increase dramatically.

Now here's the problem. You can't tell whether someone is doping from the data. And you definitely can't tell if a rider is clean. Lots of people have demanded data, but no-one has put forward any credible idea as what to do with it. That's why when any rider actually publishes their data no-one says anything about it.

In cycling there has developed a subculture of doping fans - people who are more interested in doping stories than actual cycling. This forum is a manifestation of that subculture. And that subculture wants a doping story. So what do they do when there is no actual story - they construct one. And the power analysis is how they do it, by estimates. It's crude, but it has just enough science. Importantly the biggest variable - how a race is raced - is ignored

The next step is that there is a symbiotic relationship between a media desperate for clicks and self-publicising, self-appointed experts who will bandy about phrases like 'suspicious' and 'not normal', pointing to conveniently simple thresholds like 6W/kg with do regard for context. It's tabloid journalism dressed up as science and the sceptics lap it up without question.

So teams don't bother releasing data that won't prove anything to those who will misrepresent it. And that's when the doping fans play their 'transparency' card.

People want data not because it will reveal the truth, but because they can manipulate it to their own ends.
 
May 17, 2013
7,559
2,414
20,680
Parker said:
Now here's the problem. You can't tell whether someone is doping from the data. And you definitely can't tell if a rider is clean. Lots of people have demanded data, but no-one has put forward any credible idea as what to do with it. That's why when any rider actually publishes their data no-one says anything about it.

In cycling there has developed a subculture of doping fans - people who are more interested in doping stories than actual cycling. This forum is a manifestation of that subculture. And that subculture wants a doping story. So what do they do when there is no actual story - they construct one. And the power analysis is how they do it, by estimates. It's crude, but it has just enough science. Importantly the biggest variable - how a race is raced - is ignored

The next step is that there is a symbiotic relationship between a media desperate for clicks and self-publicising, self-appointed experts who will bandy about phrases like 'suspicious' and 'not normal', pointing to conveniently simple thresholds like 6W/kg with do regard for context. It's tabloid journalism dressed up as science and the sceptics lap it up without question.

So teams don't bother releasing data that won't prove anything to those who will misrepresent it. And that's when the doping fans play their 'transparency' card.

People want data not because it will reveal the truth, but because they can manipulate it to their own ends.

Please agree that more data is better than less data or no data at all. Or you are ignorant and want to remain one. Like some on the other CN thread, the most impressive rides: Riis at Hautacam, Big Mig ITT '92, Marco, Marco :rolleyes: Yeah, like ET riding into space, Bart Simpson up the dome (with an engine on his bike, Fabian did the stunt). Wow!!!

If you, like me, have been religious about tracking your own data for years, you know what the numbers mean, what the mileage means. Intensity level, heart rate max, lung capacity, VO2Max, it gives you some clues. It will take experts, and actually more likely tests that work to know the entire story. See Pinot in 10 years then.

Don't you want to know what Froome did between Giro DQ and TdF winner, how he went from Cavendish to Chiappucci (put in beer terms Pantani-Light) in the mountains? I say: can I see the data? You listen to Phil and Paul :D.

Why shouldn't we, riders, practitioners, fans, not want to know? Teams don't bother...ahahaha...bother is not the right verb here. Don't want is more like it.

You show contempt for people in The Clinic trying to understand, and not get burned again. Should we apologize? How many Jans, Richards, Marcos, Miguels, Lances, Berties, Pitis, Jajas, and Skys will it take before you become a little sckeptic?

I suppose that he can't be more blind that he who doesn't want to see.
 
Mar 4, 2011
3,346
451
14,580
Tonton said:
Please agree that more data is better than less data or no data at all. Or you are ignorant and want to remain one. Like some on the other CN thread, the most impressive rides: Riis at Hautacam, Big Mig ITT '92, Marco, Marco :rolleyes: Yeah, like ET riding into space, Bart Simpson up the dome (with an engine on his bike, Fabian did the stunt). Wow!!!
You can't tell if someone is doping from data. If you think you can then let's see the science behind it. So lots of data is just as useless as limited data. Randomly quoting suspect performances doesn't change this

Tonton said:
If you, like me, have been religious about tracking your own data for years, you know what the numbers mean, what the mileage means. Intensity level, heart rate max, lung capacity, VO2Max, it gives you some clues. It will take experts, and actually more likely tests that work to know the entire story. See Pinot in 10 years then.
I'm not a cyclist, so I have no data of my own. However, I have been a data analyst so I can see the major flaws in the so called experts' analysis. The primary flaw is absolutely no acknowledgement that races aren't raced in a uniform manner.

Tonton said:
Don't you want to know what Froome did between Giro DQ and TdF winner, how he went from Cavendish to Chiappucci (put in beer terms Pantani-Light) in the mountains? I say: can I see the data? You listen to Phil and Paul :D.
The data won't tell me anything. He was a different rider with different roles. Despite what many claim he did show talent in 2007 and a 14th place as a neo pro in the final Tour TT shows basic power. But data isn't just about Froome is it? What about Quintana, Nibali, Peraud, Contador? Admittedly they don't speak English so you won't get the same reaction. The doping subculture needs pushback from 'fanboys' to keep itself vibrant.

Tonton said:
Why shouldn't we, riders, practitioners, fans, not want to know? Teams don't bother...ahahaha...bother is not the right verb here. Don't want is more like it.
You can want to know. But do you really understand?

Tonton said:
You show contempt for people in The Clinic trying to understand, and not get burned again. Should we apologize? How many Jans, Richards, Marcos, Miguels, Lances, Berties, Pitis, Jajas, and Skys will it take before you become a little sckeptic?

I suppose that he can't be more blind that he who doesn't want to see.
I take every case on its own merits. I suppose you claim to want clean cycling, but you'll perpetually cling to history as justification that it's not and never will be. Because ultimately you don't want clean cycling, you want doping cases to sate your cynicism. But it's not actually cynicism is it? It's a need to be above the average fan.
 
May 17, 2013
7,559
2,414
20,680
Parker said:
You can't tell if someone is doping from data. If you think you can then let's see the science behind it. So lots of data is just as useless as limited data. Randomly quoting suspect performances doesn't change this


I'm not a cyclist, so I have no data of my own. However, I have been a data analyst so I can see the major flaws in the so called experts' analysis. The primary flaw is absolutely no acknowledgement that races aren't raced in a uniform manner.


The data won't tell me anything. He was a different rider with different roles. Despite what many claim he did show talent in 2007 and a 14th place as a neo pro in the final Tour TT shows basic power. But data isn't just about Froome is it? What about Quintana, Nibali, Peraud, Contador? Admittedly they don't speak English so you won't get the same reaction. The doping subculture needs pushback from 'fanboys' to keep itself vibrant.


You can want to know. But do you really understand?


I take every case on its own merits. I suppose you claim to want clean cycling, but you'll perpetually cling to history as justification that it's not and never will be. Because ultimately you don't want clean cycling, you want doping cases to sate your cynicism. But it's not actually cynicism is it? It's a need to be above the average fan.

Parker, I just isolated two points, and I'm done with you:

First, you are not a cyclist by your own admission. You can't read training logs, see improvement, or gauge progress as realistic or not. Read training programs, distance, intensity...

You're not a cyclist. And you lecture. :rolleyes:

Second quote, attack on my character. You don't know me! I want clean cycling. Otherwise, why would I be here? I would be on the other side, arguing if Pantani or Riis put on the best circus performance ever. And Floyd. Epic. Back then, for about 48 hours I believed it.

You're not a cyclist...
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Parker said:
You can't tell if someone is doping from data
And yet there is a direct correlation with powernumbers/climbing times only achieved by convicted dopers. Anyone who denies this has blindfolds on.

When one takes a look at Thibaut's climbing times you will see he is almost steadily 10% slower than the Epo-mules of 1994/1998.
http://tour-manager.freehostia.com/climbingtimes.htm

Is he clean? I dont know, I just hope he is.
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
And yet there is a direct correlation with powernumbers/climbing times only achieved by convicted dopers. Anyone who denies this has blindfolds on.

When one takes a look at Thibaut's climbing times you will see he is almost steadily 10% slower than the Epo-mules of 1994/1998.
http://tour-manager.freehostia.com/climbingtimes.htm

Is he clean? I dont know, I just hope he is.
Yes, everyone agree that his data will never prove that he is clean, but those datas show us that they are believable.
More than doping tests, such datas put a limit of what can do a doper.

I hope that we could get such informations from all athletes.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Parker said:
Now here's the problem. You can't tell whether someone is doping from the data. And you definitely can't tell if a rider is clean. Lots of people have demanded data, but no-one has put forward any credible idea as what to do with it. That's why when any rider actually publishes their data no-one says anything about it.

In cycling there has developed a subculture of doping fans - people who are more interested in doping stories than actual cycling. This forum is a manifestation of that subculture. And that subculture wants a doping story. So what do they do when there is no actual story - they construct one. And the power analysis is how they do it, by estimates. It's crude, but it has just enough science. Importantly the biggest variable - how a race is raced - is ignored

The next step is that there is a symbiotic relationship between a media desperate for clicks and self-publicising, self-appointed experts who will bandy about phrases like 'suspicious' and 'not normal', pointing to conveniently simple thresholds like 6W/kg with do regard for context. It's tabloid journalism dressed up as science and the sceptics lap it up without question.

So teams don't bother releasing data that won't prove anything to those who will misrepresent it. And that's when the doping fans play their 'transparency' card.

People want data not because it will reveal the truth, but because they can manipulate it to their own ends.

I think you make some excellent points.
 
Jul 10, 2013
335
29
9,330
So his VO2max increased slowly and steadily from 18 to 23 and peaked at 23. Total increase was 14%.

And every year he was able to increase his training load.

I don't know what a doped watt/kg graph would look like. His watt/kg graph does drop from 2009 to 2010, then keeps climbing and gets near the top tier values with 6.1 watt/kg for 30 minutes. But he isn't gonna win a TdF with these values(though that are at age 23, who wins a TdF at that age?)

The whole idea of detecting doping from power data was that one sees an increase at a young age, then a leveling off as rider becomes a pro. Then suddenly starts to increase with a steep curve out of nothing. Obviously, this is not what we see in his data since he isn't that type of rider both in age and performance.
 
Feb 10, 2010
10,645
20
22,510
Almeisan said:
I don't know what a doped watt/kg graph would look like.

It would depend on the day the test was run. On-cycle the numbers would be huge. Off cycle, the values would fall back to earth. Elite earth, like a Schleck.

Almeisan said:
But he isn't gonna win a TdF with these values(though that are at age 23, who wins a TdF at that age?)

Uhh.... Well... This is going to be a sore topic for some, but Fignon, Lemond riding as support got fourth, Hampsten riding support got 4th. And then the EPO really kicks in...

I don't have enough pre-Young Rider jersey history (< 26 years) to dig any deeper than that.

What you see from clean riders is consistency. It seems like his data is very consistent. His climbing data from the TdF is realistic. Is he clean? I don't know. It's very likely he's clean-ish up to this point in time. The federation's management of doping makes everything doubtful.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
2
0
Liked the study. Would love to see more like it from other riders. Also would be interesting to have more detailed training info as well as get some idea how he metabolized the increased training load as he moved to being a Pro.
 

thehog

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
31,285
2
22,485
Red Rick said:
I would've liked to see this study on Froome over the past 10 years

I'm not sure the Dawg would ever allow for pre-2011 Vuelta data to see the light of day.

BikePure had it but all but deleted once he became SuperDawg.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
2
0
Red Rick said:
I would've liked to see this study on Froome over the past 10 years

Sure, it is right here :D

theclimb_medium.jpg


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.
 
Mar 15, 2011
2,760
71
11,580
Almeisan said:
So his VO2max increased slowly and steadily from 18 to 23 and peaked at 23. Total increase was 14%.

And every year he was able to increase his training load.

Can you share the VO2 numbers and what ever is written about training load (kms/yr.? broken down racing and training? Broken down by specific workout types?)
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
2
0
More Strides than Rides said:
Can you share the VO2 numbers and what ever is written about training load (kms/yr.? broken down racing and training? Broken down by specific workout types?)

His preseason Vo2 in 2013 was 85, I did not see what it was in 2008. He doubled his annual training during this period, 14,500 km to 29,000 km. His Power output over a variety of times averaged a 14% increase over the period (2008-2013). His weight increased 3kg.

It is certainly an interesting study but it opens up many, non-doping related, questions about training and managing training load. Would be very interesting to have more detail
 
May 17, 2013
7,559
2,414
20,680
From Cycling Weekly

Starting in the year you turn 18, race and train for 515 hours, over 14,733 km (9,155 miles).

Step it up each birthday so that, aged 23, you’re on the bike for 942 hours, and covering twice the distance – 29,383 km (18,258 miles), much of it on tougher roads than before.

You should make your biggest improvements in the first few years. Pinot got stronger by about 20% each year before turning 21. Then gains will be more elusive, averaging just 10% a year – but you’ll still be getting better.

It’s not all pain. You may have to indulge in your favourite foods, within moderation, to reach your optimal racing weight. Analysis showed that France’s hottest prospect, at 62kg, was too light to be able to perform at his best so he had to add 3kg to his 1.8m frame.

Like Pinot, you won’t be measuring your unstoppable progress simply by hours, kilometres or race results. The conventional way is to measure your maximum oxygen consumption – known as VO2max. The higher the number, the fitter you are.

It’s quantified in the lab. Put simply, you pedal an ergometer (a wired, hi-tec exercise bike) while its resistance is increased until you collapse. The breathing mask you have to wear allows your oxygen consumption to be calculated.

Stay on the programme and your maximum oxygen consumption could be as high as Pinot’s – 85 millilitres per minute for every kilogram of body weight (85mL/min/kg) . How good is that?

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.

But Pinot’s coach believes the key is not VO2max alone – your power output is the real biz and you should put a power meter on your road bike for every training session and competitve race. Pinot did so for six years, for 2208 sessions in all – 1727 workouts and 481 races, including 68 time trials.

The numbers show his workouts got harder by 62% in that time and yet his power output rose – by more than 10% at almost every intensity, over every duration from a finish line sprint up to a Grand Tour stage of four hours.

For a five second sprint as a junior his power output was 17.3 Watts per kilo of body weight (W/kg). In 2012 as a pro the training focused on sprinting and output peaked at 19 W/kg.

When you’re almost at the limit, perhaps climbing Alpe d’Huez, and Pinot attacks you, you’ll need to match his power, which has risen over six years from 9.6 W/kg to 10.5 W/kg for that crucial 60 seconds.

Your chances of stopping him in an “average” break away have also diminished. For a serious move lasting 10 minutes his power is now 6.9 W/kg, up from 6 W/kg in 2008.

And when you’re in his team on a typical flat stage of the Tour, bear in mind that since Pinot turned pro, his power output over four hours has rocketed from 4.3 W/kg to 5 W/kg.

How can you achieve a similar improvement? Sadly the study doesn’t detail the training regime and, anyway, that should be tailored to your own stengths and weaknesses because everybody is different. For example, approximately half of your VO2max potential is down to the genes you’ve inherited from your parents (so that’s another thing to thank them for).

But two secrets have been spilled by the researchers. First, they say Pinot regularly focuses his training on heavy exercise, for up to an hour at a time. Secondly, he frequently endures severely intense exercise in sessions lasting up to 20 minutes – mostly on climbs.

All world tour squads will be doing this kind of analysis but nobody has ever published the data and analysis of a top contender in such detail. His coach, Julien Pinot, says they’ve published his brother’s data because they want to show how effective their training processes can be.

“Moreover, the publication of his record power profile allows us to be transparent about the level of his physical potential,” says Julien Pinot, with an eye on the future.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
acoggan said:
I think you make some excellent points.

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