Thibaut Pinot's training data

[Race Radio]

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.

True, but Pinot's 6.1 mentioned in the study. came during training. This is what I was referring to.

While Veetoo's data is good for it to be comparable we would need to know the length of the climbs involved.

 

[DFA123]

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

Those numbers don't contradict or support anything. As Veji11 said, there are far too many variables to draw any conclusions from.

What does 'major climbs' mean for example. Does that mean the power produced this year on Hautacam, Pla d'Adet and Col d'Izoard are being compared to the power last year on Ventoux, Madeleine and Pailheres? It's just not a like for like comparison - the times it takes to do the climbs are different, the way it is raced is different, the heat can be a factor, the length and difficulty of the rest of the stage. How many attacks did a rider close down, or how many attacks did they make - i.e. how variable was their effort throughout the climbs? My guess would be a rider like Pinot or Wiggins had a lot lower variability in his power than someone like Armstrong or Froome last year.

Look at the power Landis produced in 2006, we can analyse that and say he may well have been clean. Except we know that he wasn't - but they are figures that most would agree are in the range that a talented, clean rider could potentially produce.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Those numbers don't contradict or support anything. As Veji11 said, there are far too many variables to draw any conclusions from.

Thanks to the UCI, nearly all data is suspect. But, that doesn't mean we can't discuss the data and how it might fit in with clean racing.

Sniper, I agree that things aren't clean, maybe cleaner. But, the data presented is very consistent in and out of competition. That is not something observed with old-school EPO dopers.

The reality may be that the current fashion in doping delivers more consistent results. The extremely low weights and high power for weeks suggest that. But, we don't know.

 

[DFA123]

Thanks to the UCI, nearly all data is suspect. But, that doesn't mean we can't discuss the data and how it might fit in with clean racing.

Sniper, I agree that things aren't clean, maybe cleaner. But, the data presented is very consistent in and out of competition. That is not something observed with old-school EPO dopers.

The reality may be that the current fashion in doping delivers more consistent results. The extremely low weights and high power for weeks suggest that. But, we don't know.

I agree that Pinot's data is very interesting and useful. It was the table with the w/kg of the major climbs in the last 14 Tours that I don't think has any value.

Low weight and high sustainable power definitely seems the way now. Wiggins in 2012 immediately springs to mind - getting down to 4% (or whatever ridiculously low number) body fat while simultaneously improving his time trialling. Interestingly though, Pinot was advised to gain 3kg to gain more power - that doesn't really fit in with what Sky have been doing.

 

[veji11]

Those numbers don't contradict or support anything. As Veji11 said, there are far too many variables to draw any conclusions from.

What does 'major climbs' mean for example. Does that mean the power produced this year on Hautacam, Pla d'Adet and Col d'Izoard are being compared to the power last year on Ventoux, Madeleine and Pailheres? It's just not a like for like comparison - the times it takes to do the climbs are different, the way it is raced is different, the heat can be a factor, the length and difficulty of the rest of the stage. How many attacks did a rider close down, or how many attacks did they make - i.e. how variable was their effort throughout the climbs? My guess would be a rider like Pinot or Wiggins had a lot lower variability in his power than someone like Armstrong or Froome last year.

Look at the power Landis produced in 2006, we can analyse that and say he may well have been clean. Except we know that he wasn't - but they are figures that most would agree are in the range that a talented, clean rider could potentially produce.

exactly, just adding all the values for Evans and the Schleck brothers for all the big climbs (Tourmalet, Beill, Luz Ardiden, Agnes, Galibier, Izoard, etc etc..) and calculating a mean that you then compare with the mean value for the main climbs in this year's tour de France, it just makes no sense whatsoever. For example on the 12th stage to luz ardiden all the big guns watched each other, and while Sanchez got the state with Vanendert and Frank Schleck at 7 and 10 seconds respectively, Basso 4th and Contador 8th were between 30 and 43 seconds behind, having just accelerated in the last 100s of meters. This happened in all the pyrenees so you basically had 3 (Hourquette, Tourmalet and Luz) + 1 (Aubisque) + 3 (Core, Agnes and Beille) that's already 7 climbs of 1st or HC category that were ridden at a comparatively slow pace.

How the race unfolds, tactical aspects of it, play a big role. Cycling isn't just raw power data, or rather raw power data makes no sense without explanation on how the race unfolded. only in ITTs could you just go with power data alone, and even there you have all the outside elements (was it ****ing rain, head or tailwind, etc...).

 

[IzzyStradlin]

Interestingly though, Pinot was advised to gain 3kg to gain more power - that doesn't really fit in with what Sky have been doing.

Pinot is young. Putting on a few pounds when you're 21-22 doesn't seem too unusual.

Super skinny young guys are often a bit too fragile for the protour.

 

[Benotti69]

Thanks to the UCI, nearly all data is suspect. But, that doesn't mean we can't discuss the data and how it might fit in with clean racing.

Sniper, I agree that things aren't clean, maybe cleaner. But, the data presented is very consistent in and out of competition. That is not something observed with old-school EPO dopers.

The reality may be that the current fashion in doping delivers more consistent results. The extremely low weights and high power for weeks suggest that. But, we don't know.

Pinot has raced always under the ABP system so he would have to be consistent with his 'training' in order not to trip the system.



As for putting on weight, it could be to turn it into muscle via PEDs to get the extra power looked for.

 

[Race Radio]

Pinot has raced always under the ABP system so he would have to be consistent with his 'training' in order not to trip the system.

As for putting on weight, it could be to turn it into muscle via PEDs to get the extra power looked for.

Being French he also has had longitudinal testing 2-4 times per year since he was 17

 

[sniper]

Those numbers don't contradict or support anything. As Veji11 said, there are far too many variables to draw any conclusions from.

ow i completely agree.
which should make one wonder why so many people have drawn the conclusion that the peloton has slowed down.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Pinot has raced always under the ABP system so he would have to be consistent with his 'training' in order not to trip the system.



As for putting on weight, it could be to turn it into muscle via PEDs to get the extra power looked for.

You are looking at it using the "lone doper" storyline that even Wonderboy uses.

Again, this gets back to the previous actions of the UCI and member federations, the structure of the UCI. Also, this is where you need to consider the possibility whatever the current doping technology is beyond current testing.

Do I know? No way. The data looks good too. I honestly hope the guy is clean-ish. I'm hoping the FFC is a fair dealer on the anti-doping front. I'm just asking to keep your mind open to many possibilities beyond the conventional lone doper story.

 

[DirtyWorks]

ow i completely agree.
which should make one wonder why so many people have drawn the conclusion that the peloton has slowed down.

Because climbing data estimates for many is way down.

 

[Arnout]

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.

Yay to not wanting to recognize the benefit of academic study. Let's toast on the hope that everyone will dumb down in future.

It costs money because it costs time. Not only for Pinot's brother and mate, but also for reviewers who need to make sure only articles clearing a quality threshold are selected for journals and whatever.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Yay to not wanting to recognize the benefit of academic study. Let's toast on the hope that everyone will dumb down in future.

Said noone ever.

It costs money because it costs time. Not only for Pinot's brother and mate, but also for reviewers who need to make sure only articles clearing a quality threshold are selected for journals and whatever.

It costs money because the journals charge money. That money does not go back to the people doing the studies. And very little of it goes anywhere else.

 

[sniper]

Because climbing data estimates for many is way down.

i'm probably missing something here.
the graph we're discussing is all about power output on climbs.
it doesn't suggest anything has gone 'way down'.

 

[Arnout]

Said noone ever.

Didn't he?

It costs money because the journals charge money. That money does not go back to the people doing the studies. And very little of it goes anywhere else.

At least scientific journals tend to give source and context.

 

[acoggan]

It costs money because the journals charge money. That money does not go back to the people doing the studies.

Or to the reviewers (although editors sometimes get a small amount to cover operating costs, e.g., hiring an administrative assistant).

 

[Ferminal]

Yay to not wanting to recognize the benefit of academic study. Let's toast on the hope that everyone will dumb down in future.

It costs money because it costs time. Not only for Pinot's brother and mate, but also for reviewers who need to make sure only articles clearing a quality threshold are selected for journals and whatever.

Yes, academics research and produce articles to give to journal publishers for free so journal publishers can charge academics (universities) to access them. Humankind is definitely the winner in this model...

If this was truly a "transparent data release" then the raw data would be available, at the very worst the article would be open source or open access (fair enough it costs too much for academics to pay for open access). This is nothing of the sort.

 

[simoni]

Ignoring issues of transparency or otherwise, Pinot has gone further than most and a huge chunk of his personal training and racing data is in the public domain. People have been clamouring for this for years, and the likes of Brailsford have been criticised for not being open because of his own doubts about whether it would be useful or misinterpreted.

Now we have info and, in terms of Pinot's cleanliness or otherwise it pretty much tells us nowt. All we know is that he's operating on the margins of what concensus consider plausible and that he's steadily improved to a point where it seems that he isn't going to get significantly better.

That was all inferred anyway from analysis of his performances and power estimates so the data is largely useless, right?

Where do we go from here? What is a useful next step?

 

[veji11]

Ignoring issues of transparency or otherwise, Pinot has gone further than most and a huge chunk of his personal training and racing data is in the public domain. People have been clamouring for this for years, and the likes of Brailsford have been criticised for not being open because of his own doubts about whether it would be useful or misinterpreted.

Now we have info and, in terms of Pinot's cleanliness or otherwise it pretty much tells us nowt. All we know is that he's operating on the margins of what concensus consider plausible and that he's steadily improved to a point where it seems that he isn't going to get significantly better.

That was all inferred anyway from analysis of his performances and power estimates so the data is largely useless, right?

Where do we go from here? What is a useful next step?

Indeed, what the media have now is a form of leverage to ask for similar openness from other big riders... I must say it would be quite comical to see the same data for the last 7 years from guys like Froome, Contador, Porte or other yoyoers..

What would interest me for example would be to compare what we have from Pinot with the data we could get from a Quintana, a TVG, a Talansky, a Bardet, ie guys of the same generation, and to compare with a guy like Nibali for example.

Nibali would be an interesting case because, although I am not inferring that he is clean, his career arc fits with the more traditional career arc we use to see before the 90/00s : clearly already very good at his beginnings, steady progress to the point where from age 25 onwards (2010), he was riding for the win on all his GTs.

But clearly if we were to see similar data from other riders, it would separate all the guys that fit into the "comparable" bracket, from the "weird, big drop big jump" type of riders....

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Ignoring issues of transparency or otherwise, Pinot has gone further than most and a huge chunk of his personal training and racing data is in the public domain.

Especially and only if you are prepared to pay for it.

 

[sniper]

Especially and only if you are prepared to pay for it.

exactly.
if he's serious about this he could post a link to a draft version or summary of the article including the data.
i don't think a journal editor could prevent him from doing that.
(or even if an editor could, s/he probably wouldn't make a fuss about it, as long as the draft version contains a proper reference to the printed article.)

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

It costs 30 pounds. Hardly a barrier of entry limited to only the super rich. Plus if you have an academic affiliation it sounds like it is free.

Seems that now someone has made their data available some posters are moving the goalposts.

 

[GoodTimes]

exactly.
if he's serious about this he could post a link to a draft version or summary of the article including the data.
i don't think a journal editor could prevent him from doing that.
(or even if an editor could, s/he probably wouldn't make a fuss about it, as long as the draft version contains a proper reference to the printed article.)

Alright, you've inspired a rant. As a disclaimer, it's not you, it's me My wife & I have a 2 month old baby, and while it's amazing, and beautiful, and wonderful, and all of that, 2 months of wild nights is starting to take it's toll. So, if my tone sounds angry, it's not because I hate the world, it's because i'm just about to... looooose control.

The material is now owned by the journal. They have a copyright on it. If he posts the draft, they would sue him. And, even if they "don't kick up a big fuss about it" and sue him, it's still unethical for him to go against the explicit terms of the contract that are in place between authors and publisher in this case. By deliberately making this material available, outside of the journal that now owns it, the authors would completely discredit themselves as meaningful and respectable.

Honestly, the issue of complaints about a paywall here are nuts. Don't you people understand the advantages accrued by the peer review process? The fact that this power data is published in a respected journal is a good thing. It gives a whole lot of legitimacy to it. It means that not only the reputation of the authors, but the reputation of the independent reviewers and the publisher is on the line. The data presented is a whole lot more legitimate than if it were just uploaded to dropbox for your benefit. This is a huge improvement over the typical internet warrior faceless review of so-called internet experts.

Yes, there are open access peer reviewed journals out there. Typically it costs the author exponentially more to publish a paper in an open access instead of a closed access publication. As they say, the devil always gets his due. One way or another, somebody has to pay for the peer review and publication process.

But, even without paying for the source data or the paywalled jouranl, I already have all of the interaction with it that I would be looking for. In the name of fair use, we have important pieces of the publication reproduced, and interacted with. So for me, this is the best of all worlds, and I applaud the approach.

 

[veji11]

It costs 30 pounds. Hardly a barrier of entry limited to only the super rich. Plus if you have an academic affiliation it sounds like it is free.

Seems that now someone has made their data available some posters are moving the goalposts.

Yeah, it kind of sucks to be honest. To hear people say "it doesn't prove he is clean", fair enough, but to hear people say "this doesn't count as data disclosure because there is a paywall on an academic journal, yada yada".. it's a bit cheap.

I am pretty sure many managers and coaches have paid that fee to have a look at the numbers. Now what matters is to get the debate rolling, to have journalists ask staffs and riders "why don't you do that ?".

Not just complaining.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Yeah, it kind of sucks to be honest. To hear people say "it doesn't prove he is clean", fair enough, but to hear people say "this doesn't count as data disclosure because there is a paywall on an academic journal, yada yada".. it's a bit cheap.

And noone so far has said that. Lucky!