Tour performances - clean or not?, Let's get things underway Options

[Kiwi]

Okay, somewhere to discuss performances at the Tour: are they clean or not?

Some good intro posts from The Science of Sport and we can look forward to upcoming articles.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/

"A sustained (over 40 minutes) power output of greater than 6.2 W/kg at the end of a Tour stage is simply not physiologically believable, and is strongly suggestive of doping. In fact, anything above 6.0 W/kg is very, very suspect. Those are power outputs that are produced by riders who are doping, because the physiology required to drive that kind of performance, well, it just doesn't exist."

[Burkni]

Wish I'd preserved the link to a recent interview/piece on Columbian riders where I think Herrera was quoted to have said something along these lines:

"When I started seeing the big, fat riders win mountain stages I knew that doping had become the norm"

[wildeone]

Wish I'd preserved the link to a recent interview/piece on Columbian riders where I think Herrera was quoted to have said something along these lines:

"When I started seeing the big, fat riders win mountain stages I knew that doping had become the norm"

When I started seeing riders with fat ar$es climbing like aeroplanes, I understood. I preferred to stop.

note: it's a brit book i got this out of (you can sub a$$es and airplanes if you prefer)

This post has been edited by wildeone: Jul 1 2010, 05:36 PM

[The Rake]

note: it's a brit book i got this out of (you can sub a$$es and airplanes if you prefer)

A link here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France

When other drugs became detectable, riders began achieving the effects of transfusion more effectively by using erythropoietin, known as EPO, a drug to increase red-cell production in anaemia sufferers. EPO became widespread, as a flurry of exposures and confessions revealed in 2006 and 2007. "When I saw riders with fat arses climbing cols like aeroplanes, I understood what was happening," said the Colombian rider, Luis Herrera.

[Kiwi]

The referenced New Scientist article is also good reading:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2072...rug-cheats.html

...mostly known stuff, but the article also doesn't consider the possibility that Armstrong's 'superhuman' performances were evidence of doping.

This post has been edited by Kiwi: Jul 1 2010, 09:06 PM

[adker]

The referenced New Scientist article is also good reading:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2072...rug-cheats.html

...mostly known stuff, but the article also doesn't consider the possibility that Armstrong's 'superhuman' performances were evidence of doping.

interesting report, I have a question some of you may be able to answer. I have heard other quote Wattage outputs by watching it on TV etc. Is there a formula for this? is it something other then a Watt meter on a bike? how is this calculated?

I have the same question for VO2 Max. I was tested once and had to wear head gear and essentially breath into a computer, how are they calculating this to know if they are out of "normal parameters" ?

[Mark]

Are these performances clean? Probably not.
Are most of the riders on the same (or similar) programs? Probably.\
Does this make it acceptable? Absolutely not.

So where does this leave us?

There's my quick $.02.

[wildeone]

is anybody else waiting for a ball to drop before the Tour starts?

or is that not happening anymore, these last minute exclusions to give the illusion of having a handle on doping, because they realised how horrible it was PR wise?

[one-mint-julich]

interesting report, I have a question some of you may be able to answer. I have heard other quote Wattage outputs by watching it on TV etc. Is there a formula for this? is it something other then a Watt meter on a bike? how is this calculated?

I have the same question for VO2 Max. I was tested once and had to wear head gear and essentially breath into a computer, how are they calculating this to know if they are out of "normal parameters" ?

Watts/kg. can be calculated directly from VAM, vertical meters in an hour, with VAM in turn determined by timing riders up well-known climbs. (Can also be determined from flat ITT rides, but more complicated, as wind resistance has to be taken into account). There are lots of sites where the formulas are given. Often if you follow a race online, you can determine the time pretty accurately from the time the riders of interest are reported to begin climbing till the time they finish. Of course, values are affected by factors such as weather conditions, whether the climb is continuous or has false flats, and so on, but still, since every Tour has major climbs that have been used in past Tours, comparisons with earlier Tours are inevitable.

You cannot determine V02 just from race parameters. As you indicated, you have to go into a lab and be tested.

is anybody else waiting for a ball to drop before the Tour starts?

There is that rumor of a WSJ article, concerning the investigations of Floyd's claims, supposedly it was going to come out this week. Seems to me if it's something really shocking, they would want to publish it by tomorrow. I think the impact of an article like that is lessened somewhat if it comes out during the Tour, when it has to compete with news of the Tour itself. The day before the Tour seems to me ideal, because you have public interest peaking, people waiting around ready to devour any news that comes out.

But it can't be anything too juicy, according to HWMNBN:

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap-to...rance-armstrong

Armstrong said Novitzky had not contacted him or his lawyers and denied reports contending his former wife Kristin decided to cooperate with him, saying she and the cancer survivor have “a very strong relationship.”
“I’m not sure he would call me,” Armstrong said, referring to Novitzky. “We haven’t heard.”

This post has been edited by one-mint-julich: Jul 1 2010, 10:36 PM

[Cowboy]

Watts/kg. can be calculated directly from VAM, vertical meters in an hour, with VAM in turn determined by timing riders up well-known climbs. (Can also be determined from flat ITT rides, but more complicated, as wind resistance has to be taken into account). There are lots of sites where the formulas are given.

If like me you're not so good with formulas you can use the online vam calculator . Not just for Tour performances, its good fun for working out the stats on my own climbs on the way home from work!

edit: I just checked it and its not working this morning. ho hum.

This post has been edited by Cowboy: Jul 2 2010, 10:06 AM

[Kiwi]

You cannot determine V02 just from race parameters. As you indicated, you have to go into a lab and be tested.

Just to note, The Science of Sport post is based around the idea that VO2 max can be measured from power:

"...The first involves the use of a published paper called "Peak power output predicts maximal oxygen uptake and performance time in trained cyclists". This study looked at 100 trained cyclists and established the following relationship between oxygen consumption (VO2) and power output. The relationship is:

VO2 (L/min) = (0.01141 x Power output) + 0.435

Therefore, if you take the power output of 560W, and you apply this equation, you will calculate an oxygen consumption of 6.82 L/min. Relative to body mass, this is equal to 97.49 ml/kg/min..."

The bog standard power calculation for watts on climbs is (according to Allen Lim):
(weight of bike and rider (kg) x 9.8 x elevation gain (metres)) / time (seconds) = power (watts)

So the key things to know are weight (which is often equalized at 78 kgs for comparison between riders), elevation gain (see your Tour guide), and the time taken to complete the climb (get the stopwatch out when watching the TV). Not so good for comparing different climbs, but good for relative comparisons between riders on a particular climb in the race or over the years.

This post has been edited by Kiwi: Jul 2 2010, 04:01 PM

[adker]

)

So the key things to know are weight (which is often equalized at 78 kgs for comparison between riders), elevation gain (see your Tour guide), and the time taken to complete the climb (get the stopwatch out when watching the TV). Not so good for comparing different climbs, but good for relative comparisons between riders on a particular climb in the race or over the years.

Hogwash....that would never hold up in court, to accept the premise and use it as the standard to define doping as the Eggheads would have you believe you have to then accept that all great athletes are dopers and that never has any one person been able to achieve superhuman effort or ability. sorry I think it looks good on paper but will not pass muster.

If you accept it then just stop watching sports,because the entertainment value of sport is to see people achieve what others can not. By that standard, Eric Hyden, Steve Prefontaine, Carl Lewis, Mark Spitz, Jesse Owens were all dopers. There is still a human element in sports, there are still people who have a greater capacity to tap their own potential and suffer more and tolerate it. If there is not I do not want to watch.

[one-mint-julich]

Just to note, The Science of Sport post is based around the idea that VO2 max can be measured from power:

"...The first involves the use of a published paper called "Peak power output predicts maximal oxygen uptake and performance time in trained cyclists". This study looked at 100 trained cyclists and established the following relationship between oxygen consumption (VO2) and power output. The relationship is:

VO2 (L/min) = (0.01141 x Power output) + 0.435

Therefore, if you take the power output of 560W, and you apply this equation, you will calculate an oxygen consumption of 6.82 L/min. Relative to body mass, this is equal to 97.49 ml/kg/min..."

That's very interesting, but note that it is an empirical correlation, not a logical one. They found in a study of riders that this formula predicted V02 with high accuracy. There are other factors that determine watts or power besides V02, which is why I stated it could not be determined from race parameters alone. What this study seems to have found is that these other factors are not that important, i.e, they either make a relatively insignificant contribution, or are more or less the same for all the riders. As long as that is the case, then maybe a fairly good estimate of V02 is possible, but it is still an estimate, and depends on these other factors being unimportant. For example, it might turn out that for non-elite riders, this formula would not work.

In contrast, the relationship between VAM and power is a logical one. It does not require a study to prove it, but can be calculated from simple physical principles. It will hold for any rider (except some superhuman who rides so fast up a steep grade that wind resistance becomes significant--and even then, that could be factored into the calculation).

As I said before, because of all the race condition factors, it's very difficult to compare performances from year to year. Still, when one looks at many riders over many years, these factors tend to average out. Such large pools of data also address Adker's concern that individual efforts are being ignored. That argument simply isn't relevant when you are looking at the performance of a great many riders over a long period of time. The data I've seen make it pretty clear that power output has gone way up since EPO became widely available in the peloton. OTOH, trying to compare power output this year to that of last year, or a few years ago, is trickier.

[D-Queued]

Hogwash....that would never hold up in court, to accept the premise and use it as the standard to define doping as the Eggheads would have you believe you have to then accept that all great athletes are dopers and that never has any one person been able to achieve superhuman effort or ability. sorry I think it looks good on paper but will not pass muster.

If you accept it then just stop watching sports,because the entertainment value of sport is to see people achieve what others can not. By that standard, Eric Hyden, Steve Prefontaine, Carl Lewis, Mark Spitz, Jesse Owens were all dopers. There is still a human element in sports, there are still people who have a greater capacity to tap their own potential and suffer more and tolerate it. If there is not I do not want to watch.

Are you suggesting that Carl Lewis was a doper.

OMG!

Dave.

[wildeone]

Are you suggesting that Carl Lewis was a doper.

OMG!

Dave,

that was expensive wine i was drinking! you should be ashamed of yourself!!!

But it can't be anything too juicy, according to HWMNBN:

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap-to...rance-armstrong

this was posted in the other thread, but relevant here as it looks like maybe the WSJ is coming out with something after all...

eta: what effect do you think this will have? not just on LA, but on the Tour as a whole?

This post has been edited by wildeone: Jul 2 2010, 05:45 PM

[Velo]

Hogwash....that would never hold up in court, to accept the premise and use it as the standard to define doping as the Eggheads would have you believe you have to then accept that all great athletes are dopers and that never has any one person been able to achieve superhuman effort or ability. sorry I think it looks good on paper but will not pass muster.

If you accept it then just stop watching sports,because the entertainment value of sport is to see people achieve what others can not. By that standard, Eric Hyden, Steve Prefontaine, Carl Lewis, Mark Spitz, Jesse Owens were all dopers. There is still a human element in sports, there are still people who have a greater capacity to tap their own potential and suffer more and tolerate it. If there is not I do not want to watch.

Pretty hard pressed to think of even a single "superhuman" cycling effort over the past 20 years that hasn't involved doping or someone linked to doping. Cancellara's classics, maybe? Course, he rides for Riis. Contador to some extent, though I don't think of him as having "superhuman" ability, even ignoring the Saiz/Bruyneel links. Otherwise...drawing a bit of a blank.

"Superhuman" efforts tend to raise suspicion because they are, in fact, superhuman.

This post has been edited by Velo: Jul 2 2010, 05:54 PM

[one-mint-julich]

Dave,

that was expensive wine i was drinking! you should be ashamed of yourself!!!
this was posted in the other thread, but relevant here as it looks like maybe the WSJ is coming out with something after all...

eta: what effect do you think this will have? not just on LA, but on the Tour as a whole?

So it is coming out tomorrow. Based on that teaser, I'd say they don't have anything new. It sounds like they're just re-hashing what's in Floyd's emails. Possibly some new information that Floyd hasn't mentioned yet will come to light, but I find it hard to believe that anything Floyd knows, by itself, will have much of an effect on either LA or the Tour. It's still just his word against everyone else's. It's what Novitsky can do with that information that will matter.

On the other hand, the fact that the WSJ, certainly no sensationalist tabloid, would come out with an article like this on the day the Tour starts has to make you wonder. The editors there must think they have something more damaging to someone than has yet seen the light.

[zeitgeist]

If they had a legitimate bombshell, they probably wouldn't be sitting on it until tomorrow. So I'm guessing it's just more details from Landis.

On the other hand, Greg Lemond's prediction for Armstrong, via Cyclingnews:

My Lance Armstrong prediction? Either he will not start or he will pull out just before the race enters France. I have a feeling that the world of cycling is about to change for the better.

The France bit is especially intriguing. Remember all the syringes and stuff the French police found in Astana's trash last year? Is that finally coming back to bite? Otherwise, why should Armstrong be wary of heading into France?

[N.B.O.L.]

On the other hand, Greg Lemond's prediction for Armstrong, via Cyclingnews:

I know the CN article is new, but the Lemond quote is a repeat of something he said shortly after the Landis announcement during the Tour of California, pretty much word for word. I don't know if Lemond just likes how it sounds, so he added it to his blog, or if the CN editors patched in the quote to the blog which is otherwise basically about getting yourself ready for a specific race. Considering that Armstrong spent quite a bit of time in France recently re-conning parts of the route, I don't think he fears going into France.

[vaunTrevi]

Hogwash....that would never hold up in court, to accept the premise and use it as the standard to define doping as the Eggheads would have you believe you have to then accept that all great athletes are dopers and that never has any one person been able to achieve superhuman effort or ability. sorry I think it looks good on paper but will not pass muster.

If you accept it then just stop watching sports,because the entertainment value of sport is to see people achieve what others can not. By that standard, Eric Hyden, Steve Prefontaine, Carl Lewis, Mark Spitz, Jesse Owens were all dopers. There is still a human element in sports, there are still people who have a greater capacity to tap their own potential and suffer more and tolerate it. If there is not I do not want to watch.

Quite a trick to set limits to human endurances - not that I'm opposed to it and I'd welcome a deeper scientific study with more subjects.

I think it would open the door just as variations in the blood passport opens some to further testing.

But one doesn't win the tour on the basis of his VO2Max or ablility to produce wattage; though they do give some context to see how well some are endowed or conditioned to race a 21 day race. Or maybe not as recovery would have to be measured as well. (and how well a round of doping aids recovery for the next day or week.)

There is a "human" element as well as an intelligence and luck factor for that matter. Strength alone doesn't guaantee a tour win. Inteligence: when to use your strength and your teams strength or save it for later is also key.
The real human element is desire and grinta - I'll postulate that each rider might briefly be able to do something the scientists might claim superhuman for a stage that doesn't - or may have nothing to have to do with his doping or not doping. You might say it is when the rider through desire demands the ultimate from his body sometimes more than it could deliver on a test stand in a laboratory or on paper with numbers.
Call it a case of mind over matter or desire over exhaustion and why some succumb and some survive not only in cycling but in life too. Its just not something easily or simply mathematically quantifiable.
That said I'm all for anything reasonable that will root out the dopers and facilitators and get them out of all sports.