Doping Thread

[sblack]

 

[bing181]

First rebuttal I expected was the 6% due to the chain

Nothing to do with a chain.

More ignorance.

 

[Smedts_2]

David Walsh - Sunday Times chief sports writer:

"I've also spent a lot of time looking at the people around Chris Froome, looking at what's going on in Team Sky. We're now three years into the Froome story. At the three-year point into my investigation into Lance Armstrong I had six people in his team who told me he doped.

"I haven't had one person, who works with Sky now or who was sacked by Sky, who has given me anything to go on or investigate. In fairness to Chris Froome my conclusion has to be that I've seen nothing that indicates he dopes and I'm inclined to believe him when he says he doesn't. It doesn't mean I know, but I certainly believe his claims."

Walsh, who was a key journalist in uncovering Lance Armstrong's doping regime, was speaking on BBC Radio 5 live's Victoria Derbyshire programme.

So you criticise people for citing an exercise physiologist and you respond by quoting a journo. Nice...

You omitted to mention that said journo refused to speak as part of a panel interview with said exercise physiologist. Or that the Sunday Times is owned by the guy who owns Sky (the sponsor).

And then there's this:

http://sportsscientists.com/2014/07...nce-implications-a-reflection-on-the-origins/

Walsh is a joke. The ignorance is yours.

 

[Papa Juggs]

Sky might as well 1-2-3 up Alpe d'Huez. If they're not cheating they have nothing to fear of such result.

 

[Hellgood]

The difference between Froome and Armstrong is that Froome is likable and doesn't bully people. So of course no one is going to go and set out to take him down. That article was pointless.

Hmm wouldn't say he is likeable. Certainly doesn't exude psychopathic traits as Armstrong did (having said that, admitting in your autobiography that you enjoyed stealing kids pet rabbits to feed your snake is well, odd), but I can't say I warm to him at all.

 

[Belnakor]

Hmm wouldn't say he is likeable. Certainly doesn't exude psychopathic traits as Armstrong did (having said that, admitting in your autobiography that you enjoyed stealing kids pet rabbits to feed your snake is well, odd), but I can't say I warm to him at all.

Armstrong was a classic psychopath with his charisma. Made it a real pleasure to watch his tours, even if he was doped to the gills.

If Froome had half the charisma of Sagan this would be much more interesting race thats for sure.

 

[wolmeister]

No he doesn't, and I know who Tucker is. Someone who has never worked professionally in cycling, and whose analysis is limited to exercise physiology. Still, even he says that there's nothing in Froome's figures that is a priori suspect or proof of anything. As you know.

Froome: Better budget, better research, better data, better coaches, better training, better preparation, better programs, better support, better equipment, better recovery, better ideas. Half a percent here, half a percent there.

Marginal gains.

.....and better juice than the rest.

 

[sblack]

Nothing to do with a chain.

More ignorance.

Chain ring. Same shit. You know what I mean

 

[sblack]

Conveniently avoiding answering questions too.

Im gonna take the silence as yes you are british. Makes sense

 

[bing181]

Conveniently avoiding answering questions too.

The only thing I'm avoiding is waisting my time.

 

[bing181]

Chain ring. Same shit. You know what I mean

"Our power measurement through a Stages Power meter is event based, where as an event is one complete pedal revolution. Due to the changes in velocity non-round chain rings produce through the course of an 'event' you will see that your power will be skewed higher than with a round ring, which has a constant velocity throughout each event. Through our own testing, and using a hub-based meter as a control, we conclude that there will be a 4-5% increase on the readings from a Stages Power meter when used with a non-round chain rings."

http://support.stagescycling.com/su...wer-meter-with-oval-or-osymetric-chain-rings-

 

[bing181]

You omitted to mention that said journo refused to speak as part of a panel interview with said exercise physiologist.

Shows what sort of a reputation Tucker has.

Walsh is a joke.

Maybe, but that's not a rebuttal of his assertions.

 

[Vader]

And once again, we saw Thomas riding down attacks by Contador, Valverde and Quintana. Thomas is not now, never has been and never will be a climber with that ability - without significant pharmaceutical assistance. His continued existence at the pointy end of the field is a complete and utter joke, being perpetrated on the public by UK Postal.

 

[Vader]

Interesting article on CyclingNews, following UK Postal releasing Froome's weight and power readings. Pierre Sallet, the physiologist who estimated his power output as 7.04 W/kg has now updated his calculations. Based on a weight of 67.5kg (down from an initial estimate of 71kg) and an average power output of 408 watts average over the climb (Sky claimed 415, the initial estimate was 425). His new estimate is 7.20 W/kg.

As previously noted, every single rider to have previously exceeded 7 W/kg has subsequently been convicted of doping offences.

Sallet offers 3 possible explanations for a reading that high:

1. Froome has an extraordinary physiology.
2. Froome is doping.
3. Froome is using a motor in his bike.

Froome's bike was checked for motors after last night's stage (along with several other riders including Sagan, Quintana and Bardet). No motors were found. I have no doubt that Froome has an unusual physiology, but it's not so exceptional that he's able to produce clean performances which have historically only been achieved by confirmed dopers. Conclusion - it's a bit from column 1 and a lot from column 2.

 

[Belnakor]

i'd take to the comparisons for Thomas. Like what was his W/kg when he was not in team sky vs when he is. Clearly his VO2Max must be pretty low since in the past he has struggled

 

[sblack]

i'd take to the comparisons for Thomas. Like what was his W/kg when he was not in team sky vs when he is. Clearly his VO2Max must be pretty low since in the past he has struggled

Vo2max can increase with the help of extra curricular substances

 

[Papa Juggs]

Froome is just taking the piss staring down at his power meter and staying in the saddle.

 

[bing181]

Pierre Sallet ...

A bit like quoting Lord Monckton in a discussion on Climate Change.

 

[sblack]

To put Quintana into perspective from tonight.

21st best time up Alpe ... 39'21

Faster than Riis, Big Mig, Rasmussen, Basso ...

 

[Smedts_2]

A bit like quoting Lord Monckton in a discussion on Climate Change.

Dude, 5 posts ago you said "maybe [Walsh is a joke], but that's not a rebuttal of his assertions". You got amnesia or something, or are you just intellectually dishonest?

 

[grouse mate]

To put Quintana into perspective from tonight.

21st best time up Alpe ... 39'21

Faster than Riis, Big Mig, Rasmussen, Basso ...

He did 39'48, 2 years ago so not a big deal. The overall stage profile and distance is a large factor in these overall times, last night was a short stage. Also worth noting 10 years these guys were all on 10kg bikes, there has been a masssive improvement and a lot of money gets spent nowadays on R&D for bike tech.

 

[Vader]

He did 39'48, 2 years ago so not a big deal. The overall stage profile and distance is a large factor in these overall times, last night was a short stage. Also worth noting 10 years these guys were all on 10kg bikes, there has been a masssive improvement and a lot of money gets spent nowadays on R&D for bike tech.

Current minimum bike weight is 6.8kg.

Depending on which source you prefer, Quintana's weight is either 57 or 58kg, giving a total weight (rider & bike) of 64-65kg. Thus, a reduction in minimum bike weight of 3.2kg results in a total reduction (rider & bike) of 5.5%. That's fairly significant when comparing historical times with modern times.

For reference, Froome's weight is listed as 71kg, but UK Postal have claimed that he weighed 67-68kg at the time of his assault on La Pierre St Martin. Add 7kg for the bike and his total weight is at least 14% more than Quintana's.

** I'm also not naive enough to think that Quintana is riding completely clean. I'm sure he's chemically enhanced, just like all of the other top riders. He just doesn't have the same high quality pharmaceutical assistance that UK Postal is providing for Froome & co.

Also, the short stage leading to the climb is very relevant. Here's a comparison with the previous Alpe d'Huez stages this century:
2013 - 172.5km, including 3x cat2 and 1x HC climbs before the 2nd (final) climb up Alpe d'Huez
2011 - 109.5km, including 1x cat2 and 1x HC before Alpe d'Huez
2008 - 210.5km, including 2x HC before Alpe d'Huez
2006 - 187.0km, including 1x cat2 and 1x HC before Alpe d'Huez
2004 - 13.8km ITT up Alpe d'Huez
2003 - 213km, including 1x cat2 and 1x HC before Alpe d'Huez
2001 - 209.0km, including 2x HC before Alpe d'Huez

Excluding the 2004 TT, last night's stage (110.5km) was the 2nd shortest this century. With just 1x HC climb (and no lower rated climbs) before the Alpe, it also had the least climbing of all Alpe d'Huez stages. On the other hand, this ascent came on stage 20 of what has been a very tough race in terms of the number of mountain stages. None of the previous Alpe d'Huez stages have been this late in the race (the earliest was on stage 10).

Given the short stage, with minimal climbing before the Alpe, it is not unexpected that the times up the Alpe would be fairly quick. I haven't done the research, but I would expect that most of the top times would come from the 2004 ITT.

 

[grouse mate]

Current minimum bike weight is 6.8kg.

Depending on which source you prefer, Quintana's weight is either 57 or 58kg, giving a total weight (rider & bike) of 64-65kg. Thus, a reduction in minimum bike weight of 3.2kg results in a total reduction (rider & bike) of 5.5%. That's fairly significant when comparing historical times with modern times.

For reference, Froome's weight is listed as 71kg, but UK Postal have claimed that he weighed 67-68kg at the time of his assault on La Pierre St Martin. Add 7kg for the bike and his total weight is at least 14% more than Quintana's.

** I'm also not naive enough to think that Quintana is riding completely clean. I'm sure he's chemically enhanced, just like all of the other top riders. He just doesn't have the same high quality pharmaceutical assistance that UK Postal is providing for Froome & co.

Also, the short stage leading to the climb is very relevant. Here's a comparison with the previous Alpe d'Huez stages this century:
2013 - 172.5km, including 3x cat2 and 1x HC climbs before the 2nd (final) climb up Alpe d'Huez
2011 - 109.5km, including 1x cat2 and 1x HC before Alpe d'Huez
2008 - 210.5km, including 2x HC before Alpe d'Huez
2006 - 187.0km, including 1x cat2 and 1x HC before Alpe d'Huez
2004 - 13.8km ITT up Alpe d'Huez
2003 - 213km, including 1x cat2 and 1x HC before Alpe d'Huez
2001 - 209.0km, including 2x HC before Alpe d'Huez

Excluding the 2004 TT, last night's stage (110.5km) was the 2nd shortest this century. With just 1x HC climb (and no lower rated climbs) before the Alpe, it also had the least climbing of all Alpe d'Huez stages. On the other hand, this ascent came on stage 20 of what has been a very tough race in terms of the number of mountain stages. None of the previous Alpe d'Huez stages have been this late in the race (the earliest was on stage 10).

Given the short stage, with minimal climbing before the Alpe, it is not unexpected that the times up the Alpe would be fairly quick. I haven't done the research, but I would expect that most of the top times would come from the 2004 ITT.

Correct, 4 of the top 20 times were from the ITT, but there is debate around about where the timings have taken place from over the years. The 6.8kg rule came in in 2000 but the quoted weight of LA's bike from '99 is supposedly 8.6kg. Pantani's Bianchi which the last of the non-carbon frames, in '98 was around 8.1kgs yet is still the only person to break 37 and 1/2 minutes which he did 3 times in previous years . Ulrich and Mig were supposedly on 9kg bikes, Mig's 80kg weight plus his bike gives an indication of the levels of cheating going on compared to today.

http://www.climbing-records.com/2013/07/all-time-top-100-fastest-rides-on.html

 

[Vader]

Correct, 4 of the top 20 times were from the ITT, but there is debate around about where the timings have taken place from over the years. The 6.8kg rule came in in 2000 but the quoted weight of LA's bike from '99 is supposedly 8.6kg. Pantani's Bianchi which the last of the non-carbon frames, in '98 was around 8.1kgs yet is still the only person to break 37 and 1/2 minutes which he did 3 times in previous years . Ulrich and Mig were supposedly on 9kg bikes, Mig's 80kg weight plus his bike gives an indication of the levels of cheating going on compared to today.

http://www.climbing-records.com/2013/07/all-time-top-100-fastest-rides-on.html

Even accounting for the weight difference, a time of 39:21 is still the fastest time since 2006 (noting that the article pre-dates the 2013 stage to Alpe d'Huez). It's a fairly safe bet that all of the top-20 times were heavily influenced by EPO.

Quintana's performance last night is distinctly dodgy, there's no doubt about it. It's still not as dodgy as seeing Thomas & Poels riding down attacks by the world's best riders.

Quintana does have a few advantages - his own low body weight, the reduced bike weights, plus his natural physiological advantage from having grown up at 3000m altitude. Even so, I'm not sure those factors are enough to completely explain a time of 39:21.

 

[Freakie]

Even accounting for the weight difference, a time of 39:21 is still the fastest time since 2006 (noting that the article pre-dates the 2013 stage to Alpe d'Huez). It's a fairly safe bet that all of the top-20 times were heavily influenced by EPO.

Quintana's performance last night is distinctly dodgy, there's no doubt about it. It's still not as dodgy as seeing Thomas & Poels riding down attacks by the world's best riders.

Quintana does have a few advantages - his own low body weight, the reduced bike weights, plus his natural physiological advantage from having grown up at 3000m altitude. Even so, I'm not sure those factors are enough to completely explain a time of 39:21.

Regardless it was great to see him have a go and crack Froome.