toonotl 2980 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Can't argue with what's right in front of me. That would be silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 I'm not sure if you're being serious, but that's not how professional cycling works. Not completely, more of a roundabout way to ask a question; how come everyone is convinced Froome is on drugs when the margin between him and other riders is so small? 2 minutes as a % of 80 hours of racing is tiny. Compare that to the 0.1 second Johnson knocked off the 100 metres when on drugs. Those drugs were 1000 times more effective for a start. Were all the riders behind Armstrong on drugs too? Where were the riders who were not on drugs? If you tried to have these drugs registered for their performance enhancing effects, you wouldn't be able to convince anyone that the effect was real if they give you 2 minutes overall performance improvement over 80 hours of racing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2980 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Over a 100m individual sprint the competitors are running as fast as they can for 100% of that time. Over a 90hr team based cycling race the riders are riding at full gas using all of their anaerobic capacity in an attempt to distance their competitors for probably not even 1% of the time. Unless cyclist's start lining up to start the Tour de France in lanes, and must ride around France in lanes, whilst not sheltering behind each other from the wind for 95% of the course. The comparison to 100m sprints is going to remain a pointless one. In terms of the difference in overall time on a percentage basis being so small its mainly because of the nature of the competition. Watch some cycling Chez. For all its problems its a brilliant sport. Basically for the 90hrs that it takes the leading competitors to get around France, they are actively racing each other at full anaerobic capacity, like a 100m sprinter, for probably no more than 1% of that time. The race is 90hrs long but the significant moments are few and far between. The moments that create difference between the top competitors are rare. For the rest of the time the riders are staying out of trouble, staying out of the wind and waiting. To highlight what I mean, the difference between Armstrong and the top placed probably clean rider using your parameters in 1999 was 0.3%. Before you say, well that's enormous compared to 1000th of a percent. Let me just say doping has changed. A lot. Since 1999. In 1999, Armstrong could take as much EPO as his body could handle to boost his performance because there was no test for it. He literally would have had to have been caught with it in his possession to get busted. Like Festina did in '98. Today there is a test for EPO. There have been several improvements made to the test over the course of 15 years too. Basically, it has become progressively more difficult to evade detection for a cheat. But it is still easy if done correctly. Read The Secret Race. So what do riders do now? They might micro-dose EPO during competition if they're brave. With micro-dosing you only 'glow' (would be caught if tested) for a few hours so you don't get caught if you do it during the hours when a tester is not going to show up at your door. Or the riders will inject bigger, but still relatively small compared to '99, amounts of EPO into their blood during the off-season or training months. That blood is taken out of their body and put in storage. Come the Tour the blood is re-injected into their system. EPO boosts red blood cell count so the EPO test tests for the percentage of new red blood cells in the body. Freezing blood and reintroducing it into the body makes getting busted a lot less likely. Add to all that mess, that doping out of competition allows you to train harder and get in better condition for racing. An advantage of 0.3% in 1999 for a doped rider over a clean rider is comparable to a much smaller advantage now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Which all makes sense and thanks for the explanation. Still seems a very small advantage over Quintana. I don't think its a question of watching cycling, it's more a question of reading about doping. So why is that 2 minute advantage considered so likely to be due to drugs? If they are only really racing for 10% of the time, the 2 minutes is less than 0.5% improvement in performance over a competitors for just those 8 hours of racing and equivalent performance for 72 hours. Why does Froome need drugs to be 2 minutes better than Quintana? Over 80 hours it seems like a very reasonable margin of improvement due to natural ability. The only way I can see it making sense is if it is assumed that Quintana is on drugs too and that not the case, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 And Armstrong's 0.3% advantage over the race would have been gained in the 10% or less of the race when they were actually racing, meaning it was 3% improvement over non-doped competitors. That does sound significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2980 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Which all makes sense and thanks for the explanation. Still seems a very small advantage over Quintana. I don't think its a question of watching cycling, it's more a question of reading about doping. So why is that 2 minute advantage considered so likely to be due to drugs? If they are only really racing for 10% of the time, the 2 minutes is less than 0.5% improvement in performance over a competitors for just those 8 hours of racing and equivalent performance for 72 hours. Why does Froome need drugs to be 2 minutes better than Quintana? Over 80 hours it seems like a very reasonable margin of improvement due to natural ability. The only way I can see it making sense is if it is assumed that Quintana is on drugs too and that not the case, is it? Nah, I don't think Quintana is doped. I think 10% is a long long way from an accurate reflection of the amount of the race that the riders are actively trying to gap each other. There are only 7 or 8 mountain stages in the whole race and most of the action on those stages happens on the last part of the last climb. The point I was trying to make in all that was that there's no point looking at overall time because its not indicative of a rider's anaerobic superiority over his rivals. A far better indicator are times up individual climbs when the riders are actually going for it. Another problem is that your assuming Froome would be level with his competitors if he weren't doped. So why does Froome need drugs to be 2min better than his competition? He doesn't. He'd be a long long way behind without it. What's that based on? He showed no, almost literally zero, potential until the age of 26. For context, Quintana has been progressively improving for the past 3 years and wears the white jersey in this year's race for best U-25 rider. A traditional rise for a future Tour contender. Tour winners don't go from being a nobody until the age of 26, to winning the race. You develop into the sort of rider that can win the Tour. Or you dope your way to the top, like Armstrong. Yet, even Armstrong had some strong results as a punchy one-day rider before all hell broke lose. Froome didn't even have anything approaching that sort of palmares. He's the classic doping story of donkey to racehorse. And in keeping with tradition, there is one explanation for that sort of rapid improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 That's a rubbish argument. Here's a good one http://www.insightdatascience.com/blog/vammer_on_tour_de_france.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2980 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Would you mind pointing out what's wrong with my argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44900 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Just read that thing Chez posted. Seems a fairly solid piece of work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2980 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 By the way, that article is rubbish. He's using the estimated weight that Sky provided for Froome. Yet comes to different value than Sky. His explanation for this variance is that Sky lied about the w/kg so that Froome's performance didn't seem suspect. So he thinks they're lying but he accepts, and uses, the weight for Froome provided by Sky. Ok. Seriously? Chez. If you're going to start relying on other people's argument it would pay to read it first. Here's the quote: "Team Sky likely gave the 5.78 W/kg value to lower Froome's number so that it makes him seem as pedestrian as possible, when in fact the 6.06 W/kg is more consistent with the values provided by other riders". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2980 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 (edited) The calculation of Sallet of over 7 was based on Froome's established racing weight. Or at least it was his established weight until Sallet showed Froome's w/kg. Then magically Froome it changes. That article is trying to present Sallet as a hack. He's not. He made his calculations on sound data. This guy is the hack. He's right about one thing though. Sky lied about the data. Didn't need math to tell you that though. I'm done. Edit: fucked up the weight of Froome. I could work for Sky. Edited July 25, 2015 by toonotl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Would you mind pointing out what's wrong with my argument? Not all of it, sorry. Just the bit about Quintana not being a doper because he was the best young rider. Froome's development timeline is not evidence for him being a doper and Quintana not, that's a specious argument at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 By the way, that article is rubbish. He's using the estimated weight that Sky provided for Froome. Yet comes to different value than Sky. His explanation for this variance is that Sky lied about the w/kg so that Froome's performance didn't seem suspect. So he thinks they're lying but he accepts, and uses, the weight for Froome provided by Sky. Ok. Seriously? Chez. If you're going to start relying on other people's argument it would pay to read it first. Here's the quote: "Team Sky likely gave the 5.78 W/kg value to lower Froome's number so that it makes him seem as pedestrian as possible, when in fact the 6.06 W/kg is more consistent with the values provided by other riders". Isn't that to do with the 6% adjustment that Sky makes to account for some error? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Just checked, yes it is. The blog doesn't make the adjustment. Game over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Basically Sallet is full of shit and the inventors of cricket don't cheat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2980 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 (edited) How much do you know about the development patterns of elite cyclists Chez? By your own admission you know not much about cycling. All elite cyclists follow a pattern to the top. No cyclists become elite at 26 from nothing. No one clean. It is an argument from experience. The 20 years experience watching cycling. I'm not saying Quintana is clean because he's best young rider. You're right. That would be a silly argument. Lucky I didn't make it. There are numerous reasons why I think Quintana is clean. His development is one. Just like I don't think Froome is a doper only because of his development. I have said time and again. There is no smoking gun. It's the accumulation of small bits of evidence, innuendo and rumour. Edited July 25, 2015 by toonotl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2980 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Just checked, yes it is. The blog doesn't make the adjustment. Game over? Chez. No. Sky's data read 6.13w/kg. That is a reading directly from there equipment. They adjusted that reading because they believe it produces an overestimate due to their ossymetric chain rings. So the actual reading should be 5.78 w/kg. This blokes calculation based upon VAM calculations was 6.06 w/kg. he doesn't make the 6% adjustment obviously. Please tell me I don't have to explain why Chez. I'm tired. So the variance is 6.06 calculated compared to the adjusted value provided by Sky of 5.78. He author of that article declares the difference is the result of Sky giving misleading data. Game over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44900 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Froome's drugs are not helping him here today. Too little too late sadly, but Quintana is riding away from Sky atm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2980 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Basically Sallet is full of shit and the inventors of cricket don't cheat I have no doubt you're a fine English gentleman Chez, but Froome is from Africa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2980 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Froome's drugs are not helping him here today. Too little too late sadly, but Quintana is riding away from Sky atm. Yeah. Hopefully Quintana can get the stage at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44900 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 I can see how someone brought up in Kenya, with basically no cycling program, could reveal his potential later in his career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44900 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Yeah. Hopefully Quintana can get the stage at least. Aye, although is Pinot the current leader? Wouldn't mind seeing him get it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44900 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Froome needs to get through Dutch Corner yet. They might hoy him off the mountain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2980 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Yeah. Would be good for a Frenchy to get it. The crowd man. It's always madness up the Alpe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44900 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Quintana 32s on Froome with 6km to go. Froome's gonna need to go pop for him to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now