advertisement


Vuelta

Science is stirring the pot I'm afraid, and until someone offers up credible evidence to the contrary, questions will be asked.
 
Like I say Spike, you are just being silly.

Let's see Brailsford and Sky stop being obstructive to Parliamentary efforts to investigate them first. Then maybe you will get your peer reviewed paper. You will still have to know (and of course accept) that the devices involved were properly calibrated.

I'm amazed at the people on this thread (not all I might add) who genuinely seem to know nothing whatsoever about cycling and the science of sport yet feel it's essential to prove that in their support for a British athlete. Quite amusing really.
 
Though I think there's cheating its up to Wada, uci et al to prove it. He's clean until proven otherwise. The biological passport is hard to beat.

I would like see decent data regarding oval rings and climbing, as an oval user I feel it does flatten the pedal stroke power requirements, allowing more even power over more of the stroke, which may have a benefit. It certainly feels like its worth a couple of bpm on steep climbs to me, based on my own heart rate, ave power and speed. Of course I'm a moderately fit 80kg rider not a pro.
 
sq225917 said:
Though I think there's cheating its up to Wada, uci et al to prove it. He's clean until proven otherwise. The biological passport is hard to beat.
Click to expand...

Not only the biological passport but it must have become more apparent to potential drug cheats that samples taken now can and will be re-tested in the future, when detection technology has moved on.
 
There are synthetic products out there now that almost certainly will be detectable in years to come assuming that WADA gets on top of them.

The truth is that the product always appears to be ahead of the tests for it. As I say, I'm sure in time we'll find out - just as the package and the TUE for steroids for Wiggins remain unexplained to the Parliamentary Committee. They have thrown a lot of doubt on Wiggins road achievements though.
 
merlin said:
With regards to Paul, using total wattage as opposed to w/kg is like a Tory Brexit politician on BBC News. Even if we take Lim's simplistic climbing model over those of Vayer and Ferrari we still end up with a w/kg of 6.1 versus Dowsett's 5.6. The accusations obviously rely on far more complex modelling and are generally accepted within the sport as being accurate enough that their findings are worthy of discussion.
Click to expand...
Yet W/kg is only a metric, it is very dependent on factors that have nothing to do with the actual power production biology, particularly as optimum is reached. I think the absolute numbers are also useful, and perhaps a ratio of watts to height would be illuminating.

You haven't produced any kind of smoking gun here, in fact when everybody was doping everybody went fast, if nobody is then the freaks stand out more. Back in the EPO days when hematocrit was measured and all competitors could run at 49% the differences between them were ironed out. Now the guy with the natural high level regains his advantage.

I only mind if he's doping because I like bike racing and detest cheating. but I think you need a much better argument.

Paul
 
Paul, W/Kg is the ONLY metric of real interest on a long HC climb - as you will be aware of course.

The simple fact is that it takes more power to drag more weight up a hill. Basic physics as you were saying earlier :)

Other metrics are effectively irrelevant on a sustained and substantial gradient at the speeds these riders are travelling. Do tell me though why height would influence climbing ability. I'd be interested in your thinking if nothing else.

I'd also go with your other argument if there wasn't considerable evidence out there that Froome's climbing ability is abnormal and beyond the known boundaries of human physiology as far as informed commentators are concerned.

I think we are being naive in the extreme to think that doping is not going on right now - as some of the comparative times illustrate. As the sport tries to close one avenue of opportunity, another is opened up and commercially minded people seek to profit from it.

I have an issue with an athlete some claim is a freak of nature suddenly becoming just that in his late twenties. Call me old fashioned but that seems unlikely in the extreme...
 
Given we don't know his weight or his power for that climb then any conclusions made on that basis are pure speculation.
 
We do pretty much know his weight and that of the bike. We know the weight of water. We can calculate his power to within a percentage point or two.

I accept that there are those who dispute the evidence - just as they did with Armstrong etc.

Paul IS a climate change denier though so he has got form :)
 
Sue me.

At least then Brailsford might produce the data he's been hiding from the press and the parliamentary committee :)

Funny how Sky haven't taken action against anyone - no?

The same level of certainty is used to justify climate change projections. Are you a denier too Steve?
 
merlin said:
Are you a denier too Steve?
Click to expand...

You really are losing the plot.

There is plenty of peer reviewed science on climate change, as opposed to just that Daily Mail level pseudo science aimed at the easily influenced that you posted relating to this subject.
 
merlin said:
Paul, W/Kg is the ONLY metric of real interest on a long HC climb - as you will be aware of course.
Click to expand...
You miss the point.

You are trying to infer he is doping from his performance, you reduce it to W/kg and say 'more than X for longer than Y shows he's cheating'. But you have no good evidence for the cheating boundary.

Do tell me though why height would influence climbing ability. I'd be interested in your thinking if nothing else.
Click to expand...
The bits of body mass that generate power are a minor part of total body mass. So W/kg as a medical metric seems limited as athletes approach extremes.

I'd also go with your other argument if there wasn't considerable evidence out there that Froome's climbing ability is abnormal and beyond the known boundaries of human physiology as far as informed commentators are concerned.
Click to expand...
Delegating to 'informed commentators' as to what is 'abnormal' doesn't advance your cause. Froome is by definition at an 'abnormal' extreme, doping or not.

FWIW we know Froome's power for the 2012 Vuelta ITT at something like 406W for an hour. Is this evidence of abnormality? Is it not more or less consistent with the 2013 Ax-3 climb?

Paul
 
I'd be perfectly happy to believe that doping has moved on to gene therapy these days. I wouldn't be at all surprised if riders with blood on file from the start of their careers are later shown to have used gene therapy to insert beneficial genes into their genome.

That gene for lactate clearance must be a winner
 
sq225917 said:
I'd be perfectly happy to believe that doping has moved on to gene therapy these days. I wouldn't be at all surprised if riders with blood on file from the start of their careers are later shown to have used gene therapy to insert beneficial genes into their genome.

That gene for lactate clearance must be a winner
Click to expand...

How absurd. We haven't succeeded in any in body gene therapy for any known human disease yet you believe Cyclists are doing it! Rediculous.
 
Spike said:
How absurd. We haven't succeeded in any in body gene therapy for any known human disease yet you believe Cyclists are doing it! Rediculous.
Click to expand...

I think Novartis's gene therapy cancer treatment licence in the US might disprove that belief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top