-
I find that whole Vayer thing fishy. They ignored rider's weights and instead used a mean weight for all of them, then extrapolated a rather simplistic set of numerical data into a fairly simplistic paradigm. The simple fact that they arrived at LeMond's performance as the only plausibly clean performance of the last however many years is also a bit Luddite: how can you compare times from thirty years ago against the modern day? So much has changed in that time.
What, like the advent of blood vector doping?
You only need to have watched racing over the past 30 years to notice changes. Climbing speeds went off the scale in the early 1990s, and previously unheralded riders, hello Claudio, Greuzie Tony, suddenly became world beaters.
In recent years, speeds have definitely slowed. Vayer is trying to quantify that but his methods, which he doesn't publish, which makes it unscientific in my book, are a bit suspect. But his ratings are in line with anecdotal evidence.
-
The times tally with what we know anecdotally, namely that EPO use was pretty much unfettered in the 1990s, then with the advent of the EPO test in 2000, riders moved to microdosing and blood transfusions so we're still faster than pre-blood vector doping but not quite so bat shit crazy fast.
-
Have you read it? Or just the article?
Bits and peices of the article, and various analysises of it as the internet warriors have got to work analysing Vayer's analysis, including some scientists with PhDs and everything. Basically a vast amount of variables ignored. But of course I could be wrong. I usually am.
Btw interesting tweet from Vayer the other day:
Now i know. About christopher. Now, call him Foolrme. I hope he'll win the 100eme Tour. For fun.
-
Oh Marco, you poor crazy bastard. You must have been so high
I read that Pantani book 'Man on The Run' recently written by the woman who was his manager (Manuela Ronchi) and it's just unreal how the 'deny deny deny' culture was pushed even in this, after his death.
-
This guy has published his methodology of comparing climbing performances using a predicted VAM vs actual VAM.
Then he plotted riders performances in the Giro this year over time and it generally showed most of the climbers performed at or close to pVAM earlier in the Giro and then drifted below the pVAM he'd calculated later in the race.
The actual winners VAMs all seem to be bob-on what is predicted using 2008-2012 rides as the model's start point.
and riders getting slower on final climbs vs pVAM as the Giro went on which is what you'd expect, except for Nibbles and Uran who are able to smash it on the last climb stg. 20 when everyone else was dying.
-
What, like the advent of blood vector doping?
You only need to have watched racing over the past 30 years to notice changes. Climbing speeds went off the scale in the early 1990s, and previously unheralded riders, hello Claudio, Greuzie Tony, suddenly became world beaters.
In recent years, speeds have definitely slowed. **Vayer is trying to quantify that but his methods, which he doesn't publish, which makes it unscientific in my book, are a bit suspect. **But his ratings are in line with anecdotal evidence.
I agree, but you say it so much better. But comparing thirty year old times to present day times, which have slowed, and saying one is clean and one is suspect, ignores all the advances in technology, training, nutrition etc that has occurred.
Also comparing speeds of individual climbs takes out climatic variables: wind direction, precipitation, air density. Also things like road surface, which will change over time.
The other factor which may render this largely moot is that given people are aware of physiological performance limits, so riders can use their power meters and soft pedal up climbs to avoid setting off any alarms. Instead modern doping is less about turbo charging and more about recovery, consistency and weight loss while maintaining power, which means someone can fly completely under the radar when it comes to climbing speeds but can still be doped to the gills.
-
This guy has published his methodology of comparing climbing performances using a predicted VAM vs actual VAM.
Then he plotted riders performances in the Giro this year over time and it generally showed most of the climbers performed at or close to pVAM earlier in the Giro and then drifted below the pVAM he'd calculated later in the race.
The actual winners VAMs all seem to be bob-on what is predicted using 2008-2012 rides as the model's start point.
and riders getting slower on final climbs vs pVAM as the Giro went on which is what you'd expect, except for Nibbles and Uran who are able to smash it on the last climb stg. 20 when everyone else was dying.
And yet we know Santa was on the sauce
-
Carlos Sastre only person ever under 40 mins who's never had a finger pointed?
I don't understand how he gets such a free ride from the press and internet forum people. He rode for ONCE and CSC, both teams who had organised doping programmes in place and was competitive in an era where doping was widespread.
I've always thought of him as suspect.
dan
andyp
Dammit
dubtap
deleted
hippy
Jimmy_Fingers
Hairingtons-
Post a reply
About
Doping
Posted by
@rpm
I find that whole Vayer thing fishy. They ignored rider's weights and instead used a mean weight for all of them, then extrapolated a rather simplistic set of numerical data into a fairly simplistic paradigm. The simple fact that they arrived at LeMond's performance as the only plausibly clean performance of the last however many years is also a bit Luddite: how can you compare times from thirty years ago against the modern day? So much has changed in that time.