-
Really? All of that BS is just to provide clickbait to suck in the kind of people who inhabit the comments sections on cycling news sites, there's no science there when the whole analysis is based on some huge arm-waving assumptions.
From the guy who doesn't believe in using powermeters. Assumptions that are noted. Next.
-
From the guy who doesn't
believe in usinguse powermetersftfy.
Misrepresenting my views to divert attention from the pathetic quality of your source? I had hoped for better, but if that's the best you can manage then you'll be welcome over at bikeradar.
-
What are your qualifications to judge his analysis?
O level physics, it's more than enough. He's casting aspersions based on what he suggests (not knows) is a credibility gap of around 2% based on his calculation of power output. We all have a pretty good idea of what you need to know in order to relate power to cycling speed, but for anybody new here's a list:
Rider mass - he's guessing, not measuring
Equipment mass - he's guessing, not measuring
Rider+bike CdA - he's guessing, not measuring
Tyre Crr - he's guessing, not measuring
Distance travelled - he's guessing, the TdF road book isn't a highly accurate measurement although it's probably better now than it was in the historical period he uses for comparison, since GPS became ubiquitous.
Duration - he's using TV pictures, presumably, rather than stationing an approved timekeeper at a precisely surveyed start point
Elevation gain - he's guessing, although there's pretty good public domain topographical data
Air pressure/temperature/humidity/wind speed - he's guessing, not measuring. In fact, nobody even could measure that stuff on a mountain ascent, it varies so much both temporally and spatially. It's hard enough to get that stuff nailed down in a sealed velodrome.On the physiology side, he's guessing VO2max, gross efficiency and the ability of outliers on the athletic spectrum to maintain high proportions of maximal effort over given durations. Pretty much by definition, champion athletes have surprising abilities to physiologists used to looking at data from less elite populations.
As an analytical method, it's only slightly better than a Fermi Estimate. Sure, do the maths, and if somebody is doing 9W/kg by your estimate then it's likely that there's a problem, but when proper science says 98 and your Fermi Estimate is 100, congratulate yourself on waving your arms in roughly the right direction but don't cast aspersions on people when you have essentially zero evidence.
-
Nibali's post race press conference.
Doping questions seem sidestepped somewhat, until he talks unprompted about his appreciation of the bio passport since 2008. -
Interesting move by the UCI, they've provisionally suspended Roman Kreuziger due to his pending biological passport case, arguing that he could influence the result of the upcoming races (the Tour of Poland and the Vuelta) he was intending to ride.
Most teams bench any rider who's under suspicion. Clearly Tinkoff-Saxo have a different approach.
-
New evidence. Manslaughter case in Rimini opened again. As Pantani was to tell all he was forced to take all that coke.
-
JTL blames the booze:
http://road.cc/content/news/126822-tiernan-locke-blames-33-unit-booze-binge-doping-ban
hippy
gbj_tester
pifko
miro_o
CheBeef
andyp
dave4
fussballclub
dubtap
dan
johnnyhotdog
skinny-
Post a reply
About
Doping
Posted by
@rpm
point taken, having recently seen the two channel 4 programs on Lance my cynicism is a little inflated...any way this years TDF has been great spectacle and enjoyable and I admire Nibali's attacking style, a bit like Merckx