Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:

MichaelB wrote:No real surprises though, but some of the numbers (wattage) that some have been able to generate are just amazing !!! Seems to be w3ell put together and easy to understand.

Some of the wattage estimates are amazing(ly bad). Vayer does this stuff every year complete with the same mistakes, just this time it's compiled into a e-mag format.

There's always going to be error in estimating power so are you saying the errors are all one way, that is, overestimating power? Why can't some of the errors be underestimates of power. Moreover, if you look at his list of mutant performances it's not exactly filled with riders who were likely clean.

biker jk wrote:

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:

MichaelB wrote:No real surprises though, but some of the numbers (wattage) that some have been able to generate are just amazing !!! Seems to be w3ell put together and easy to understand.

Some of the wattage estimates are amazing(ly bad). Vayer does this stuff every year complete with the same mistakes, just this time it's compiled into a e-mag format.

There's always going to be error in estimating power so are you saying the errors are all one way, that is, overestimating power? Why can't some of the errors be underestimates of power. Moreover, if you look at his list of mutant performances it's not exactly filled with riders who were likely clean.

That may be, but it's still interesting reading.

So if there are inaccuracies, what are they Alex ? And does it invalidate the results ?

Yes there will always be error, which is precisely why error bars should be included with any such estimates, so we can see the level of precision involved. Once you actually do that, you realise that it will be at the very minimum +/-0.5W/kg, and likely worse than that.

As to the nature of errors, there are errors in climbing time data (e.g. Pantani's climb times up ADH are well in dispute), there are errors in methodology, there are errors in assumptions, and there are basic mathematical errors. Some of these may be somewhat random, others systematic and not necessarily in the same direction. e.g. on some climbs the prevailing wind may be in one direction, and on others a different direction.

The problem is presenting the numbers as if they are precise and we don't need to convert climbing times to W/kg estimates to track the trends (or worse, to some "standard" 70kg rider). Just use the climbing times for the same climb over the years. In that way the only error is the historical record on the times themselves (which are not always reliably recorded).

Finally, none of it adds anything to our knowledge about the doping status of the riders in question. In 1990 the world changed and EPO drove the turbos. Late 90's and with Festina and emerging detection technology for 2000 Olympics saw a brief lull (with a few notable exceptions) and a move toward more blood transfusions and new means of doping. We already know all this.

Heads up - if anyone is interested - Catalyst on ABC this week (Thursday approx 8 pm from memory) is talking about PEDs. A snipped showed Lance Cheatstrong...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ricco-c ... -de-france

So much for everyone stopping in 2006.

vander wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ricco-c ... -de-france

So much for everyone stopping in 2006.

Rumours the entire CSC team were on CERA EPO in 2008. Sastre has gone sub-40 minutes on Alpe d'Huez a few times including in 2008 when he won the stage and put time into Evans.

biker jk wrote:

vander wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ricco-c ... -de-france

So much for everyone stopping in 2006.

Rumours the entire CSC team were on CERA EPO in 2008. Sastre has gone sub-40 minutes on Alpe d'Huez a few times including in 2008 when he won the stage and put time into Evans.

ADH
Year: Sastre - Evans
2004: 39:57 - n/a
2006: 39:01 - 40:15
2008: 39:32 - 41:47
2011: n/a - 42:07

Alex Simmons/RST wrote: ADH
Year: Sastre - Evans
2004: 39:57 - n/a
2006: 39:01 - 40:15
2008: 39:32 - 41:47
2011: n/a - 42:07

Interestingly, Sastre isn't detailed in the 21 Counts book by Vayer ???

MichaelB wrote:Interestingly, Sastre isn't detailed in the 21 Counts book by Vayer ???

Sastre presumably wasn't going to be a name that would increase sales.

Sorry Alex, fixed it

MichaelB wrote:Sorry Alex, fixed it

ta

I dont understand why Lance is seen as the Devil and yet Marco Pantani who was probably just a juiced up is seen as some Hero!!, seems to me its ok if your liked by italy and spain to get on the juice and win the tour, or maybe dying of an overdose lets you off the hook.

And why the are those tour de france victories not taken away from other known dopers, just seems like their has been a scapegoat (LA) for what has been a long history of the same. I am not saying he shouldnt have lost his victories and seen as the devil but maybe its time we saw all cheaters in the same light as Lance Armstrong and wipe them from sporting history forever, and leave them to race Triathlon

Its not about his doping its about what he did to other people to try and protect the secret.

iaintas wrote:I dont understand why Lance is seen as the Devil and yet Marco Pantani who was probably just a juiced up is seen as some Hero!!, seems to me its ok if your liked by italy and spain to get on the juice and win the tour, or maybe dying of an overdose lets you off the hook.

And why the are those tour de france victories not taken away from other known dopers, just seems like their has been a scapegoat (LA) for what has been a long history of the same. I am not saying he shouldnt have lost his victories and seen as the devil but maybe its time we saw all cheaters in the same light as Lance Armstrong and wipe them from sporting history forever, and leave them to race Triathlon

I'm with you, yes Lance's mafia tactics were what made him worse than many others but doping is doping and I don't get why Pantani is still revered. Sure he was exciting to watch but it wasn't real.

vander wrote:Its not about his doping its about what he did to other people to try and protect the secret.

Then why dont we say, lance doped just like everyone else, keep the tour de france wins and just be sound in the knowledge he is a *%^(*%. That makes no sense to me and is not the reason he has been stripped of his tour wins. I think if they dont get real about this issue and strip every known doper of their tour win then whats the point of doing it to LA, and we have several others who have confessed to it but are still "heroes". Infact we should strip every known doper of their entire career and mark "loser doper" next to their names. That would certainly make the future dopers think twice, but at the moment we have rules and opinions for LA and a different set of rules for all the other dopers.

Is it just the broken dream of LA that he is hated so much, personally i admire the bloke from coming back from cancer and starting his amazing charity that has done so much good, its just a pitty the charity would not exist if it wasnt for EPO. Something to ponder...................

iaintas wrote:

vander wrote:Its not about his doping its about what he did to other people to try and protect the secret.

Then why dont we say, lance doped just like everyone else, keep the tour de france wins and just be sound in the knowledge he is a *%^(*%. That makes no sense to me and is not the reason he has been stripped of his tour wins. I think if they dont get real about this issue and strip every known doper of their tour win then whats the point of doing it to LA, and we have several others who have confessed to it but are still "heroes". Infact we should strip every known doper of their entire career and mark "loser doper" next to their names. That would certainly make the future dopers think twice, but at the moment we have rules and opinions for LA and a different set of rules for all the other dopers.

Is it just the broken dream of LA that he is hated so much, personally i admire the bloke from coming back from cancer and starting his amazing charity that has done so much good, its just a pitty the charity would not exist if it wasnt for EPO. Something to ponder...................

Armstrong is the greatest doping cheat in history. He ran a team wide systematic doping operation, had exclusive access to the best doping doctor in Michele Ferrari and could dope with impunity thanks to being protected by the UCI. Armstrong is not Pantani, Ulrich or any other doper in terms of the scale and success of his doping. Blood doping/EPO can tranform mid-pack TdF riders into champions. It was a whole different level of performance enhancement never seen before in the history of cycling. Armstrong was offered the opportunity to tell all he knew but refused so a lifetime ban and the stripping of his seven TdF "wins" was entirely appropriate. I won't go into the issue of how Armstrong may have developed cancer and the bona fide of the Lance Armstrong Foundation. Perhaps you can do some research.

doping is doping!. Does it matter how he got cancer?, he did get cancer and did alot to raise the awareness of cancer survivors and prostate cancer, you cant argue that fact!

Im not for LA here, im argueing against the other dopers who have gotten away with it despite them cheating, poor form from UCI for allowing them to do so!

iaintas wrote:
Then why dont we say, lance doped just like everyone else, keep the tour de france wins and just be sound in the knowledge he is a *%^(*%. That makes no sense to me and is not the reason he has been stripped of his tour wins. I think if they dont get real about this issue and strip every known doper of their tour win then whats the point of doing it to LA, and we have several others who have confessed to it but are still "heroes". Infact we should strip every known doper of their entire career and mark "loser doper" next to their names. That would certainly make the future dopers think twice, but at the moment we have rules and opinions for LA and a different set of rules for all the other dopers.

Is it just the broken dream of LA that he is hated so much, personally i admire the bloke from coming back from cancer and starting his amazing charity that has done so much good, its just a pitty the charity would not exist if it wasnt for EPO. Something to ponder...................

What about Landis, Contador etc etc give them back their wins also. You know what lets give everyone who has ever doped all their titles and lots of accolades. That will teach the dopers in the future really sending a good message to them, if you get caught nothing happens. Such a not intelligent post from you.

Dont listen to all the commentators (Who are all for doping and propagated the Armstrong myth like Liggett) and those that do not know much Pantani etc etc arent anywhere near as revered as you make out, especially by those that are anti-doping.

What they did on the bikes was impressive and many accept that (as they still accept what Armstrong did was impressive). They should be noones idols however they should have no titles or accolades, none of them. Lance Armstrong came back in 09,10 and this is why he was able to be stripped of his titles but due to statute of limitations the others were not able to be stripped of their titles. Lets hope we catch the other cheats faster (there are plenty of them around still) so they cannot keep their titles.

um i think that was my point Vander!

iaintas wrote:um i think that was my point Vander!

I must of read it wrong yet, definitely not what (atleast the first line) sounded like. Also everyone keeps coming back to his charity but the more your read about it the less good it sounds.

vander wrote:

iaintas wrote:um i think that was my point Vander!

I must of read it wrong yet, definitely not what (atleast the first line) sounded like. Also everyone keeps coming back to his charity but the more your read about it the less good it sounds.

thats because it was a reply to another comment above, it makes sense then

The charity has done alot of good imho, im sure their have been problems and im sure he used it for PR and to gain some financial advantage by selling naming rights etc, but it has done alot of good for alot of people. A quick google search turned up only a bit of info on how his manager and LA gained some financial advantage and used it to lobby the government to drop the charges against LA, very poor i agree! But still better than one of the biggest cancer charities not existing to start with.

iaintas wrote:

vander wrote:
I must of read it wrong yet, definitely not what (atleast the first line) sounded like. Also everyone keeps coming back to his charity but the more your read about it the less good it sounds.

thats because it was a reply to another comment above, it makes sense then

The charity has done alot of good imho, im sure their have been problems and im sure he used it for PR and to gain some financial advantage by selling naming rights etc, but it has done alot of good for alot of people. A quick google search turned up only a bit of info on how his manager and LA gained some financial advantage and used it to lobby the government to drop the charges against LA, very poor i agree! But still better than one of the biggest cancer charities not existing to start with.

Ahh makes a bit more sense, but my post was more about why he was hated rather then why he lost his titles.

The charity had a very big marketing budget and I have read things about them paying Armstrong 100s of thousands of dollars to make appearances. Among other things.

It was initially brought in to find a cure for cancer and many people thought it was for that, however after a few years they stopped funding that and went to a awareness approach (better way to pay Armstrong from the charity?). They have done some good things but not enough IMO.

Pantani is loved in Italy still, he even has his own monument. Dont think LA even has one of those. Anyway from the rumours i hear EPO is still in use in the italian conti cycling scene and is even tolerated knowingly by managers. Although teams probably dont pay for it like they used to

iaintas wrote:Pantani is loved in Italy still, he even has his own monument. Dont think LA even has one of those. Anyway from the rumours i hear EPO is still in use in the italian conti cycling scene and is even tolerated knowingly by managers. Although teams probably dont pay for it like they used to

The Italians and the Spanish are much more accepting of doping.

They only just came up with a test that can pick up microdosing EPO (but only in a very short time frame). Apparently they have started using this test. It appears they banned a couple of older riders/not as important riders such as Santa and Di Luca to send a warning to the big guys (Froomes, Wiggos, Contadors) that they can now pick it. They also have dropped the number of biological passport tests recently which would of picked up if people stopped microdosing EPO.

HgH and homogolous blood transfers are still undectable (as long as they are within the bounds of the bio passport which with teams internal testing they can monitor it and make sure they are do not go outside of them).

There are still too many people that do not want to check the dopers the recent Spanish court decision proves this, it is still rampant in many sports, hopefully cycling will continue to improve its stance on doping.

I hear that the African running scene is rife with EPO and PED's, non regulated and no testing occures outside the olympics. And these guys make some good money at the top level.