Was Contador up to Verbier so unbelievable?
by irishpeloton on Dec 2, 2009 8:00 AM EST
158 comments
The 15th stage of the 2009 Tour de France will be remembered as the day where Alberto Contador finally took the yellow jersey and with it, control of the race. He danced away from his rivals on the summit finish up to Verbier and having previously been within a couple of seconds of Armstrong on G.C., he finished over a minute and a half up on the returning Texan. However, instead of a celebration of aggressive racing, this stage has now become known for the ongoing debate over whether Contador's speed up the climb was a plausible feat without the aid of performance enhancing drugs.
The argument has been voiced by many including Greg Lemond. The three time Tour winner has said that to climb up to Verbier at the speed that Contador maintained would require the Spaniard to have a VO2 Max of 99.5. A rider's VO2 Max is a measure of the ability the transport and utilise oxygen around the body and is measured in units of milliliters per kilogram per minute. Over at sportsscientists.com there is an excellent article which delves into the mathematics of it all. Suffice it to say that a VO2 Max of 99.5 is unheard of in a human being. Miguel Indurain had a reported value of 88 during his Tour winning years, and even Lance Armstrong 'only' had an estimated value of 84.
Until Alberto Contador tests positive for a banned substance I will continue to be amazed by his performances rather than be bogged down with cynicism. Is it so unfathomable that he could have produced such a feat of human physical fitness? I find two problems with the arguments against the legitimacy of Contador's performance.
Firstly, a mathematical problem. To accurately measure a person's VO2 Max you need to either place them in a controlled environment and measure their outputs with scientific equipment or you can insert values into an equation to make an estimate based on a particular performance.
Now, the allegations aimed towards Contador have been based on this VO2 Max figure of 99.5 which is after all, only an estimate. There are many equations available to produce an estimate of a VO2 Max. The most reliable of which requires prior knowledge of the rider's resting heart rate and maximum heart rate, figures which I'm not sure either Greg Lemond or trainer Antoine Vayer who initially made the estimate had available to them. The other equations for estimating VO2 Max do not fully take local conditions into account such as temperature, gradient or wind speed. Therefore, comparisons of Contador's performance based on this 'calculated' VO2 Max value are baseless.
The second problem I find with the allegations aimed at Contador is more theoretical. In a previous article I alluded to the fact that more and more in recent years cyclists have focused their performance on one or two specific races in the calendar each year. It it impossible for a cyclist to maintain peak physical performance for the entire season. Therefore, training régimes are created to ensure that each cyclist peaks at the right time in the year, for the right race. Obviously, Contador's race of preference is the Tour de France. All the races he entered before July were simply used as preparation for this one race.
To take this a step further, it is also unlikely that a rider can maintain a fitness peak for the entire length of the Tour, 23 days. As such, a rider will start the Tour as he is approaching peak fitness. This peak will be reached precisely at the most important day of the race and then the peak will begin to fall off. It is probable that Alberto Contador had ear-marked Stage 15 as the day he would attack and take the yellow jersey. It was one of only three summit finishes in the race, it came after a number of rolling stages and the position of the stage within the three weeks was perfect, just at the start of the third week, leaving only six days left to defend the jersey.
Another point to supplement this argument is the age at which cyclists peak in their careers. Many believe that the peak age for a cyclist is in their early thirties. I think that a cyclist peaks much younger. In fact, Merckx won his five Tours between the ages of 24 and 29, Anquetil between 23 and 30 and Hinault won his first four Tours before he turned 28. Why it takes so long for some riders to reach their potential in terms of results is simply the pecking order that lies within a professional cycling team. Why should the established riders in a team bow to the services of a younger rider who hasn't won anything of note? Conversely, how does a young rider win anything when he is never designated as a team leader for a race? Even though a young rider could have greater fitness and ability than a team leader, it takes time to rack up minor victories and work your way up the pecking order to finally command the respect and services of a team of domestiques.
Obviously there are exceptions, but it requires a rider of remarkable talent like Andy Schleck, Mark Cavendish or indeed Alberto Contador to become leader of a cycling team at a young age. Contador was 26 and a half when he took 20:55 to ascend the final summit on Stage 15 of the 2009 Tour de France. Yes it was a remarkable performance. Yes it deserves to be analysed and questioned. But is such a performance so unlikely given that on the 19th July 2009, Alberto Contador could possibly have been in the best physical shape he has ever been or ever will be?
5 recs |
158 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Actually I would say Lance was more unbelievable
Not that I’m making any veiled accusations against him either….just saying that it’s pretty remarkable that he was able to take 3 years away from the sport and only finish a minute and half behind the best climber in the world on such a demanding stage.
AC only grabbed 42 seconds from Schleck and around a minute from Nibali, those gaps seem consistent with his performances from the past. I love Lemond but unless he has some direct evidence that AC doped he needs to give it a rest…
Trying to see how there isn't some kind of accusation in that comment.
And I think I get it. It’s funny though how differently people see that day and LA’s comeback in general. I’m like you in that I found his performance at the Tour pretty remarkable but I was expecting to be impressed. Some found it easy to sling mud that same day and say that he just doesn’t have it, he’s old and washed up. We humans can twist numbers, words and what we see to suit our fancy.
Well written post Irish.
No horn, watch for finger.
Do you know
what his VAM was for that climb? I was reading a very interesting article on the subject.
Your bike doesn't want to crash so relax and let it roll!!!
The lads at sportsscientists.com
…went through all that as well in a previous article. Apparently his VAM up that climb was 1900m/hr…a Tour record. They write great articles, and even though they can be quite heavy on the maths are still very readable and enjoyable.
http://www.irishpeloton.com/
Following wind
The sportscients,com article points out that if there was even a 10 km/hr following wind the VO2 max goes to 89. As I remember it was probably at 20 km/hr or moe so the VO2 max is right down in the low to mid 80’s, similar to or slightly less that LA’s peak and well below Lemond’s. The fact that the guy who literally wrote the book on this stuff did not include wind speed tells me that he likely had an ulterior motive, or is being misinterpreted.
I'm a college researcher by day
and I’ve found that if you’re so inclined, there are plenty of factors you can choose to ignore or dismiss in order to make your data fit the desired outcome. Contador’s climb up Verbier has garnered plenty of suspicion, mostly I think because Greg Lemond decided to speak up about it, but what was more alarming in my view was Contador’s ability to beat Cancellara in the final time trial.
http://www.irishpeloton.com/
Yes, the Verbier thing is purely a creation of Lemond’s comments.
what was more alarming in my view was Contador’s ability to beat Cancellara in the final time trial.
more surprising ….. absolutely agree
Moo
+1... totally agree here
I didn’t give AC’s effort up the Verbier a second thought even after Lemond spoke out (But I don’t give any of his comments a second thought). I was a little too impressed by AC’s ITT. I know it’s at the end and that’s when the GC guys shine and all, but still.
No horn, watch for finger.
+1
the itt was the one that was odd… not impossible but certainly the one you would question if you were inclined to question.
George bunny-hopped my bike somehow. He's like a cat. -- cvv
by cg. on Dec 2, 2009 4:43 PM EST up reply actions
I didn't find it odd at all.
He was better over the first half and fastest up a category 3 climb. He lost all of that advantage, save 3 seconds, over the downhill portion of the course. One would expect that he would outclimb Spartacus and that Spartacus would blast him on the downhill and flats.
Same thing happened in the prologue, except Spartacus won.
His prologue skills are far more remarkable for me..
Why in earth can Contador ride a prologue? That’s so specific.. He’s small, light.. So not build for a prologue
and supplements
from Levi’s Twitter
Fresh Brew talked to @firstendurance about their great supplements that helped put Team Astana on the top of the podium http://bit.ly/71sZVQ
nice choice of words there Levi…
Tickets are bought, Belgium here I come!
haha!
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Dec 3, 2009 6:30 AM EST up reply actions
I think this was a unique situation
The Monaco prologue was basically a climb out of Monaco (I believe it was only a Cat 4 but still). He lost time on the descent—Spartacus has some crazy bike handling skills. It just doesn’t seem that remarkable to me. If he beats Spartacus on a flat TT, then I’ll be impressed . . . and suspicious.
true, conta goes uphill quite nicely... not so much the down part tho
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
I'm pretty sure he also went out harder.
And who knows? There are about 10 variables that go into times that we have no means of knowing.
not that many variables as the time trial was around a lake
A nifty move by ASO as it ensures more equal terms for the riders despite the the starting time.
Wouldn't one expect the same wind to effect the other riders on the track like Wiggo, Lance and Klöden?
But perhaps, being light and constantly standing up has worked as a sail?
No as I’ve said before, I’d like to see more than raw power behind Bert’s victories to become a fan.
But I guess that some people prefer to have a comic book Superman who wins everything and has no weaknesses, though it kills all excitement.
slight rectification here Will
- weren’t LeMond’s comments in essence a response to a French researcher? That’s how I remember it from an article, in Libération I think – in fact I think LeMond begins with a reference to the article. I’m too lazy to look it up, sorry ;)
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Dec 2, 2009 5:25 PM EST up reply actions
Yes
It’s Vayer at Libération who always does the VAM calculations for the climbs. He does it for all the races. Cyclismag.com also does a similar analysis – though, I’m forgetting now whether they do their own calculations are simply take Vayer’s.
The finall TT of the Tour...
is usually the domain of the GC men, not the specialists like Cancellara. After three weeks of racing, it’s easier for a rider like Contador who is on terrific form with plenty of momentum to pull the upset and beat a TT specialist like Cance. Check some of the results from the past few years, usually the the final TT goes to the GC men…
Fair enough but
what concerns me is that Contador beat Cancellara and everyone else by a huge margin on the dead flat opening stretch of the TT. That seems possible but isn’t normal even at the end of a GT.
Agreed that Verbier is no cause for concern. One of the nice things about this site is that there aren’t any fundamentalists who use fishy VAM, VO2, and watts numbers to show that everyone who they don’t like is certainly doping.
by Mr 60 Percent on Dec 2, 2009 2:10 PM EST up reply actions
On land they do, but I think they are better without them in water.
(Unscientific claim, of course)
No horn, watch for finger.
wasn't the wind chopping and changing for the ITT?
cance went off earlier so didn’t have the tailwind the top GC guys got on the opening stretch
I don't think Cancellara was totally on his game because he was only like 6th or 7th at the first time check (18km)
and he was forced to make all of it up after the climb, which he almost did by pulling back 43 seconds in about 12km. After the first time check, Contador slowed up a good bit because he was 2nd at 25km to Ignatiev, who came back from being 19 seconds down to 3 seconds up.
Cance had a slow opening time, he was only 6th or so in the first check
that’s where he lost the TT, a better time there and he wins. I find nothing so surprising about it, It was a short TT so Bert could bust it hard right away, then he gained on the climb, and lost a ton of time going downhill. He may have just been very motivated, especially if the Astana car story is true. Great athletes make statements on the playing field. I can see where suspicion comes from though, I just don’t buy it….I’m also biased of course.
Look, it's a bird...no, it's a plane....oh never mind it's just fucking balloon boy
I think Contador had a little added oomph on the first section of that TT
because he seems to be good at converting certain kinds of adversity into anger/motivation and better performances. Lance’s tricks with the transportation to the start were morphed into kind of determination that made Bert’s team trial great – and such effects were more likely to be seen during the first half of the race, when all the other factors cited in this thread (crowd and escort providing shelter from the wind) came into play as well.
In other words, I think one of Contador’s strengths is that attempts to play mind games with him tend to backfire, as Lance proved last summer.
by GreylockGrinder on Dec 3, 2009 8:24 AM EST up reply actions
there aren’t any fundamentalists who use fishy VAM, VO2, and watts numbers
So very true :D Honestly, those people tend to make most other cycling forums a hell.
If I remember rightly though
I think Cancellara said that he was really going all out to win that time trial.
http://www.irishpeloton.com/
He didn't over the first half.
He was balls out over the second half of the course, but he wasn’t pressing during the first half.
Maybe it was strategy?!
It makes no freaking sence to only ush the last half.. And I mean zero. You can really push a whole TT if you are at the end of the Tour de France.. And wasn’t the first half the climb? D’uh he lost time
The climb was in the second half...
plus Cancellara is usually the type, and he has said it himself, that he goes out super hard and then just tries to hold that pace. The climb ended at 28-29 km…
Source? Because it doesn't sound like the Fabu I know
or any TT specialist for that sake, it’s usually seen as a beginner/non specialist error.
I do remember that there was a bit of moto-pacing on Contador's part that Cancellara pointed out but nobody really listened...
Contador is a fantastic time-trialist and you just have to look at the conditions of the day a lot of other variables.
The crowd was also a lot sparser on the first half for Cancelleras ride on the southern leg.
AC rode in a tunnel of fans which sheltered him from a very strong crosswind coming from the east across the lake. The northern leg was sheltered by hedges and walls for a good distance. The motor pacing, such as it was, was due to the crush of fans on the course in that section.
I have carefully read the post and comments
But I still have the same objection to this debate I had at the the time.
The article Mr Le Mond quoted (which was subsequently amended) gave a list of the top 12 ever rides on the calculations used.
Lance came 9th on the stage and would have still made Mr LeMond’s original best ever 12 list – even if in 12th. Thus it means every other rider on that stage had produced one of the (then) best twelve perfomances ever on those measurements.
Therefore if Contador is ET so are Schleck, Niabli, Schelck, Wiggins, Sastre, Evans, Kloden as well. Your headline does him an unmerited misjustice!
In time trials – people forget this – http://velonews.com/article/9083
Yup, this point alone...
Makes a crock out of the doping allegation. The time gaps to the other riders were reasonable, given prior performances, so how is the ride suspicious? I do have some doubts about Contador, but they’re not based on this.
well put
you posted what i was thinking…
"well...you live in england so: you love the rain. loves the queen. hates cycling. based on mr bean had a tremendous amount of humour. all ride in a mini cooper. all getting drunk before the age of 12. getting drunk at least 3 times a day."- frinking, 7/9/09
key quotation from that old VN article:
“In testing performed in Spain, the 153-pound Sanchez and lighter Contador have both demonstrated the ability to put out impressive power, hovering around 500 Watts continuously over an hour time trial, according to Fabio Selvig, Director of Team Sponsorships for Liberty Seguros, who accompanied Saiz and the two young guns to Boston.
However, particularly impressive for him was the fact that his aerodynamic drag was lower coming into the wind tunnel, before improvements were made with his position by the MIT staff, than any pro rider previously tested in that tunnel after being dialed-in for optimized time trial position. And the list of clients of the MIT wind tunnel are impressive, including such notables as Ivan Basso and Tyler Hamilton."
ZInn’s pronoun usage is vague—I’m not sure whether the second paragraph refers to Contador or Sanchez, but the take-away is clear: as light as Contador is, that kind of power output puts him in a league with Cancellara—especially if it’s his drag numbers that are being referred to in the second paragraph.
I don't think the various calculations are very reliable
But Contador clobbered the rest of the riders, so he was obviously very strong that day
What about the grade?
IIRC Verbier isn’t terribly steep. Can riders ascend vertically faster on less steep inclines? Despite the fact that you have to go a further distance?
I find these stats too unscientific. Riders talk all the time about how they are suited to climbs of one sort of profile and not another. This includes steady grades versus punchy ones. There are just SOOO many variables among the possible terrains and riders’ abilities. If pistolero’s sweet spot happens to be Verbier, at a time when he’s going all out, at his peak, then so be it. How can you compare this rider to an ascent of Alpe d’Huez 8 years ago?
"Harder! Better! Faster! Stronger!" Philippe Gilbert
VAM
VAM calcuations tend to over-estimate power for steeper gradients. So, you’ll get higher VAM numbers for the Zoncolan, for ex., than you would for a climb in the Alps. Er, I forget exactly why that is, it has to do with the math, which I understood at one point, but promptly forgot.
What’s interesting about what Vayer does is less the specific numbers for any one climb, than the trend lines over time that his calculations show.
In the main though, these discussions aren’t all that useful, since most people see what they want to see anyway. This Verbier thing was pretty beaten into the ground over the summer.
But sure don't we still need something to beat in to the ground
while there’s no feckin’ racing on?
http://www.irishpeloton.com/
Wouldn't it be due to a lesser amount of wind resistance?
On a steeper climb, there is less aerodynamic drag, so more of the power is going towards pushing the body uphill.
Wind resistance
VAM actually does not include wind resistance, as far as I recall. This is why part of the debate over Verbier had to do with wind direction – some argued there was a tail wind up the climb, while others suggested that the switchbacks in the road made for relatively nuetral wind conditions.
The bias has to do with how VAM is defined – it’s basically vertical gain as a factor of time. I can look up more about that if you’re interested, though it could take me some time to find the discussions again.
VAM
is a load of crock. It’s just the Vertical Ascent in Metres per hour. So if you climb the Alpe in an hour, your VAM is 1090. No wind, no weight, no power.
VAM
Isn’t a crock of shit…it’s just vertical meters per hour. There’s nothing at its core that relates to power, it’s just meters per hour, that’s it. If anyone interpolates power from it, that’s another story, but by itself, it’s yet another way to track efforts.
The problem is, the creator, Ferrari, DID try to figure out w/kg from VAM:
A standard unit term with the same meaning is Vm/h, vertical meters per hour; the two are used interchangeably. The relationship between VAM and relative power output is expressed as follows:
Relative power (Watts/kg) = VAM (meters/hour) / (Gradient factor x 100)
This gradient factor ranges between 2.6 for a gradient of 6% and 3.1 for a gradient of 11%
To work out the gradient factor take 2 + (% grade/10)
That’s where things get shifty.
Read more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_Ascended,_Metres_per_hour
VAM Explanation
I remember bookmarking this article on VAM sometime ago. Very well explained for the first timer. http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2009/07/rate-of-climbing-uphill-explained.html
It isn't a crock
It’s a reasonably useful method of comparing speed up climbs, when the length and the gradient are different – ie it allows you to ROUGHLY compare a climb up the tourmalet with a climb up the Alpe d’Huez
However, using it cold IS a crock – so many factors can impact it, such as tailwind, attacking versus tempo riding, number of switchbacks, even the quality of the damn tarmac
It’s an indicator – that’s all. It’s no way close to proof of anything
wait
you understood math at some point? Respect!
"Harder! Better! Faster! Stronger!" Philippe Gilbert
Interestingly - looks to me like the steeper the climb, the faster the expected VAM
I have to admit that I assumed the opposite, but then I disappeared into a fog of mathematics (always dangerous – I am a history grad) and, assuming I have got my guesses at what Pros average in terms of kph on various slopes right, on steeper slopes they gain more in vertical meters gained than they lose in forward velocity.
I’ve taken some guesses as to averages – happy to be told they are rubbish:
45kph on 1%… 35kph on 3%…30kph on 5%…25kph on 10%…20kph on 15%… obviously these aren’t based on personal experience, so I am completely guessing!
But if you believe all the above, you should gain about 1500 vertical meters an hour on a 5% slope and 2,500 vertical meters an hour on a 10% slope
Phew – that hurt. Of course, II could be talking total bollocks
i'm guess those higher grade speeds are too high
Based solely on having read once that armstrong had averaged 19kph on all the climbs of one tdf. Just read that a long time ago in some french magazine a long time ago and still remember it. Could be totally wrong but that number has always stuck in my head.
Thanks - lets try again
TDF climbs tend to be about 10% (says he, generalising wildly)
Playing around with my numbers reduces the 10% AM to around 1900 vertical meters per hour… significantly lower but still faster than the shallower climbs
I agree
I would have said 7.5 if you hadn’t already :)
Addict, different VAM for different grades is because of higher speed = more wind resistance on shallower grades. Then again, pros get a significant drafting benefit from their speeds on grades up to 9 or 10%. Murky stuff, makes VAM quite useless for comparing anything beyond what is already very obvious.
Not quite true - power, weight and the shape of a right angle triange are the key factors...
The wind effect, while not to be discounted (and certainly not to be ignored when comparing between VAMs), is not the biggest factor in VAM
The key inputs into VAM are how fast you can go forward on any given slope of road. Once you have those two figures (speed and slope), the mathematical rules of right angle triangles govern VAM.
To illustrate – to go up a 1% slope at (say) a VAM of 1,000, you would need to average 100kph. To go up a 5% slope at a VAM of 1,000, you need to average only 20kph. To go up a 10% slope at a VAM of 1,000, you need to average 10kph. The powers of mathematics are strong (I think)
Note – all the above assumes I have calculated my sines and arctangents correctly… :)
And the key inputs to how fast you can average… our old cycling friends Mr Power, and his distaff cousin Mr Weight. Wind has an impact, but nothing like as much as the other stuff
But agree with your basic premise that VAM is a blunt instrument. I just got interested in this when Chris asked a question and my gut feel turned out to be completely wrong… I now understand more (I think)
I did not mean wind, as in the meteorological phenomenon
but aerodynamics (“wind resistance”). Your math is meaningless. VAM is not just a simple mathematical combination of power, weight, potential energy and triangles. That was the whole point: VAM is different for different grades, even for the same rider, and that is mainly because of aerodynamic effects.
I think we are talking cross purposes...
… VAM is a measure of speed of ascent, measured in vertical meters an hour. I agree it isnt a measure of power or weight, or indeed anything else but speed of ascent
I also agree that VAM is different on different grades (even for the same rider). One should expect to see different VAMs for a 6% pitch than a 15% pitch
You underestimate the benefit caused by the shortening of the road distance you have to cover to gain height as the pitch increases (Pythagorean theory shows how strong it is).
But at the end of the day, this is a fairly abstruse discussion, so lets just both agree that steeper hills = higher expected VAMs (which was against what I expected when I started doing my maths…)
Discarding non-gravitional forces, friction and change in gravity,
the energy cost for moving a mass from height A to height B does not depend on the path taken. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy#Gravitational_potential_energy
That means, in theory, it would cost just as much energy to climb 1000 m vertically by taking the 20 km long road with a 5% grade as it would by taking the 10 km short road with a 10% grade. So if total energy expenditure is the same, and with the cyclist generating a fixed amount of energy per time (his maximum power), you might expect him to be exactly twice as fast on the 5% road, leading to the same climbing time! For instance: 15 km/h over 10 km at 10% versus 30 km/h over 20 km at 5% are both equivalent to the same VAM of 1500 m/h.
In the real world, however, there are other forces keeping you back and there is friction (but no change in gravity to speak of). The main resisting force is aerodynamic drag (“wind resistance”). Drag force scales with the square of the velocity. That means: if you go TWICE as fast, the drag force is FOUR times as high. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation
In other words, aerodynamics are disproportionally important at higher speeds. So on the longer road with the shallower grade, the cyclist’s speed is NOT twice as high, because a larger proportion of his power goes into overcoming aerodynamic drag. He might go just 27 km/h instead of 30 km/h, leading to a VAM of 1350 m/h.
Not even in Theory
No in theory it would take different amounts of energy to go the different distances. You are just talking about the potential energy at the end. In theory the energy taken would totally depend on the accelerations involved. You could use different amounts of energy on the exact same course with the exact same overall speed – even theoretically.
It would all depend on how much you sped up and slowed down. (Spoken as a former professional physicist.)
Nice post, nice comments, as usual a nice PdC conversation going on
post rec’d
Look, it's a bird...no, it's a plane....oh never mind it's just fucking balloon boy
More fun than
talking about your personal heroes SS Lazio?
"Harder! Better! Faster! Stronger!" Philippe Gilbert
Did you know AS Roma is more valuable than Inter Milan?
how’s that working for them? It’s like they are the Serie A New York Mets!
Look, it's a bird...no, it's a plane....oh never mind it's just fucking balloon boy
lol is he really a Lazio fan?
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Dec 3, 2009 6:33 AM EST up reply actions
No, I couldn't give less of a shit about Lazio
I just like making Chris cry…
Look, it's a bird...no, it's a plane....oh never mind it's just fucking balloon boy
he was the only rider that Fuentes actually came out and said was falsely accused
but then there is that document with ‘nada o igual a JJ’ or whatever the Spanish is.
I’ve seen a copy of it but don’t have a link.
wind
The climb zigzags up the mountainside with 8 switchbacks. If this tailwind claim is true, shouldn’t there have been a corresponding headwind after each switchback?
yes
I’d agree that the switchbacks nuetralize the tailwind. I remember at the time seeing a graphic of the wind direction – it was a tailwind in the valley, but not necessarily throughout the climb, because of the switchbacks and the orientation of the road on the mountain. In general too, if there are switchbacks, you are never going to have a full-on tailwind.
Ha!
Why is there never an updraft when I go climbing? Seems like the wind nearly always blows downslope. Bah!
The impression I got from his ride up Verbier was that he went full gas.
Best form of anyone there and no one could match him. He was drooling uncontrollably out of every orafice I could see (don’t care to see the other ones). I thought it was a bit risky to go that hard but he’s obviously a bit more experienced than some give him credit for.
No horn, watch for finger.
ARE YOU IMPLYING ONE OF LANCE ARMSTRONG'S TWEETS WAS INCORRECT?!!!!!!!!!!
HOW DARE YOU!!!!
Look, it's a bird...no, it's a plane....oh never mind it's just fucking balloon boy
maybe all that time spent riding an iron orbea uphill helped a lot also
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
Like several of the people here,
it was Contador’s ITT that I found difficult to believe much more than his climbing. Small guys have more surface area per pound of body weight than the big guys. This means that they have more wind resistance per pound of body weight. A small guy like Contador (140 lb) taking a power house like Cancellara (180 lb), on a flat course, is just a little bit of a strech for me.
If you can put out 500+ watts at threshold consistently, you should not be taken lightly. The wind conditions played a big factor (headwind for Fabu vs. tailwind for AC)
and you could keep listing more items to be taken into consideration. Contador’s fitness was probably higher than Cancellara because he was not peaking for anything specific, just to be a good teammate and the prologue. If it was this year’s Vuelta, where Cance was simply a head above the rest in his TT and overall condition and the same result happened, then I would be suspicious
Hey you seem to be forgetting all the hard work AC hand done the day before
where Fabian had been saving energy.
And being able to put out 500+ watt for a hour is not less alarming.
That’s where my brain says wait a moment, it would have been nice if AC iTT wins had been due to bike handling, daring descents, not wasting energy on/before important stages and aerodynamic position on the bike(instead of jumping around on the saddle), but I bet no one here can argue that every single iTT win AC had was due to raw power(sorry, wind and sometimes a slope).
I did raise my eyebrowns at the PN prologue when he beat Wiggo,
but I did raise my eyebrows also when I saw Wiggo climbing with the best climbers at the Tour.
So give or take, which one is more believable? The skinny climber with a solid TT history, or the heavy track rider losing X kilos and becoming a Tour podium candidate?
So if I put an 300 lb gorilla on the bike, it should go faster?
I’m interested to know where you’re pulling this knowledge from? Any real testing done to confirm?
Yeah - it's the ITT skills that worry me
1) Being that good at the ITT that late in a tour shows great recovery ability
2) AC was fully involved in defending his lead – can that take less out of him in terms of cumulative fatigue than Spartacus lost by being a mountain domestique?
3) AC truly sucked at ITT – and now can beat the best TT-er in the world (and possibly in history)
4) His body type is all wrong for a TT-er
None of that is conclusive – and I am with the guys who say we should assume he is clean – but I know if he was to give a non-negative we would all look back at things like the above and say “we saw it coming…”
As for his ability to go uphill very fast – well, he’s a truly talented climber and has always been so… he could climb with a doped Chicken, for goodness sake.
conta never truly sucked at ITTs... he's been the junior spanish TT champion.... and is the current spanish elite TT champion (took that away from lulu this year)
he’s always been very proficient at prologues and shorter time trials. it’s the longer flat ITTs that have caused him probs, and he was lucky to hang on to those 3 secs at stage 18 this year… he goes out like gangbusters, charges up the gradient and then hangs on for dear life until the end…
as to his climbing prowess, yup, the roads go up, he goes zoom… at least not on an iron orbea any more
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
Nor was Modrisio
Where Spartacus annihilated everyone (I know AC wasnt there, but no way he gets close to Tony on that performance)
nah, modrisio was pretty much a flattish tt course
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
From what I remember from the video feed
It was almost entirely flat except for the one climb every 16km. And 1km or so of climbing every 16km is pretty flat.
Great Post
The truth is you can’t tell by a riders performance whether he is cheating. Sometimes a great performance is just that. All of us amateur athletes have had that one day were we destroyed our best time and it felt easy and other days where we ate right, slept well, gave it every ounce we had, and sucked reaaalllly badly. If LeMond is right, then everyone that is putting out more than 400 watts is doped ( Mr 92 VO2 Max claims he rode at 390-400). That would mean that all the elite riders and even the second tier riders are all still doped. ( Some might be doped but some of them are just gifted, well trained and pissed off that some old man is messing with their chance at history. )
Hopefully, the bad guys are steadily being weeded out ( Ricco, Sella, DiLuca, Schumacker ) and the good guys are left. I can dream can’t I !
I waited a half an hour to give my two toddlers breakfast until I had my Eneco tour coverage sorted, then made sure I got them fed before the sprint. --- Bought With Blood. ..... Hmmm, my kinda people. If only they could explain to my wife why my bike belongs in the house and not the garage. --- Thevaro
Not to knock a dead horse but 99.5 is a possible VO2 Max...
Bjorn Daehlie, famed Norwegian cross country skier, had a recorded VO2 of 96 ml/kg/min and this test was conducted in the offseason. The guy who did the test said if it was taken mid-season, a number of 100 ml/kg/min would have likely been surpassed. So it is possible.
glad you brougth up the superior sport of x-c skiing!
However, all you’ve done is prove that 99.5 is never possible for someone taking part in the inferior sport of cycling… ;)
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Dec 3, 2009 6:35 AM EST up reply actions
And to beat the horse into tiny little pieces
The notion that VO2 max is the overwhelming controlling factor in Athletic performance is simplistic. There is body type ( aerodynamics, height, width, muscle reaction type ), absorption of nutrition, the mental ability to suffer through pain, skill, the ability to push the body to its limits, the intelligence to know where your limits are and stay within them,… to never quit.
People look at the 100 as if it has some relation to 100%. It doesn’t. It’s just milliliters of Oxygen per kilogram per minute.
I waited a half an hour to give my two toddlers breakfast until I had my Eneco tour coverage sorted, then made sure I got them fed before the sprint. --- Bought With Blood. ..... Hmmm, my kinda people. If only they could explain to my wife why my bike belongs in the house and not the garage. --- Thevaro
Great discussion about how to judge performance
I’d also be curious to know what are people’s thoughts on the peak age of a cyclist?
http://www.irishpeloton.com/
7
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Dec 3, 2009 6:35 AM EST up reply actions
Whatever age Jens! happens to be...
…at the point in time when the question is asked ;-)
Y’know, I’m kinda getting sick of the new shape of bike racing. (And I mean this as a generalization, not specific to any rider.) Seems like anytime anyone wins anything post-2005 is immediately accused — either directly or indirectly — of doping. This just takes my joy of following away.
"Think globally, bike locally."
Because it was an argument just like this one that claimed that Floyd couldn’t do what he did on Stage 17, even though his training data suggests otherwise. And…
A) I know I shouldn’t even be writing this, because it opens a different can of worms. But you did ask why.
B) I cannot say whether Floyd was cookin’ it or not, but I am completely convinced of both the likelihood he could perform like he did, and especially that the “science” used to accuse him was not repeatable science as I was taught in my formal training as a scientist.
Basically, after watching that fiasco, I just hoped that if we sacrificed Floyd on the altar (right or wrong) this witch hunting would go away. Alas, we need professions for those who cannot race…
"Think globally, bike locally."
The Floyd case..
It’s something sentimental.. The only thing I could say.. I’m just beginning to hope Vino was innocent too..
I'm glad Vino's back, but I must admit, I never spend time hoping he was innocent
That’s a waste of energy.
"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'
Morally bankrupt, the pair of you.
Love your work ;-) Ahem…
Chortle. A little moral bankruptcy is good for the soul...er...
"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'
Agreed on both points.
I really liked the guy (and still do), but I try not to get too wrapped up in those things. Nobody’s morally perfect, no need to act like we assume they are.
Don't understand the floyd comment
Guy does an amazing ride
Guy gets busted for drugs
Guy gives random excuses as to why he might have test +ve
Guy slings alot of mud at the testers
Haven’t we seen that plot approximately 105 times before?
The only thing that gives me pause is it did seem out of character for him (I guess the equivalent for me would be if Wiggo tested postive) – but then again, he was out of the Postal / Disco stable, and there are an awful lot of individuals from that group who have been busted (says he, treading carefully around unexploded polemica)
my personal nooooooo...
would be if Cadel tested positive. He just doesn’t seem like a guy who would do that. I trust him. Irascible, grumpy, not an extroverted dude sure, but a cheater? I’d like to think not.
by LurkerMcLurkerson on Dec 4, 2009 6:14 PM EST up reply actions
Frinkster, we will never know
But we can be fairly sure that they will be building up a scary collection of samples of his bodily fluids… so let’s just enjoy the glorious presence of Vino in the peloton :-)
Haha..
I was joking.. Of course Vino tested positive.. But We will enjoy his glorious! presence, like Kazachian flags, in the peloton
I like Kazaks in the peleton
They’re just crazy enough to really make things amusing, and every once in a while they pull of something big. So you can never quite write them off.
Oh ja, for sure
He tested +ve, no doubt about that. The man himself accepts that he tested +ve. That’s not where the doubt lies :-). (and as I’ve said before… I don’t really care, actually. A symptom of my moral bankruptcy, perhaps? A refusal to waste energy?)
But as you say… he’s back now, and we shall “enjoy his glorious! presence”, and say no more about it :-)
'His Glorious Presence'? Sounds like the leader of a cult to me...
"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'
Totally OT...
Seahorse, have you any thoughts about questions for Stuey? (over in the ‘Jens! interview’ thread, SB said that suggestions are welcomed. Here’s our chance!….)
Good thought ... I want to know where to after he stops riding
… and can I write his biography? ;)
"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'
Sounds like a Victorian euphemism
“Lady Carruthers exclaimed at Arbuthnot the gardener’s glorious presence”
Not only do I believe it
I knew it was going to happen. It was not an unprecadented attack. I have been watching AC for the last 2 yrs. in various races and that is his m.o. Does’nt anyone remmember the Vuelta? I have seen him do that same style of attack countless times. AC is the fastest climber with 4-5k to go and Cav is the fastest sprinter with 200m to go and that’s that.
The first thing...
that struck me about this post was how I couldn’t deny the immutable smidge of disappointment that came over me when I read that Greg LeMond is back to his sour grapes routine again. I’ve been the staunchest fan and supporter of not only his riding but his “beyond reproach” level of moral integrity. Standing up to Lance despite being threatened (and his family) by his thugs for making waves displayed the character that made him a true champion in the classic sense on the bike. I hope he wins the legal battle with Trek, and I believe him when he speaks of the effect dope made on the peloton upon his return to the sport. That being said, with so little solid, scientific, non-circumstantial evidence to support his allegation, he’s really doing his clout and credibility a huge dis-service by going public with such a severe opinion on a rider that poses no threat to him personally (unlike Armstrong). I hope he tones it down a notch.
"Shut your mouth or I'll fill it with my fist" -Robbie McEwan to Lance Armstrong
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
¡Viva la Vuelta!
Celebrate La Vuelta a España at Podium Cafe.
Stop by each day for Vuelta updates, live race chat, post-race happy hour, and more.
Visit our Vuelta section for all the latest stories.
Mountains. Many much mountains!
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
