A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"It's Not About the Drugs"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old August 1st 05, 07:51 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


B. Lafferty wrote:
It's Not About The Drugs


http://www.lalibre.be/article.phtml?...&art_id=232659

Brief summary for the linguistically challenged:

Frederic Grappe, PhD - scientific counselor to the French Cycling
Federation, and coach for FDJ - has published a book entitled Cycling
and Optimization of Performance. In it he analyses Armstrong's
performance during the 2001 TdF and concludes that his performance is
the result of his professional approach to training and strategy.
According to Grappe, Armstrong only drops the hammer on the last climb
for about 45-50 minutes of high cadence pedalling. Although Ullrich is
capable of generating more force, he lacks the ability to increase his
power to match Armstrong's accelerations. Doping is not a sufficient
explanation for Armstrong's success which depends more on his mastery
of optimizing energy expenditure.

Ads
  #52  
Old August 1st 05, 08:53 AM
Ernst Noch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article , Ernst Noch
wrote:


Ryan Cousineau wrote:

[insightful analysis snipped]


And add to that the publicity factor. Suddenly, all the achievements in
the sport would be seen as a lone result of taking pharmaceutical
products and medicine.
Fake boobs work although everybody knows they are fake. But I think that
won't work in cycling.



I hope you'll pardon me for a self-aggrandizing rant, but I want to
kinda extend with a problem he I keep posting variations of my
theory, and it mostly gets met with silence. I don't really see a lot of
responses from the pro-doping crowd.


Yeah, and with your negligience to use the boob factor for marketing
your ideas, you really wonder why you get ignored?
Seriously, I'd also be interested in an answer from the legalize it
proponents.

My thoughts on cosmetic surgery redacted, because archives are forever
.

  #53  
Old August 1st 05, 09:00 AM
Robert Chung
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Brian wrote:
The "experts*" of rbr have given Vayer short shrift, deriding him
as a mere "gym teacher." And yet, much the same formula appears
to have been used by Floyd Landis' coach


Brian, don't make me come back early from my vacation and slap you
upside your head. I'm grumpy enough typing on a foreign keyboard. Go
read my power meter pages, including the San Bruno hillclimb page:
there you'll see same guy, same climb, 6% difference in time, but
--same measured power--. Anyone except for you and gym teachers
should be able to understand its relevance.

BTW, the power-to-weight shown in Coggan's profile table for the FT
column will be a conservative estimate of what top-notch riders can
climb at since they usually do the final climb of a stage in excess of
their FT.

  #54  
Old August 1st 05, 09:06 AM
Robert Chung
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ben wrote:
A huge problem with Vayer's argument - pointed out by amit at
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/.../msg/91f30b3f0...
is that you can't go from a wattage figure and a V02max
(or VO2 at threshold etc) to a deduction that the wattage
is reasonable or physiologically impossible or evidence of
doping or whatever. Because there just is not a very good
correlation between V02max and wattage at threshold from
person to person.


http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/coyle.png

  #55  
Old August 1st 05, 09:15 AM
Robert Chung
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well, the volume of posting always drops off after July.
I wonder how the rbr volume and the US interest in bike racing
will taper off next year.


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...s.racing/about

Already a one-third drop from last year.

  #56  
Old August 1st 05, 09:49 AM
Ewoud Dronkert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 1 Aug 2005 01:15:12 -0700, Robert Chung wrote:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...s.racing/about
Already a one-third drop from last year.


Blame the web.

--
Firefox Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/
  #57  
Old August 1st 05, 10:04 AM
Ernst Noch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
On 1 Aug 2005 01:15:12 -0700, Robert Chung wrote:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...s.racing/about
Already a one-third drop from last year.



Blame the web.


I guess it's just that the helmet topic was started earlier in July last
year.
  #58  
Old August 1st 05, 11:20 AM
B. Lafferty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Philip Holman" wrote in message
...

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
link.net...

"Philip Holman" wrote in message
...

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
news
"Philip Holman" wrote in message
...

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
news
wrote in message
ups.com...
vayer's argument ... it doesn't hold a lot of water, in the same
way as
*all* the lance arguments (pro and anti) don't hold a lot of
water.
they're not supported by strong evidence. too many of them come
down to
what an individual wants to believe, and are just used as
supporting
buttresses for that belief system. vayer's argument seem to boil
down
to the fact that "man goes up hill fast? drugs are the only
answer."

i'm sure you can give an alalytical response to an argument that
itself
is not nearly as analytical as it pretends to be. vayer's
statistics
don't wash, no with me anyway. can you compare the times to go up
the
same mountain in different races? what about all the contributory
factors, from weather through tactics through where the mountain
falls
in a particular race. you also have to account for the overall
changes
in the race itself - shorter, flatter, less tiring (though still
not
easy). there would also seem to be an assumption on vayer's part
that,
on a climb, riders go balls out base to summit. that simply
doesn't
hold water. there are, at the end of the day, too many
assumptions in
vayer's analysis.

on the other hand, there is a relevence to vayer's argument.
michele
ferrari had certain areas of specialisation. vo2 max and hill
climbing
being the important ones, where vayer's argument is concerned.
maybe
vayer does have a point. but i don't think it's a well made
point. but
then, maybe he was afraid of ferrari suing him, and so couched it
too
carefully.


The hill climbing part of the analysis seems to be the most
certain of what he did. You know the rider's weight, the weight
of his machine, the distance and gradient climbed and the time for
same. I'd like to see someone with the expertise of a Keen (or
Ferrari?) respond to that portion of Vayer's analysis.

The "experts*" of rbr have given Vayer short shrift, deriding him
as a mere "gym teacher." And yet, much the same formula appears
to have been used by Floyd Landis' coach in projecting what was
probably Floyd's maximum sustained climbing output on at least one
major climb this year. IIRC, that number was around 370 watts.

*Andrew Coggan, perhaps the most expert in exercise physiology
posting here, has not, to my knowledge, done a point by point
analysis of what Vayer has written in the Walsh book. I'd like to
see a magazine like ProCycling pull together several experts for a
discussion of what Vayer has done.
Using Andrew Coggan's power tables, a world class cyclist can
develop 6.14 watts per kg of body weight whereas a world champion
can develop 6.62 over a 20 minute time period (assuming Lance
weighs about 70kg this equates to 463 watts). In climbing and given
the same body weight this will result in almost the same
proportions in climbing speed. Say 15 mph versus 16 mph. As for
FL's unremarkable 370 watts, that's about equivalent to what a UCI
division III pro can sustain for 20 minutes.
Vayer's analysis boils down to Armstrong being the best so he
must use drugs with a bunch of very unscientific comparisons and
estimates thrown in to sway the uninformed.

Phil H

Looking at
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/...profile_v3.gif it
appears that the top level Coggan presents at functional threshold
is 6.4 Consider that Armstrong is, according to Vayer and Ferrari as
quoted in Coyle's book, putting out a ft level of 480-500 watts with
a magic number of 6.7 (according to Ferrari)
This is all done with a measured VO2Max of 82 or 83. Eddie Coyle
speculates that Armstrong *may* have a VO2Max at present of 85
(Coyle has apparently not been able to confirm that speculation with
lab tests). Coyle goes through a rather labored attempt to explain
this FT power output by speculative muscle fiber conversion theories
not supported by muscle biopsy and hyperbaric living. But there are
other possible explanations.

What Vayer asserts is that Armstrong's FT output is virtually
impossible with the VO2Max that he has. BTW, Floyd Landis has a
VO2Max of 90 and Ullrich's is 88. I'd like to read a discussion of
this by Coggan and others in the field such as Keen.



It's fairly well known that VO2 Max is NOT a good predictor of
athletic performance and that power output at anaerobic threshold is.
Some athletes can obtain a higher percentage of VO2max at AT. There
is plenty of scientific research to support this. VO2 max also does
not take into account gross efficiency.


Thus the journal article by Eddie Coyle that really doesn't explain
(or prove) a natural basis for Armstrong's increased efficiency.


He does in this one.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...97&query_hl=13

Phil H

That's the article I've been referring to. He doesn't. I suggest that you
read the entire article.


  #60  
Old August 1st 05, 12:09 PM
Donald Munro
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Robert Chung wrote:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...s.racing/about
Already a one-third drop from last year.


Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
Blame the web.


Ernst Noch wrote:
I guess it's just that the helmet topic was started earlier in July last
year.


Blame g. white.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Drugs are Cool. crit PRO Racing 23 March 22nd 05 03:50 AM
Decanio Sounding Coherent B Lafferty Racing 93 February 3rd 05 11:32 PM
Bettini on drugs? Gary Racing 74 August 19th 04 01:44 AM
Doping or not? Read this: never_doped Racing 0 August 4th 03 01:46 AM
BBC: Drugs In Sport B. Lafferty Racing 0 July 28th 03 04:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.