Watts Per Kilogram

On 26/07/2010 19:51, CowPunk wrote:
On Jul 26, 10:22 am, wrote:
On 26/07/2010 17:08, CowPunk wrote:

It's no wonder you're so confused about who is/isn't doping.
That has to be one of the worst pieces of junk science I've ever seen.

Want to explain why?

I already did.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?bl... 978394266392


No, a reply isn't an explanation. Feel free to explain what's wrong
with their science and analysis. Try to do better than "they weren't
trying very hard"

What GL says isn't their problem.

Pete

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:33:39 -0400, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/

The values are in the range of clean riders described by Vayer. If this
is a clean Contador we are looking at, that would explain his
non-performance in the 2 long time trials he rode this year and his lack
of explosive ability in the climbs. If the Tour brings back the first
week long time trial, that could balance things out between the climbers
and rouleurs. Where that will leave Schleck should be interesting to see
next year.

Good point, that means Menchov would have won the TdF !

When was the last time we had two long ITTs...2003 it seems when Ulle
trashed LA, that was something, a glimmer of hope for all those
interested in talent more than "preparation" and good fun for those
entertained by ridiculous excuses (My brake was rubbing, I lost 10
pounds, etc...)

Keith wrote:

When was the last time we had two long ITTs...2003 it seems when Ulle
trashed LA, that was something, a glimmer of hope for all those
interested in talent more than "preparation"

I love the "Ulle was CLEAN!" crowd!

I'm starting an "Jan Ullrich Fairness Fund" to defend his good name
against those who claimed he doped. For a mere $75.00 donation I will
send you an appropriate T-shirt and membership certificate. I better get
started on a web page for this ... or should I visit my Lexus dealer first?

No, a reply isn't an explanation. *Feel free to explain what's wrong
with their science and analysis. *Try to do better than "they weren't
trying very hard"

What GL says isn't their problem.

Pete

Pete,

The authors make the basic assumption that every rider is riding as
hard as they can at all times, even during attacks. This simply is
not true. And to use such anecdotal figures as evidence of riders
racing above or below a theoretical limit for human power is like
comparing apples to oranges.

Look, they're fun numbers to look at, but to use them as evidence to
accuse riders of doping is irresponsible and not how the scientific
method works. Even the author agrees. "One of the big talking points
in all these analyses is the issue of whether a performance is proof
of doping. Of course, the answer is no. There are too many
assumptions in the calculation of physiological implications of a
given performance for it to be "proof". "

Lemond should know better. But he doesn't care because he's on a
witch hunt.

On 27/07/2010 03:52, CowPunk wrote:
No, a reply isn't an explanation. Feel free to explain what's wrong
with their science and analysis. Try to do better than "they weren't
trying very hard"

What GL says isn't their problem.

Pete

Pete,

The authors make the basic assumption that every rider is riding as
hard as they can at all times, even during attacks. This simply is
not true. And to use such anecdotal figures as evidence of riders
racing above or below a theoretical limit for human power is like
comparing apples to oranges.


That's true but I think the comparison between previous years and this
year is valid. If you look at the riders who win a mountaintop finish,
particularly when there's a race riding on it, It's a decent assumption
that they are right at their limit.

Also, the maths of the sportsscientists guys seems better worked out
than Ferrari's.

Look, they're fun numbers to look at, but to use them as evidence to
accuse riders of doping is irresponsible and not how the scientific
method works. Even the author agrees. "One of the big talking points
in all these analyses is the issue of whether a performance is proof
of doping. Of course, the answer is no. There are too many
assumptions in the calculation of physiological implications of a
given performance for it to be "proof". "

When you average over lots of performances it becomes more meaningful.
If over a few years, peak performances drop relative to previous known
doping years, it's a good pointer to a reduction in doping. The women's
800m (which I think sportsscientists has covered) is a decent example.


Lemond should know better. But he doesn't care because he's on a
witch hunt.

Agreed. Although it's also possible he's right.

Pete

On Jul 27, 3:36*am, Ningi wrote:
On 27/07/2010 03:52, CowPunk wrote:
trying very hard"

What GL says isn't their problem.
It is when he does it at a press conference. Remember what he did at
the Tour of Cali? How do you think a sponsor reacts to that? or a
potential sponsor? What about the timing of the FL confession?

That's true but I think the comparison between previous years and this
year is valid. *If you look at the riders who win a mountaintop finish,
particularly when there's a race riding on it, It's a decent assumption
that they are right at their limit.

I respectfully disagree. I think dopers are smarter than that.
They've now learned you only ride hard enough to win, not set records.
Maybe it's just me, but I didn't get the impression that Contador or
Schleck were really riding at their limit. They looked more like
future teammates out for a hard ride, unwilling to take risks. But
how can you be certain? That's the point I'm trying to make. We just
have to take their word that they were.

Also, the maths of the sportsscientists guys seems better worked out
than Ferrari's.
For a TT or sprint, or controlled experiment, i would agree. I believe
there are too many outside variables to consider in a stage race or
endurance event.

When you average over lots of performances it becomes more meaningful.
If over a few years, peak performances drop relative to previous known
doping years, it's a good pointer to a reduction in doping. *The women's
800m (which I think sportsscientists has covered) is a decent example.

The 800m is a sprint. I would tend to agree with the results from
such an event. The Tour is an endurance event with too many variables
to account for. It's like trying to forecast the weather 2 months in
advance..

Agreed. *Although it's also possible he's right.
Yes, and an equal possibility that he's wrong.


Pete

"Ningi" wrote in message
news:NMx3o.302016$Yb4.258667@hurricane...
:
: Lemond should know better. But he doesn't care because he's on a
: witch hunt.
:
: Agreed. Although it's also possible he's right.



Dumbass -

It doesn't matter if he's right or wrong. He's going after people whom he
didn't race against, people whom have had no effect on his career.

It's because they're Americans. He's got this entitlement syndrome where he
believes that he and no one else should be the Only American Ever to Win the
Tour de France.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

On 7/27/2010 1:36 PM, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

wrote in message
news:NMx3o.302016$Yb4.258667@hurricane...
:
: Lemond should know better. But he doesn't care because he's on a
: witch hunt.
:
: Agreed. Although it's also possible he's right.



Dumbass -

It doesn't matter if he's right or wrong. He's going after people whom he
didn't race against, people whom have had no effect on his career.

It's because they're Americans. He's got this entitlement syndrome where he
believes that he and no one else should be the Only American Ever to Win the
Tour de France.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

What's your syndrome, Henry?

In article NMx3o.302016$Yb4.258667@hurricane,
Ningi wrote:

On 27/07/2010 03:52, CowPunk wrote:
No, a reply isn't an explanation. Feel free to explain what's wrong
with their science and analysis. Try to do better than "they weren't
trying very hard"

What GL says isn't their problem.

Pete

Pete,

The authors make the basic assumption that every rider is riding as
hard as they can at all times, even during attacks. This simply is
not true. And to use such anecdotal figures as evidence of riders
racing above or below a theoretical limit for human power is like
comparing apples to oranges.


That's true but I think the comparison between previous years and this
year is valid. If you look at the riders who win a mountaintop finish,
particularly when there's a race riding on it, It's a decent assumption
that they are right at their limit.

Not necessarily. They have to race tomorrow.

--
Old Fritz

In article NMx3o.302016$Yb4.258667@hurricane,
Ningi wrote:

On 27/07/2010 03:52, CowPunk wrote:
Lemond should know better. But he doesn't care because he's on a
witch hunt.

Agreed. Although it's also possible he's right.

Lemond cannot be right, because what he is doing there is wrong.

--
Michael Press