Lemond is so right: ignore pros who don't publish power data

Eurostar

Read this - it's fantastic: http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/i ... mond-18929

I'm not going to follow any races until everyone's got secure power meters installed by an independent body. That's it. Enough. The Mekon, Lance, Basso, Bruyneel and Uncle Tom Cobley and all can go feck themselves. I won't watch a race, buy a magazine....nothing. Nada.

Eurostar

In the light of the Kohl announcement I thought I would bump this, even though nobody has replied to it. :oops:

In my book power meters would make everything perfect - I'd quit moaning about Mr L.Antichrist - hell, I'd even go and cheer up him the Alps next year, wave a Texan flag, shake his hand and apologise for my thread where he was voted a bigger See You Next Tuesday than O.J.Simpson

Alex_Simmons/RST

Eurostar wrote:

In the light of the Kohl announcement I thought I would bump this, even though nobody has replied to it. :oops:

Perhaps because it's a dumb idea.

Kléber

It's a good idea but hard to install. When I posted comments on here questioning how Contador and Rasmussen could knock out insane power to weight stats, people started saying "it must be tailwind" comments.

Lemond's proposals are great but only a component of testing.

Bronzie

Just a couple of things that come to mind with regards Lemond's suggestion:

1. Who would be responsible for deciding that a rider of 70kg with a VO2 max of 80 could not produce more than X watts for Y minutes. Is the science robust enough to say that if the rider exceeded their "rated clean power" they are definitely dosing? Is it really as black and white as this? Would any ban stand up in a court of law without definitive proof?

2. How would you differentiate between increases in power output due to doping versus training at altitude for example.

Eurostar

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Eurostar wrote:

In the light of the Kohl announcement I thought I would bump this, even though nobody has replied to it. :oops:

Perhaps because it's a dumb idea.

Oh right, Lemond must be an idiot then. :roll: Seems like an eminently practical idea to me. If it was down to me riders would only be allowed to race with a Powertap wheel issued by WADA.

LangerDan

Its the technical equivalent to the 50% haematocrit limit. If we permit a value of, I dunno, 6.5 W/kg, riders will dope to perform at that level and use the powermeters to make sure they don't exceed their permitted figure.

Technically, its easy (though I suspect that it will be hacked in a week). The difficult apspect is trying to come up with a set of values that allow you declare 6.4W/kg is clean and statistically acceptable, 6.6W/kg and you're a filthy doper.

Eurostar

Bronzie wrote:

Just a couple of things that come to mind with regards Lemond's suggestion:

1. Who would be responsible for deciding that a rider of 70kg with a VO2 max of 80 could not produce more than X watts for Y minutes. Is the science robust enough to say that if the rider exceeded their "rated clean power" they are definitely dosing? Is it really as black and white as this? Would any ban stand up in a court of law without definitive proof?

2. How would you differentiate between increases in power output due to doping versus training at altitude for example.

Better ask Lemond, he's an expert and I'm not. I can only guess what he might say, but perhaps it would be something like this:

"Riders have to train with WADA wheels and submit all their data for immediate publication on the web. Doping produces big spikes whereas training produces gradual improvements so it's easy to spot. Anybody with a suspicious spike doesn't get busted just on the basis of power data but they get tested so frequently that if they have been doping they are forced to stop. If a rider produces a suspicious spike you probably won't need to bust him because his sponsor will be so pissed off with the negative publicity that he'll suspend him."

Alex_Simmons/RST

I may as well re-post what I've posted elsewhere:

Two problems with what LeMond suggests:

1. VO2 Max is not the only determinant of cycling performance potential.
Indeed, all you can say about it is you'll need a reasonably decent minimum level to be an international pro but that's about it. In the paper by Mujika & Padilla, Physiological and Performance Characteristics of Male Professional Road Cyclists, they reported:
...individuals presented with VO2max values of 4.4 to 6.4L/min (69.7 to 84.8 ml/kg/min).

There are other physiological factors, viz efficiency, fibre type makeup, % of VO2 Max a rider is capable of sustaining at threshold etc etc that all differ from rider to rider and which have as much, if not greater, relevance to a rider's physiological potential. It is not uncommon for a rider to have higher VO2 Max but be less efficient than other riders.

2. Who is going to control the power meters and the data from them?
Instead of doping bodies, it would simply encourage ways of doctoring the data. And don't believe it won't happen. For a start there are lots of meters out there that aren't calibrated. And there are those that have doctored data before in a vain attempt to prove a point, e.g. that infamous exchange on Slowtwitch about the guy trying to prove powercranks worked. Fortunately, there are just enough smart brains hanging around that can spot these things, but we're talking the UCI here.....


That said, there is no doubt that performance above a certain power to weight ratio could be cause for a rider to be placed on a watch list, additional samples taken and so on. This is easier to determine from hillclimbs than from other types of racing (since all you need to know in order to make at least a good approximation of power is mass of rider/bike/gear, how much elevation, distance and time taken). TT power is much harder to guesstimate due to the large variance in aerodynamics.

When someone asked back in July, "anyone care to guess Ricco's power up that climb?" and the answer was ~ 6.4W/kg for 15-20 min, lots went "wow, that impressive!". Then later on we saw why. This is not to say that such power is not possible naturally but in the middle of a GT at the end of a hard stage, it could be at least be cause for a risk management approach by the officials. One would hope that is starting to happen.


So, yes, better and more testing, more controls in and out of competition and the use of a risk management approach is about all I can suggest. It needs better funding (and much better management) - I'd have thought that a propotion of funds coming into the sport from sponsorships, TV rights etc should be automatically directed towards that end.

Kléber

As you'll be aware Alex, a powermeter is only a tool. And it could be used here as a tool to help, if a rider comes up with 1W/kg more, it's something worth examining, maybe for the UCI and WADA to target the rider a bit more, that's all, it's not going to be "smoking gun" prima facie evidence.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Kléber wrote:

As you'll be aware Alex, a powermeter is only a tool. And it could be used here as a tool to help, if a rider comes up with 1W/kg more, it's something worth examining, maybe for the UCI and WADA to target the rider a bit more, that's all, it's not going to be "smoking gun" prima facie evidence.

So the rider simply changes the zero offset or slope of the meter and suddenly you aren't reporting unusual numbers to warrant any attention.

And that only looks at the supply side of the equation with no consideration of the demand side.

Just test the buggers. Frequently.

Kléber

I wasn't even thinking of taking power meters direct. For example many coaches have done back of the envelope calcs to estimate the power and VAM, many have been saying the figures produced by Tour champions since 1991 are inhuman. For example the Francaise des Jeux coach said Vinokourov's Vuelta win was highly suspicious given his performances, this was attacked by many as "sour grapes" and wild speculation but clearly the coach was right. Future evaluation need not take place in public but the anti-doping authorities would do well to include this analysis as part of their analysis and intelligence gathering.

skavanagh.bikeradar

An holistic approach as it were....I'm guessing though that 'the authorities' have been looking at the wider context of performances this last couple of years in order to target test and ensure biggest bank for their buck. Perhaps we are seeing the fruits of this this year with the repeated testing of riders at the tour and subsequent retrospective testing of samples.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Kléber wrote:

I wasn't even thinking of taking power meters direct. For example many coaches have done back of the envelope calcs to estimate the power and VAM, many have been saying the figures produced by Tour champions since 1991 are inhuman. For example the Francaise des Jeux coach said Vinokourov's Vuelta win was highly suspicious given his performances, this was attacked by many as "sour grapes" and wild speculation but clearly the coach was right. Future evaluation need not take place in public but the anti-doping authorities would do well to include this analysis as part of their analysis and intelligence gathering.

Hence paragraph 4 in my post above.

mrushton

Eurostar wrote:

In the light of the Kohl announcement I thought I would bump this, even though nobody has replied to it. :oops:

In my book power meters would make everything perfect - I'd quit moaning about Mr L.Antichrist - hell, I'd even go and cheer up him the Alps next year, wave a Texan flag, shake his hand and apologise for my thread where he was voted a bigger See You Next Tuesday than O.J.Simpson

Interestingly, LA has had a lot of input into SRM, not neccessarily financial but in terms of R&D and generally just being seen with it.