Interesting article re power data of tour riders
Comments
-
But, to continue a debate we've been having recently, these numbers reflect, in my opinion, an overall lowering of the performance level in the Tour compared to the last 2 decades. And this is a positive sign that doping control measures are having an effect. Even yesterday on the Col du Tormalet, the climbing time was 56:30 for the Yellow Jersey, compared to that huge day in 2003, when Armstrong and Ullrich did it in 44:30. And yes, the race situation was different, but 12 minutes? That's too big to be accounted for by strategy alone, even weather conditions (yesterday may well have been more favourable anyway).Dgh wrote:
44.30 vs 56.30 !!!! And yet, as he admitted, Armstrong was cooked to a turn yesterday. It's been said before, but perhaps in this Tour we really are seeing the 'true' Armstrong, sans Epo and transfusions of "800 ml of packed cells".0 -
So you, BB, are saying that Armstrong isn't doping? :shock:Bike lover and part-time cyclist.0
-
A crazy idea, I know, and one for which I have no conclusive supporting evidence, but I am prepared to believe that this year he is not as 'jacked to max' as when he was 'winning' the Tour, or even last year when his haemocrit went up and his reticulocyte went down after each rest day, strongly indicating that he was blood doping.AidanR wrote:So you, BB, are saying that Armstrong isn't doping? :shock:
Then again, today is a rest day, isn't it?
0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
But, to continue a debate we've been having recently, these numbers reflect, in my opinion, an overall lowering of the performance level in the Tour compared to the last 2 decades. And this is a positive sign that doping control measures are having an effect. Even yesterday on the Col du Tormalet, the climbing time was 56:30 for the Yellow Jersey, compared to that huge day in 2003, when Armstrong and Ullrich did it in 44:30. And yes, the race situation was different, but 12 minutes? That's too big to be accounted for by strategy alone, even weather conditions (yesterday may well have been more favourable anyway).Dgh wrote:
44.30 vs 56.30 !!!! And yet, as he admitted, Armstrong was cooked to a turn yesterday. It's been said before, but perhaps in this Tour we really are seeing the 'true' Armstrong, sans Epo and transfusions of "800 ml of packed cells".
we are also seeing an Armstrong 5 years older, and when that takes you from 33 to 38 years thats a critical age i would say.
I think Armstrong has maybe won afew friends this year, not having a tantrum and leaving the race when he knew he was completely off the pace.
his performance this year compared to last year raises an eyebrow over last year i agree, thought the course was easier last year.0 -
I am not convinced that age need be such a critical factor, as long you still have the motivation. Moreau doesn't seem to be going so badly this year and he is older than Armstrong. Poulidor came 3rd in the Tour at the age of 40! Then again Poulidor was rather an exception. Perhaps Armstrong is only hanging in there because the rest of the field is much cleaner than it used to be. Perhaps age has caught up with Armstrong and without his tried and trusted 'preparation' methods he would be at home chatting to the Feds by now.camerone wrote:we are also seeing an Armstrong 5 years older, and when that takes you from 33 to 38 years thats a critical age i would say. 0 -
..camerone wrote:
his performance this year compared to last year raises an eyebrow over last year i agree, thought the course was easier last year.
he is not as strong but not that far off..
he a had a fair amount of bad luck this time round.. and the heat which I think played a big factor..
if he hadn't lost time on the cobbles or not been suffering from all those crashes a top ten may have been doable... perhaps...
hard to judge as he has just been deliberately losing time for the break on stage 16...
looks bloody old thou...put in a very stiff ride on stage 16.
his post race interview was like two old pro's knowingly chatting to each other..
the main reason he hit the podium last year was that the race leader and strongest man in the race was on his team.
doesn't clear him of dodgy practices this or last year IMO.."If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
I am not convinced that age need be such a critical factor, as long you still have the motivation.camerone wrote:we are also seeing an Armstrong 5 years older, and when that takes you from 33 to 38 years thats a critical age i would say.
thats what I kept telling myself
wasn't true"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
mididoctors wrote:
..camerone wrote:
his performance this year compared to last year raises an eyebrow over last year i agree, thought the course was easier last year.
he is not as strong but not that far off..
he a had a fair amount of bad luck this time round.. and the heat which I think played a big factor..
if he hadn't lost time on the cobbles or not been suffering from all those crashes a top ten may have been doable... perhaps...
hard to judge as he has just been deliberately losing time for the break on stage 16...
looks bloody old thou...put in a very stiff ride on stage 16.
his post race interview was like two old pro's knowingly chatting to each other..
the main reason he hit the podium last year was that the race leader and strongest man in the race was on his team.
doesn't clear him of dodgy practices this or last year IMO..
Armstrong soft-pedalled through many of the stages after the cobbles. If he had not lost time early in the race he would have not himself drop as far back. To look at his performance this year in any other terms is being naive.
Nevertheless, I doubt he would not have been 'up there' with the leaders had he not crashed and had been pushing it every day.0 -
Why is a 12 minute difference between Tourmalet 2003 and Tourmalet 2010 so hard to believe?
Ullrich attacked on the Tourmalet in 2003, and the race was heading for a finish on Luz Ardiden. Yesterday the peloton was so disinterested in racing, even Thor Hushovd made it over the top in the main bunch.
May as well compare me walking to the shop 100 metres away and Usain Bolt doing the 100m in Beijing.0 -
camerone wrote:we are also seeing an Armstrong 5 years older, and when that takes you from 33 to 38 years thats a critical age i would say.
I think Armstrong has maybe won afew friends this year, not having a tantrum and leaving the race when he knew he was completely off the pace.
his performance this year compared to last year raises an eyebrow over last year i agree, thought the course was easier last year.
He might not have left race, but this is pretty close to have a dummy spit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQsqS-mY3jI&feature=player_embedded0 -
afx237vi wrote:Why is a 12 minute difference between Tourmalet 2003 and Tourmalet 2010 so hard to believe?
Ullrich attacked on the Tourmalet in 2003, and the race was heading for a finish on Luz Ardiden. Yesterday the peloton was so disinterested in racing, even Thor Hushovd made it over the top in the main bunch.
May as well compare me walking to the shop 100 metres away and Usain Bolt doing the 100m in Beijing.
That's very true, but unfortunately it does not fit in with some peoples agenda :roll:0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
44.30 vs 56.30 !!!! And yet, as he admitted, Armstrong was cooked to a turn yesterday. It's been said before, but perhaps in this Tour we really are seeing the 'true' Armstrong, sans Epo and transfusions of "800 ml of packed cells".Dgh wrote:
Right, because a 38 year old Armstrong struggling in the Tour de France tells us a lot about 27-33 year old Lance. :roll: Any athlete who struggles at 38 must've been doping at 27. :roll:
(And note: I'm not saying he wasn't doping earlier in his career, just that his struggling now is NOT evidence of that)0 -
Er, Armstrong seemed to be going quite well last year when he was 37, and was dominant in the Tour when he was 33, so the age difference is probably not so important as you seem to think.donrhummy wrote:because a 38 year old Armstrong struggling in the Tour de France tells us a lot about 27-33 year old Lance. Any athlete who struggles at 38 must've been doping at 27.
Perhaps we should look to when Armstrong was in his early-to-mid 20's to see the 'real' Armstrong. I.e. in the days before he teamed up with Ferrari. There we see a strong single day rider who couldn't climb or time trial and got is arse kicked all over France in the Tour, packing the first two times he rode the Tour and finishing one and half hours down at his third attempt.0 -
On the other hand one might argue that, with another Hors category climb to go after the Tourmalet in 2003, Ullrich and Armstrong were almost certainly not riding to the limit. In comparison in this year's race the Tourmalet was the final climb before the finish.afx237vi wrote:Why is a 12 minute difference between Tourmalet 2003 and Tourmalet 2010 so hard to believe? Ullrich attacked on the Tourmalet in 2003, and the race was heading for a finish on Luz Ardiden.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
On the other hand one might argue that, with another Hors category climb to go after the Tourmalet in 2003, Ullrich and Armstrong were almost certainly not riding to the limit. In comparison in this year's race the Tourmalet was the final climb before the finish.afx237vi wrote:Why is a 12 minute difference between Tourmalet 2003 and Tourmalet 2010 so hard to believe? Ullrich attacked on the Tourmalet in 2003, and the race was heading for a finish on Luz Ardiden.
When Ullrich & Armstrong did it in 2003, where there any 80kg sprinters in their group?Twitter: @RichN950 -
OK, so Kelly was very probably wrong yesterday when he saw the big group on the climbs and said that many of the main contenders were riding on the limit. More likely they were all riding well within themselves and allowing the break to stay away, as I suggested yesterday. However that doesn't alter the fact that Armstrong looked like he was on his limit yesterday, and was cooked by the finish despite doing hardly any work all day. So his performance yesterday was way below what he came out with in 2003, especially considering that in 2003 they still had another HC climb to the finish.RichN95 wrote:When Ullrich & Armstrong did it in 2003, where there any 80kg sprinters in their group?
As to why the difference should be so great, I would agree it is hard to reach any firm conclusions. Perhaps Armstrong is clean, or cleaner, than he was, perhaps the rest of the field is cleaner, perhaps age is catching up with Armstrong or perhaps his 2003 performance was simply a testimony to the effectiveness of a full-on doping programme.0 -
-
the sports science geek people are chattering about here is trying to say these guys are more clean now than in years before races. He or she is saying they were druggies before this tour. The Tour of France could be slower owing to the weather. What a toe rag, saying that they are cheaters just cause his computer says yes0
