LeMonde accuses Wiggins, Froome... of doping in 2012 Tour

davidof

No not Greg, the French National Newspaper

Frank Schleck, excluded from the Tour this year, is right, it is "poisoned". It has been for a long time but the poisons are still seeping in the mud. To convince yourself you only have to look at power outputs. We've spotted four performances that really stand out from this year's race.

The first kills us more than it hurts. It is our favourite, Thomas Voeckler who, like his clone, Virenque of the Festina Years captured the Climber's Polkadot jersey and the hearts of the French people. St Thomas, not withstanding (- a favourite phrase of Virenque) his skinny calves which almost merge with his shins, is capable, like Richard, of covering four mountain passes with a motor producing 375-390 watts, accelerating when he wants. He crossed the top of the Aubisque, Tourmalet, Aspin, Peyresoudre in 5 h32min 2s, finishing triumphantly, fresh as a daisy, the 197 km with a 35.59 km/h average.

The stage Pau - Luchon de Bagneres is a classic of the Tour (1980, 1983, 1998). In 1998 - during the Festina affair - Marco Pantani had left Massi to win in 5h49min40 s covering the 196.5 km in 33.72 km/h: almost two km/h slower than Voeckler! Another reference to Thomas, the next day: the Col de Mente, 9.3 km to 9.1%. In 28min20 s, with the power of a mutant at 442 watts, he will go down in history, on the big ring over the last 300 meters, on a slope of 8%. He is more like the Contador, Rasmussen duo of the "glory" years. This is the second significant comparison: it leaves you speechless.

With 430 watts on average, the favorites have covered, as in the heyday, the Col de Peyresourdevin 26min45 s. From St. Aventine, they conceded only 34 s to the unreal time set by Contador and Rasmussen in 2007 (23 min 26 s) who tried to escape with huge "injections" of speed. Carried by momentum, Froome and Wiggins were then able to accelerate over the last climb of Peyragudes. They developed 470 watts for 7 min 3 sec (2.95 km at 7.93%). Froome waited for Wiggins, he had the means to approach of 500 watts. If he hadn't limited his motor to wait for his leader he could go into the record books with the best "performers" of all time: Pantani, Armstrong, Contador.

The third comparison, which is more amusing than surprising, is made thanks to someone who was suspended - a performance "Stronger than Ever", title of the book by Virenque. Alejandro Valverde won Peyragudes achieving a speed identical to that of Vinokourov in 2007. Both riders, five years apart, climbed the Port de Bales and Peyresourde at the same power level, with 385 watts and 405 watts for two passes. Vinokourov, party to the early break, as Valverde, won solo in Loudenvielle. The Kazakh was then excluded on the grounds of a blood transfusion.

Finally, in 2011, after sixteen years of heavy doping, we rejoiced in these columns at the lack of riders over 410 watts average over the final passes of the mountain stages: the detection threshold of doping. Alas, there are four that have crossed the bar this year: Wiggins, Froome, Nibali and Van den Broecke, with 415 watts for the three top finishers and 410 watts for the fourth.

The 2013 TdF sees the comeback of the contaminated Contador, it is not sure we will have found the antidote to the poison by then.

http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/201 ... _3242.html

rick_chasey

Don't pull any punches do they?

davidof

Rick Chasey wrote:

Don't pull any punches do they?

No I nearly spat my cup of tea out when it landed on the mat this morning !

bigmat

Sad if true. If 410W is deemed acceptable, though, does 415W really ring alarm bells? Maybe its the final Froome performance they are bothered about?

frenchfighter

Definitely not Wiggins.

Froome....8 on my suspicion list.

mfin

Odd that they don't mention bodyweight once. These riders aren't all the same weight, and they don't all have the same aerodynamic drag either.

That's just one hole in the argument.

(For instance, a mate of mine can low 19 a 10TT at around 330watts ish on a fast course, other mates of his, some of which are big guys think he's dead lucky in a humourous way as they have to push high 400's to get those times).

I wonder where the data has come from, whether its accurate, or whether its data assumed from calculations which probably miss lots of factors. Im not saying it is, and have only read the translation, but it seems light on science and heavy on conclusions.

(thats nothing to do with me thinking any of these people 'are not doping', Im always open minded with that, but its a bit of dumb article???)

Neil McC

davidof wrote:

No not Greg, the French National Newspaper

With 430 watts on average, the favorites have covered, as in the heyday, the Col de Peyresourdevin 26min45 s. From St. Aventine, they conceded only 34 s to the unreal time set by Contador and Rasmussen in 2007 (23 min 26 s)

http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/201 ... _3242.html

:?

disgruntledgoat

frenchfighter wrote:

Definitely not Wiggins.

Froome....8 on my suspicion list.

Did you see the pictures of Froome from the 2009 nationals? He must've lost 10kg since then!

frenchfighter

Voeckler...interesting.

This seems a load of rubbish to me - not very scientific and I am sick of numbers being touted as examples of doping. There are so many other variables and as time goes on and prep, bikes, fitness etc improves you would expect these numbers to be beaten.

davidof

mfin wrote:

Odd that they don't mention bodyweight once. These riders aren't all the same weight, and they don't all have the same aerodynamic drag either.

That's just one hole in the argument.

I assume they are just calculating the figures, like an iBike power meter

As you say, it leaves a lot of room for error if that is the case. I would have thought le Monde may face a lawsuit for publishing this if they are wrong.

And if they are correct, Contador will have difficulty beating Froome in 2013.

ddraver

Bernie tried this and we ve discussed it in the Kimmage thread - In short the Journo is a bit of a Lekimmage himself and has played fast and lose with many of the figures...

RichN95.

As I said in another thread, this is Antonio Vayer writing this, a bloke Le Monde wheel out to bend the figures to fit their doping agenda. It's bad maths though. For example, he's taken a seven minute climb, estimated it at a not unreasonable 470W, then randomly added a sizable 30W based on a small surge by Froome and then compared it t Armstrong, who was doing 500W for over 30 minutes not seven. It's enough to fool many, but it's actually nonsense.

davidof

ddraver wrote:

Bernie tried this and we ve discussed it in the Kimmage thread - In short the Journo is a bit of a Lekimmage himself and has played fast and lose with many of the figures...

I didn't read to the end of the Kimmage thread (because it is Paul Kimmage) but feel it worth posting a full translation of the article anyway, simply because it is out there in a major publication.

ddraver

Well you did better than Birnie, at least you posted ALL of it!

mfin

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18921784

bbc's wattage/doping article

liquor box

If you believe all of the media releases with newly designed bikes it takes less effort to ride a bike now than it did on previous models.

If the bikes have improved then wouldn't it take less wattage to do the same performance as 10 years ago?

RichN95.

mfin wrote:

Odd that they don't mention bodyweight once. These riders aren't all the same weight, and they don't all have the same aerodynamic drag either.

That's just one hole in the argument.

(For instance, a mate of mine can low 19 a 10TT at around 330watts ish on a fast course, other mates of his, some of which are big guys think he's dead lucky in a humourous way as they have to push high 400's to get those times).

I wonder where the data has come from, whether its accurate, or whether its data assumed from calculations which probably miss lots of factors. Im not saying it is, and have only read the translation, but it seems light on science and heavy on conclusions.

(thats nothing to do with me thinking any of these people 'are not doping', Im always open minded with that, but its a bit of dumb article???)

Vayer works on the basis that every rider weighs 70kg. He claims that this is to standardize the results, but I suspect it's a ploy to boost the numbers of anyone under 70kg (i.e. most GC riders)

disgruntledgoat

RichN95 wrote:

mfin wrote:

Odd that they don't mention bodyweight once. These riders aren't all the same weight, and they don't all have the same aerodynamic drag either.

That's just one hole in the argument.

(For instance, a mate of mine can low 19 a 10TT at around 330watts ish on a fast course, other mates of his, some of which are big guys think he's dead lucky in a humourous way as they have to push high 400's to get those times).

I wonder where the data has come from, whether its accurate, or whether its data assumed from calculations which probably miss lots of factors. Im not saying it is, and have only read the translation, but it seems light on science and heavy on conclusions.

(thats nothing to do with me thinking any of these people 'are not doping', Im always open minded with that, but its a bit of dumb article???)

Vayer works on the basis that every rider weighs 70kg. He claims that this is to standardize the results, but I suspect it's a ploy to boost the numbers of anyone under 70kg (i.e. most GC riders)

"Standardising results" is distinct from "making the results up", I fancy.

Jez mon

liquor box wrote:

If you believe all of the media releases with newly designed bikes it takes less effort to ride a bike now than it did on previous models.

If the bikes have improved then wouldn't it take less wattage to do the same performance as 10 years ago?

Most of the aero gains only really have much effect on the flat, on the steep stuff, it's only really weight that matters (depending on the speed). But you're pretty much correct, speed is a fairly poor tool as a measure of performance.

TBH, it's a case where journalists can prove anything with "facts". I.e. I could say Lance put out 450 Watts for a hour, whereas Wiggo put out 450 Watts for 10 minutes. *

Or I could say, both Wiggo and Lance put out 450 Watts whilst climbing.

* Figures are for illustrative purposes only!!

davidof

Voekler was riding very hard in the mountains even compared to last year where he was towed around by Evans a lot of the time. I was surprised by his performance.

rick_chasey

I put out 450 watts once.

I'm 55 kilos.

Does that make me a doper?

davidof

liquor box wrote:

If you believe all of the media releases with newly designed bikes it takes less effort to ride a bike now than it did on previous models.

If the bikes have improved then wouldn't it take less wattage to do the same performance as 10 years ago?

given the UCI minimum weight limit I would expect a Wiggins on a 2002 tour bike to go as fast as today in the mountains

ddraver

55kgs? It makes you flipping tiny!!!

rick_chasey

davidof wrote:

liquor box wrote:

If you believe all of the media releases with newly designed bikes it takes less effort to ride a bike now than it did on previous models.

If the bikes have improved then wouldn't it take less wattage to do the same performance as 10 years ago?

given the UCI minimum weight limit I would expect a Wiggins on a 2002 tour bike to go as fast as today in the mountains

Stiffer innit?

tailwindhome

Rick Chasey wrote:

I put out 450 watts once.

I'm 55 kilos.

Does that make me a doper?

No

But you could do with a feed of spuds and gravy.

davidof

Is the 410 watt limit reasonable? I know Greg Lemonde is fairly keen on all this power output stuff as a sign of doping.

disgruntledgoat

davidof wrote:

Is the 410 watt limit reasonable? I know Greg Lemonde is fairly keen on all this power output stuff as a sign of doping.

Over what time period?

davidof

An aerobic time period

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

I put out 450 watts once.

I'm 55 kilos.

Does that make me a doper?

Yes, obviously. But you haven't standardized your results, like Vayer does. You actually did 572W.

disgruntledgoat

davidof wrote:

An aerobic time period

To my understanding (and I never moved onto training with power) that's not how power is calculated, power is expressed either in terms of an absolute value or a sustainable value for a given time period (5s, 1min, 1 hour etc). Therefore, just saying "415w" doesn't mean anything in the context of what is possible for a clean athelete.
It doesn't mater if the effort is aerobic or not, only whether it can be sustained for the period being discussed.

Also, a more rider-specific way of looking at it would be to divide those by body weight for a given period, giving a Watts per Kilo figure... Without knowing exactly what their SRMs are logging or their weights,the author of the above piece is just guessing.

symo

Aparently as well because both Froome and Wiggins have travelled in an aeroplane that is conclusive proof of doping as all other dopers have been known to use aircraft for travel.

i.e. his whole article is bobbins, he takes no account for haemocrit, muscle density just some numbers he has calculated and the fact he can't achieve them himself.
See also Chris Hoy for a sustained wattage output, doesn't mean he is doping either.

Vayer = numbskull.