Le Monde interactive doping graphic

inseine

http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/visuel_inte ... _3242.html

Don't know if this has been posted, but le Monde use predicted power levels throughout the Tour to estimte the dopers and non dopers. Haven't read it yet but the tag line is that Lance was just an amature in doping terms compared to Indurain. Wiggins looks borderline FWIW, Evans, Lemond 'clean'.

DeadCalm

inseine wrote:

http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/visuel_interactif/2013/06/06/les-vainqueurs-du-tour-de-france-les-plus-puissants-depuis-trente-ans_3425582_3242.html

Don't know if this has been posted, but le Monde use predicted power levels throughout the Tour to estimte the dopers and non dopers. Haven't read it yet but the tag line is that Lance was just an amature in doping terms compared to Indurain. Wiggins looks borderline FWIW, Evans, Lemond 'clean'.

If Vayer is the source of the figures (which I suspect is the case) this should be taken with a large pinch of salt.

Paulie W

Wonder whether Sastre is still struggling along the valley bottom?!

ad_snow

There's only 9W between Evans (deffo clean according to this) and Wiggins (suspect). But 23W between Wiggins and Armstrong (dirty) and a further 1W between Wiggo & Contador (claims he isn't dirty). Those extra Watts have to be hard to come by the higher up you go.
Going on this graph alone I'd say Wiggins was closer to Clean than Dirty.

Shows how much doping was going on in '95 if Indurian was producing 10% more than Wiggins in 2012 (clean or not).

andyp

deejay will be along shortly to tell us how Indurain was just a freak of nature and never even saw a dose of EPO, never mind take one.

Richmond Racer

DeadCalm wrote:

inseine wrote:

http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/visuel_interactif/2013/06/06/les-vainqueurs-du-tour-de-france-les-plus-puissants-depuis-trente-ans_3425582_3242.html

Don't know if this has been posted, but le Monde use predicted power levels throughout the Tour to estimte the dopers and non dopers. Haven't read it yet but the tag line is that Lance was just an amature in doping terms compared to Indurain. Wiggins looks borderline FWIW, Evans, Lemond 'clean'.

If Vayer is the source of the figures (which I suspect is the case) this should be taken with a large pinch of salt.

Its definitely from that Vayer report

LeMonde's been running articles for a few days. In an interview dated 6 Jun,

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate ... -SearchBox

' You think that the performances are once again in a human?

There are more riders flashed "miraculous" our radar since 2011. Cadel Evans is in the green at 406 watts average this year. In 2012, Bradley Wiggins is yellow at 415 watts with Christopher Froome and Vincenzo Nibali above 410. This decrease in performance allows riders like Nibali, 414 watts average to win the Giro in 2013 with his Astana team, led by Alexandre Vinokourov , a former "mutant".

So he's admitting there's a 'decrease in performance'

As Dead Calm says, Vayer's stuff can be questionable. And if you just go on watts - or even w/kg - you're inviting scepticism.

Turfle

I nearly gave $10 of my money to Vayer the other day. Had two cold showers afterwards.

Richmond Racer

Turfle wrote:

I nearly gave $10 of my money to Vayer the other day. Had two cold showers afterwards.

You stepped back from the brink. Good man.

wombly_knees

My French is crap and can't understand the words, how were the powers calculated? If it's through VAM, then I won't put much weightage to it.

A 1 watt difference in an hour is a massive difference in energy expended, after all.

inseine

Richmond Racer wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

inseine wrote:

http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/visuel_interactif/2013/06/06/les-vainqueurs-du-tour-de-france-les-plus-puissants-depuis-trente-ans_3425582_3242.html

Don't know if this has been posted, but le Monde use predicted power levels throughout the Tour to estimte the dopers and non dopers. Haven't read it yet but the tag line is that Lance was just an amature in doping terms compared to Indurain. Wiggins looks borderline FWIW, Evans, Lemond 'clean'.

If Vayer is the source of the figures (which I suspect is the case) this should be taken with a large pinch of salt.

Its definitely from that Vayer report

LeMonde's been running articles for a few days. In an interview dated 6 Jun,

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate ... -SearchBox

' You think that the performances are once again in a human?

There are more riders flashed "miraculous" our radar since 2011. Cadel Evans is in the green at 406 watts average this year. In 2012, Bradley Wiggins is yellow at 415 watts with Christopher Froome and Vincenzo Nibali above 410. This decrease in performance allows riders like Nibali, 414 watts average to win the Giro in 2013 with his Astana team, led by Alexandre Vinokourov , a former "mutant".

So he's admitting there's a 'decrease in performance'

As Dead Calm says, Vayer's stuff can be questionable. And if you just go on watts - or even w/kg - you're inviting scepticism.

Important correction (for Wiggins!), the french says 'Il n'y a plus de coureurs flashés "miraculeux" à nos radars depuis 2011', which means ''there ARE NO miraculous riders on our radar since 2011''.

above_the_cows

inseine wrote:

Wiggins looks borderline

Wiggins appears to have become a mountain biker!

andyp

Above The Cows wrote:

Wiggins appears to have become a mountain biker!

Don't discount it, he is looking for a new challenge to motivate him after all.

DeadCalm

Richmond Racer wrote:

As Dead Calm says, Vayer's stuff can be questionable. And if you just go on watts - or even w/kg - you're inviting scepticism.

There was a thread a while back where his method of estimating power was rubbished. If I recall correctly, one of his assumptions is that all the riders are the same weight.

Anyway, there isn't an accurate enough method of estimating power from times and gradients even if you do take into account the weight of the rider. vetooo (@ammattipyoraily) on Twitter has been working on a reliable method and has had help from Vaughters who has supplied him with actual SRM data from some of the Garmin riders. He still gets it wrong quite frequently.

Richmond Racer

inseine wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

inseine wrote:

http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/visuel_interactif/2013/06/06/les-vainqueurs-du-tour-de-france-les-plus-puissants-depuis-trente-ans_3425582_3242.html

Don't know if this has been posted, but le Monde use predicted power levels throughout the Tour to estimte the dopers and non dopers. Haven't read it yet but the tag line is that Lance was just an amature in doping terms compared to Indurain. Wiggins looks borderline FWIW, Evans, Lemond 'clean'.

If Vayer is the source of the figures (which I suspect is the case) this should be taken with a large pinch of salt.

Its definitely from that Vayer report

LeMonde's been running articles for a few days. In an interview dated 6 Jun,

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate ... -SearchBox

' You think that the performances are once again in a human?

There are more riders flashed "miraculous" our radar since 2011. Cadel Evans is in the green at 406 watts average this year. In 2012, Bradley Wiggins is yellow at 415 watts with Christopher Froome and Vincenzo Nibali above 410. This decrease in performance allows riders like Nibali, 414 watts average to win the Giro in 2013 with his Astana team, led by Alexandre Vinokourov , a former "mutant".

So he's admitting there's a 'decrease in performance'

As Dead Calm says, Vayer's stuff can be questionable. And if you just go on watts - or even w/kg - you're inviting scepticism.

Important correction (for Wiggins!), the french says 'Il n'y a plus de coureurs flashés "miraculeux" à nos radars depuis 2011', which means ''there ARE NO miraculous riders on our radar since 2011''.

VERY important! Thanks for pointing that out, inseine. Bloody Google Translate

DeadCalm

Here's a link to an article on the Science In Sport website ripping apart Vayer's methods.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/search?q=vayer

The guy is basically a 'rent-a-quote' for newspapers that want a doping story when inconveniently there isn't one.

Richmond Racer

DeadCalm wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

As Dead Calm says, Vayer's stuff can be questionable. And if you just go on watts - or even w/kg - you're inviting scepticism.

There was a thread a while back where his method of estimating power was rubbished. If I recall correctly, one of his assumptions is that all the riders are the same weight.

Anyway, there isn't an accurate enough method of estimating power from times and gradients even if you do take into account the weight of the rider. vetooo (@ammattipyoraily) on Twitter has been working on a reliable method and has had help from Vaughters who has supplied him with actual SRM data from some of the Garmin riders. He still gets it wrong quite frequently.

Yes. I've seen so many instances where he's just guessing a rider's weight

No_Ta_Doctor

DeadCalm wrote:

Here's a link to an article on the Science In Sport website ripping apart Vayer's methods.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/search?q=vayer

The guy is basically a 'rent-a-quote' for newspapers that want a doping story when inconveniently there isn't one.

Read that ages ago and was amazed anyone took Vayer seriously since. Massively flawed methodology. When sportsscientists do power calculations they're always keen to point out exactly which assumptions they've had to make, what the source of their data is etc.

No_Ta_Doctor

Couple of interesting things about that graphic, in terms of how it presents different riders...

Fignon is noted at 410, Wiggins at 415. Yet the bottom of Fignon's back wheel is placed just below 410 line, whereas Wiggins back wheel is a fair amount above the 415 line.

Not only that, but Wiggins is standing on his pedals, and his bike is almost vertical, so his head is hitting the 430 line, where Fignon's is at 420. This just makes Wiggins look much dodgier than the data claims.

People doing info-graphics should have some respect for the data and how it's visualised. 2/10.

Entirely unconnected, I'm sure, the Wiggins graphic is the only one that doesn't fade again when you move your mouse off it. That's probably just poor coding.

above_the_cows

No tA Doctor wrote:

Entirely unconnected, I'm sure, the Wiggins graphic is the only one that doesn't fade again when you move your mouse off it. That's probably just poor coding.

You'd be right! Ooo wars have been fought for less. To the boats lads, to the boats, Agincourt is ours!

ddraver

Above The Cows wrote:

inseine wrote:

Wiggins looks borderline

Wiggins appears to have become a mountain biker!

Nah, no chance he's getting up that gradient standing up. Deffo a roadie suddenly realising what bike handling actually is!

Richmond Racer

Above The Cows wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Entirely unconnected, I'm sure, the Wiggins graphic is the only one that doesn't fade again when you move your mouse off it. That's probably just poor coding.

You'd be right! Ooo wars have been fought for less. To the boats lads, to the boats, Agincourt is ours!

'But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage'


Right. I'm in.

lostboysaint

Where's Frenchie? Anyone pointed him and Crankbrother at this thread yet?

No_Ta_Doctor

Richmond Racer wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Entirely unconnected, I'm sure, the Wiggins graphic is the only one that doesn't fade again when you move your mouse off it. That's probably just poor coding.

You'd be right! Ooo wars have been fought for less. To the boats lads, to the boats, Agincourt is ours!

'But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage'


Right. I'm in.

Shhhhh.

above_the_cows

No tA Doctor wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Entirely unconnected, I'm sure, the Wiggins graphic is the only one that doesn't fade again when you move your mouse off it. That's probably just poor coding.

You'd be right! Ooo wars have been fought for less. To the boats lads, to the boats, Agincourt is ours!

'But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage'


Right. I'm in.

Shhhhh.

I just actually spat some tea out of my mouth. :shock:

joelsim

andyp wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Wiggins appears to have become a mountain biker!

Don't discount it, he is looking for a new challenge to motivate him after all.

Good job he wasn't going downhill or they could have put a picture of a girl in instead.

Squirrelpie

It's Vayer alright and it horse pooh. In the 80s I remember riders strung out riding in the wind half the day then struggling up the final climb. In the 90s they did the same but flew up the climbs. The peloton seems to be together till the final climb these days before a GC rider places him self in the wind and often that's not before the last 3k. Big difference in watt output between on the front and in the pack.

http://www.joomag.com/magazine/alternat ... 1370594539

Full report available for free? no but for only $10. Full of skins adds, oh Jamie Fuller and the not so secret agenda, :roll: teams up with doping doctor who can only imagine doping being capable of creating grate performances. (showing his limited capabilities as performance scientist) The clinic will lap this up wont they?

RichN95.

Four points about Vayer:

1. He still defines himself by his only role in pro cycling - with a team that disbanded 14 years ago

2. In English language publications (eg CCN website) he likes to be billed as a 'Professor'. His job - 'Professeur de l'EPS - actually means PE teacher - which is what he was before he started providing Le Monde figures they asked for.

3. He claims his (and his collaborater Frederic Portoleau) calculations are accurate to -/+ 2%, which is the accuracy that SRM and Powertap claim, measuring at source. This should set off alarm bells.

4. For a self-proclaimed 'scientist', Vayer is unusually stubborn about opening up his methods to peer review. 'Always show your working' your maths teacher would have told you. Vayer never has.

above_the_cows

RichN95 wrote:

Frederic Portoleau.

OK that is my name of the day!

Richmond Racer

Above The Cows wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Frederic Portoleau.

OK that is my name of the day!

Oh yes

Paulie W

Clearly there are some serious methdological problems with Vayer's approach but I was interested to note that even in the science of sport article, linked above, which highlights these problems, the author still says: "Antoine Vayer knows about power output - he published the book I referred to in my previous analysis of Tour climbing power, and has a library of all the Tour climbs. He, more than anyone, knows how to look at a climb in context, and so his figures deserve more than out of hand dismissal". Is this just 'professional courtesy' on the part of this author because most people on this thread are suggesting Vayer has no credibility at all?

above_the_cows

Richmond Racer wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Frederic Portoleau.

OK that is my name of the day!

Oh yes

It is a good name for someone who has to accompany riders to Contrôle Anti-Dopage.