Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not

slim_boy_fat

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Another example Rich. Here the numpties are on twitter comparing Contador in '09 to Froome this year.

@ammattipyoraily: #TDF '13, Ax-3-D. (last 4.1km, 8.17%): Froome 11:20, 6.30 W/kg [DrF]
#TDF '09, Verbier (last 4.1km, 7.76%): Contador 10:50, 6.34 W/kg [DrF]

A completely different stage and they fail to mention one was on the first day in the high mountains on stage 8 whilst the second was the 4th day in the high mountains on stage 15. These guys are lunatics, to release data so these fucktards can bastardise it would be stupidity.

Whereas we of course know better, what with adding in the difference between stage 8 and stage 15 and the number of mountain days prev done. pah numpties. :roll:

Where did I suggest we know any better? No one for example knows what percentage of maximum effort both Froome and Contador put in respectively on those last 4.1Km. To try and reach a conclusion about anything from the figures provided is futile because there is so much important data missing. That is the whole point. No conclusions can be reached either, and that is why most sane people are asking for real hard evidence before throwing Sky into the fire.

smithy21

Lets face it. We are going to be in this holding pattern for a few days now (unless something happens at the TT- Bertie after a rest day anyone?).

Might as well make them all go on Strava and let it calculate everyone's power.

squired

Had all of the major GC hopes said they felt great on Saturday, but simply couldn't keep up with the pace set by Sky's riders, I might be worried. Instead we had Cadel saying it was his worst day ever on the bike and Contador also indicating he felt terrible. Similarly, other riders also indicated that they struggled on Saturday.

ddraver

Above The Cows wrote:

ddraver wrote:

The new bike is FFFFFFFFFFFFLiping Awesome btw!

Yeah but is it Hells to the Nizzy* awesome?


*I have no idea what this means.

Mate its Hells to the Nizzy Wizzy Awesome!

*yoof speek innit bruv!

ddraver

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Another example Rich. Here the numpties are on twitter comparing Contador in '09 to Froome this year.

@ammattipyoraily: #TDF '13, Ax-3-D. (last 4.1km, 8.17%): Froome 11:20, 6.30 W/kg [DrF]
#TDF '09, Verbier (last 4.1km, 7.76%): Contador 10:50, 6.34 W/kg [DrF]

A completely different stage and they fail to mention one was on the first day in the high mountains on stage 8 whilst the second was the 4th day in the high mountains on stage 15. These guys are lunatics, to release data so these fucktards can bastardise it would be stupidity.

Whereas we of course know better, what with adding in the difference between stage 8 and stage 15 and the number of mountain days prev done. pah numpties. :roll:

Slim is way too modest. Clearly we DO know better as we know that those are variables that DEMAND consideration, to the point where they make the entire tweet worthless

(They.Are.Different.Climbs FFS, Before this thread I though Sky should release more stuff just to shut people up, Now I'm catagorically against them releasing so much as a fart!! I cannot believe how this is being butchered in the name of "caring about the sport")

alihisgreat

squired wrote:

Had all of the major GC hopes said they felt great on Saturday, but simply couldn't keep up with the pace set by Sky's riders, I might be worried. Instead we had Cadel saying it was his worst day ever on the bike and Contador also indicating he felt terrible. Similarly, other riders also indicated that they struggled on Saturday.

I don't think its possible to try and sustain a pace higher than you can manage (i.e. stay with Froome & Porte) and feel good at the same time.

Of course they felt terrible after Froome rode away - they were never going to say that they felt great! So its not reassuring to hear that they felt terrible

above_the_cows

Dear Student,

After careful consideration of your thesis by the first and second reader and in conjunction with the guidelines set out on page 35 of the BA Dissertation Guidelines we are sorry to inform you that your dissertation has failed to meet the required standard for a pass grade. This is down the following reasons:

1. The student fails to grasp even the most basic elements of research including:
a) a failure to outline clear parameters for your research question;
b) a failure to provide verifiable citations for your research data;
c) a failure to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of research methods, including an inability to consider dependent and independent variables;

2. The student has failed to consider the ethical implications of their inadequate findings.

3. The student brings the discipline as a whole into disrepute.

Macaloon

That they are different climbs is not relevant in the estimation of the riders' power output. All you need is the time, altitude gained, distance, and the Dr Ferrari* coefficients to control for the variables which may influence the effort of a rider: drafting, wind direction, temperature, road surface, race scenario...

*Other credible coefficients (Vayer) are available [and in fairness there does seem to be an attempt to improve the accuracy of these estimates over time.] I'm just a little sceptical about the motives of those most involved.

Edit - VAM voodoo: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/ax-3-domaines-history-vams-and.html

squired

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

squired wrote:

Had all of the major GC hopes said they felt great on Saturday, but simply couldn't keep up with the pace set by Sky's riders, I might be worried. Instead we had Cadel saying it was his worst day ever on the bike and Contador also indicating he felt terrible. Similarly, other riders also indicated that they struggled on Saturday.

I don't think its possible to try and sustain a pace higher than you can manage (i.e. stay with Froome & Porte) and feel good at the same time.

Of course they felt terrible after Froome rode away - they were never going to say that they felt great! So its not reassuring to hear that they felt terrible

I disagree. I think Evans said it was his worst day ever on the bike, and that says a lot after some of the bad days he's had in the past. Contador was so bad that he had to be paced up the climb by a teammate, which is pretty much unheard of. I would expect certain riders to have said that although they felt good on the climb they simply weren't able to match the pace of Porte and Froome.

ddraver

Macaloon wrote:

That they are different climbs is not relevant in the estimation of the riders' power output. All you need is the time, altitude gained, distance, and the Dr Ferrari* coefficients to control for the variables which may influence the effort of a rider: drafting, wind direction, temperature, road surface, race scenario...

*Other credible coefficients (Vayer) are available [and in fairness there does seem to be an attempt to improve the accuracy of these estimates over time.] I'm just a little sceptical about the motives of those most involved.

Edit - VAM voodoo: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/ax-3-domaines-history-vams-and.html

It is relevant because they re back calculating the riders power output based on time. So different road surface straight road/corners, gradients - Hell pretty much everything can effect that. If me or AtC tried something like that at a conference the laughter would be ringing in our ears for months afterwards

Squaggles

OnYourRight wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

I don't think its possible to try and sustain a pace higher than you can manage (i.e. stay with Froome & Porte) and feel good at the same time.

Of course they felt terrible after Froome rode away - they were never going to say that they felt great! So its not reassuring to hear that they felt terrible

Correct. In fact, Contador said before the stage that he felt good (the old “good sensations in the legs” thing). He and Evans and Schleck and the rest felt bad afterwards because they were stretched to their limit and found wanting.

Which doesn’t prove a thing about doping, of course. Some riders feel better than others every single day of a bike race, doping or not.

Contador was beaten by Bauke Mollema and Laurens Ten Dam , he looked terrible

ocdupalais

Above The Cows wrote:

Dear Student,

After careful consideration of your thesis by the first and second reader and in conjunction with the guidelines set out on page 35 of the BA Dissertation Guidelines we are sorry to inform you that your dissertation has failed to meet the required standard for a pass grade. This is down the following reasons:

1. The student fails to grasp even the most basic elements of research including:
a) a failure to outline clear parameters for your research question;
b) a failure to provide verifiable citations for your research data;
c) a failure to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of research methods, including an inability to consider dependent and independent variables;

2. The student has failed to consider the ethical implications of their inadequate findings.

3. The student brings the discipline as a whole into disrepute.

Or, to translate this for those that need it in under 140 characters,
" @dumb-ass student you is a massive thickie and so's your mum, yeah
#thick mum"

RideOnTime

Regardless of doping...
has anyone been checking to make sure Sky are not using those little engine thingys hidden inside the top tube.
I'm not one to start a rumour...

above_the_cows

ddraver wrote:

Macaloon wrote:

That they are different climbs is not relevant in the estimation of the riders' power output. All you need is the time, altitude gained, distance, and the Dr Ferrari* coefficients to control for the variables which may influence the effort of a rider: drafting, wind direction, temperature, road surface, race scenario...

*Other credible coefficients (Vayer) are available [and in fairness there does seem to be an attempt to improve the accuracy of these estimates over time.] I'm just a little sceptical about the motives of those most involved.

Edit - VAM voodoo: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/ax-3-domaines-history-vams-and.html

It is relevant because they re back calculating the riders power output based on time. So different road surface straight road/corners, gradients - Hell pretty much everything can effect that. If me or AtC tried something like that at a conference the laughter would be ringing in our ears for months afterwards

If I tried this anywhere I'd be laughed at, I'm not a quant person, I do qualitative research, but I have had doctoral level quant training and work with people who eat, sleep and breathe this type of methodology. Not comfortable with it really though, data sets of numbers scare me, so would never dream of using it. Now if you asked me to employ a Bourdieuian sociological analysis then I'd be as comfortable as a pig in the poop.

OCDuPalais wrote:

Or, to translate this for those that need it in under 140 characters,
" @dumb-ass student you is a massive thickie and so's your mum, yeah
#thick mum"

Basically this, minus the mum bashing, never bring mums into it, in my experience it doesn't end well.

RideOnTime wrote:

Regardless of doping...
has anyone been checking to make sure Sky are not using those little engine thingys hidden inside the top tube.
I'm not one to start a rumour...

I reckon they've found a way to bend the space time continuum myself.

calvjones

RichN95 wrote:

FransJacques wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

it's the stats we're interested in.

http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/54770 ... rning-shot

Fill your boots.

If that guy could write in anything resembling plain English I would read it, but it's incomprehensible babble. It appears though that he is making the same old mistakes - using a small amount of data with absolutely no reference to context.

The problem is the 'context' is a sport with cf. 60 years of pretty much all-out doping, then lying to cover up the doping, then lying some more and 'fessing only when absolutely necessary (interspersed with cavalier and completely acceptable to the athletes buying and selling of races for cash or favour FFS).

Add that to rationales like 'We'd never dope 'cos it would tarnish my OBE/Gold medals' and 'it's the training what done it' which sound eerily similar to the puncturing of cancer survivors' hopes/training on Christmas Day, and it's unsurprising there are plenty of questions.

Do I think you can prove doping from VAM? No. Of course not

Do I think Sky are inveterate team dopers? Probably not.

Would I bet my savings on them all being clean, even given odds of, say 10-1?

I think 'hmmm... Hayles '08... no thanks.

Macaloon

ddraver wrote:

Macaloon wrote:

That they are different climbs is not relevant in the estimation of the riders' power output. All you need is the time, altitude gained, distance, and the Dr Ferrari* coefficients to control for the variables which may influence the effort of a rider: drafting, wind direction, temperature, road surface, race scenario...

*Other credible coefficients (Vayer) are available [and in fairness there does seem to be an attempt to improve the accuracy of these estimates over time.] I'm just a little sceptical about the motives of those most involved.

Edit - VAM voodoo: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/ax-3-domaines-history-vams-and.html

It is relevant because they re back calculating the riders power output based on time. So different road surface straight road/corners, gradients - Hell pretty much everything can effect that. If me or AtC tried something like that at a conference the laughter would be ringing in our ears for months afterwards

With respect, I think you failed to comprehend what I wrote, which was that the variables you cite are taken care of in the model/formula by way of coefficients. Rather than lathering-up over a completely obvious observation (performance influenced by conditions), have a crack at the models.

By the way, I think Ross Tucker's main point is to collect as much data as possible to refine these models, a bit like climate scientists. He's playing a Geological game. To clarify: this means he'll encourage people to improve their modeling rather than rubbishing their methods (with exception of Vayer).

calvjones

Above The Cows wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Macaloon wrote:

That they are different climbs is not relevant in the estimation of the riders' power output. All you need is the time, altitude gained, distance, and the Dr Ferrari* coefficients to control for the variables which may influence the effort of a rider: drafting, wind direction, temperature, road surface, race scenario...

*Other credible coefficients (Vayer) are available [and in fairness there does seem to be an attempt to improve the accuracy of these estimates over time.] I'm just a little sceptical about the motives of those most involved.

Edit - VAM voodoo: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/ax-3-domaines-history-vams-and.html

It is relevant because they re back calculating the riders power output based on time. So different road surface straight road/corners, gradients - Hell pretty much everything can effect that. If me or AtC tried something like that at a conference the laughter would be ringing in our ears for months afterwards

If I tried this anywhere I'd be laughed at, I'm not a quant person, I do qualitative research, but I have had doctoral level quant training and work with people who eat, sleep and breathe this type of methodology. Not comfortable with it really though, data sets of numbers scare me, so would never dream of using it. Now if you asked me to employ a Bourdieuian sociological analysis then I'd be as comfortable as a pig in the poop.

OCDuPalais wrote:

Or, to translate this for those that need it in under 140 characters,
" @dumb-ass student you is a massive thickie and so's your mum, yeah
#thick mum"

Basically this, minus the mum bashing, never bring mums into it, in my experience it doesn't end well.

RideOnTime wrote:

Regardless of doping...
has anyone been checking to make sure Sky are not using those little engine thingys hidden inside the top tube.
I'm not one to start a rumour...

I reckon they've found a way to bend the space time continuum myself.

Problem is, a Bourdian analysis would probably conclude that yep, they're all probably doping. You can't buck Habitus and Doxa.

above_the_cows

calvjones wrote:

Problem is, a Bourdian analysis would probably conclude that yep, they're all probably doping. You can't buck Habitus and Doxa.

Indeed. That's why we need a multi-method approach!

Unless of course we have seen a change in that which appears natural, goes without saying or sets the behavioural limits. Oh dear god, I need to shut-up! :oops:

above_the_cows

OnYourRight wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

I reckon they've found a way to bend the space time continuum myself.

Based on what evidence? You’ll need a fair bit for this one, I think.

I need evidence? Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!

It would explain their secret hotel though, they hide it in the black hole created in the folds of the continuum.

OK I need to get back to work.

RideOnTime

Above The Cows wrote:

OnYourRight wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

I reckon they've found a way to bend the space time continuum myself.

Based on what evidence? You’ll need a fair bit for this one, I think.

I need evidence? Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!

It would explain their secret hotel though, they hide it in the black hole created in the folds of the continuum.

OK I need to get back to work.

I think I must have stayed there. Lovely views from the folds of continuum.

ddraver

Macaloon wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Macaloon wrote:

That they are different climbs is not relevant in the estimation of the riders' power output. All you need is the time, altitude gained, distance, and the Dr Ferrari* coefficients to control for the variables which may influence the effort of a rider: drafting, wind direction, temperature, road surface, race scenario...

*Other credible coefficients (Vayer) are available [and in fairness there does seem to be an attempt to improve the accuracy of these estimates over time.] I'm just a little sceptical about the motives of those most involved.

Edit - VAM voodoo: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/ax-3-domaines-history-vams-and.html

It is relevant because they re back calculating the riders power output based on time. So different road surface straight road/corners, gradients - Hell pretty much everything can effect that. If me or AtC tried something like that at a conference the laughter would be ringing in our ears for months afterwards

With respect, I think you failed to comprehend what I wrote, which was that the variables you cite are taken care of in the model/formula by way of coefficients. Rather than lathering-up over a completely obvious observation (performance influenced by conditions), have a crack at the models.

By the way, I think Ross Tucker's main point is to collect as much data as possible to refine these models, a bit like climate scientists. He's playing a Geological game. To clarify: this means he'll encourage people to improve their modeling rather than rubbishing their methods (with exception of Vayer).

Fair enough but then there is enough uncertainty in those variables/co-efficients on the same climb, let alone when directly comparing different climbs.

I accept that they would average out over a GT though, fair enough...

frenchfighter

RichN95 wrote:

Here is an illustration of why comparing individual times on climbs is nonsense. An example from another sport: athletics. Sure there may be dopers, but it's the stats we're interested in.

Here are the two 2012 Olympic 1500m semi finals. Same track, same wind, same weather, same stakes, the fields should be evenly matched and everyone should be on top form.

As you can see from the image below, heat one is won in a time of 3.42 (eventual gold & silver winners are in this heat). In the second heat the person finishing last does 3.40 - two seconds quicker! How is this possible. Are all the second heat on drugs and the first heat clean?

Well suggest that it's down to doping on an athletics forum you would be laughed at. They will explain how the second one was probably run faster earlier to get the fastest loser spots. To say it's doping is foolish in the extreme.

Yet in cycling pseudo scientists like Vayer use times as proof of doping. It's ludicrous. Yet who is questioning that logic? They lap it up without question as it tells them what they want to hear.

Good post but to illustrate one form of analysis to avoid.
Which is why you have relatives as well as absolutes and don`t base your reasoning on one fact.

LutherB

I'm sorry i have nothing constructive to add, just a groovy picture for you crazy kids!

Macaloon

frenchfighter wrote:

Good post but to illustrate one form of analysis to avoid.
Which is why you have relatives as well as absolutes and don`t base your reasoning on one fact.

Facts are solid. Would you mind listing just a couple of facts that lead you to your "unbelievable/ET" reasoned decision on Froome? Worth reading this while you cogitate:

"Physiologically, 6.4 W/kg for 24 minutes does not ring any alarm bells in and of itself. Remember, the origins of this approach are basically that performance implies physiology. Therefore, you can work backwards from power to estimate the physiology driving it."

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/tour-rest-day-pondering-unanswerables.html

Paul 8v

ddraver wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Another example Rich. Here the numpties are on twitter comparing Contador in '09 to Froome this year.

@ammattipyoraily: #TDF '13, Ax-3-D. (last 4.1km, 8.17%): Froome 11:20, 6.30 W/kg [DrF]
#TDF '09, Verbier (last 4.1km, 7.76%): Contador 10:50, 6.34 W/kg [DrF]

A completely different stage and they fail to mention one was on the first day in the high mountains on stage 8 whilst the second was the 4th day in the high mountains on stage 15. These guys are lunatics, to release data so these fucktards can bastardise it would be stupidity.

Whereas we of course know better, what with adding in the difference between stage 8 and stage 15 and the number of mountain days prev done. pah numpties. :roll:

Slim is way too modest. Clearly we DO know better as we know that those are variables that DEMAND consideration, to the point where they make the entire tweet worthless

(They.Are.Different.Climbs FFS, Before this thread I though Sky should release more stuff just to shut people up, Now I'm catagorically against them releasing so much as a fart!! I cannot believe how this is being butchered in the name of "caring about the sport")

I don't think they should release anything to anyone apart from if the UCI want it and in that case in strict confidentiality. Otherwise you get these pseudoscientific tw@ts just making stuff up because they hate sky, no-one is pointing any fingers at Movistar and they're looking very strong too. I would be much more suspicious of them to be honest but I would like to think all the top teams would be clean, they've got too much to lose by having drug problems these days.

Would be nice to just be able to enjoy the race and stop all the drug allegations, for some people that seems to be the fun part of this sport, if you're really in to drugs go and watch some bodybuilding competitions, they're all on drugs!

LeicesterLad

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/healthy-skepticism-dealing-with-doping.html

tailwindhome

Have we figured out what residuals are yet?

above_the_cows

It's alright, there's another controversy now, we can forget Sky doping at least until Froome wins the TT by a minute. The new controversy is Cav's new policy of intentionally taking out other people's lead out men, this will take up discussion for at least the remainder of the evening.

Macaloon

TailWindHome wrote:

Have we figured out what residuals are yet?

They're the distasteful marks left behind by climb time predictions pulled from a psedo's posterior. Your ride residual is your % +/- pVAM (posterior Vertical Altitude Meters)

Squirrelpie

Russ Tucker is drifting of the mark recently. Keeping the doping debate going. It never ends, all people want to know is about doping years after the real issue was ignored.

The problem with his performance models used are that they not based on clean elite performances as no one seems to have sufficient data from the likes of Froome (current data), Contador, Schleck or Evans etc. His estimates are based on bits of data mostly from domestics who have an inferior physiology to start with.

No team will share this data and causing a stir on twitter isn't going to change anything about that as those who want it don't know the capabilities of man to start with and neither does Ross as he would not care to see it if he actually did.