Why does pro cycling have such a problem...

rick_chasey

RichN95.

Froome once posted his numbers for the TT in the 2011 Vuelta where he came second to Tony Martin as a largely unknown rider. 406w for nearly an hour. The people who clamour for data ignore it because it's not a number they can cause a controversy over.

You need to realise, like Sky obviously have, that those who call for the data are all people who need doping in cycling to maintain their profile and want stats they can twist to 'prove' doping enhance that profile.

Do you really think there is any power file from Froome which someone like Vayer would give the green light to, when he makes money presenting the doping angle. Without doping he's just a PE teacher who no-one listens to.

mm1

Damned if they do, damned if they don't, but on balance they'd surely be better to be more transparent. Its a nonsense that the Clinic 12, Vayer, Shane Stokes and the other self appointed guardians of the sport use fictional data that they have "calculated" by estimating climbing speeds from dodgy feeds of race coverage and guessing riders' weights, releasing real data would at least open up a proper debate about what's humanly possible.

Seeing more data might also move discussion back towards greater appreciation of the (beautiful) tactical aspects of the sport. The best aren't just the strongest they're the smartest too. None of the idiots seem to understand that its possible to hide in the wheels and conserve energy, or that tactics are about where and when to make the effort.

shockedsoshocked

It's just a puff piece for people who don't necessarily understand some of the scientific/tactical aspects of cycling. I wouldn't read too much into it.

Like when people look at average powers for 1 day races and think "I can do that", but neglect to look at the 5/10/20 minute bursts in the race where riders are pushing huge numbers.

frenchfighter

Well Sky's heavily funded PR machine is known for misinformation and poor decision making.

I do not however see what is wrong with this article.

tom3

Marketing ploy.

MAMIL thought process - is that all he kicked out? how do I measure my power? I could do that etc etc

Oh so team sky use stages. Bingo, that is what I need! I will also have a sky jersey and a wahoo kickr to boot!

gpreeves

frenchfighter wrote:

do not however see what is wrong with this article.

There's a spelling mistake in the second paragraph. "Poured over" should be "pored over".

Other than that, it's just a perfectly pleasant but not entirely informative article.

r0bh

madasahattersley wrote:

Why don't they post Froome's best power outputs from training and post HIS power files from crucial stages of the race? I literally cannot think of a single way releasing the good data would work against them. Are they afraid Bertie and Nibbles are going to see the data and think "Oh, I need to train more" cos' something tells me they're all doing all they can at that level anyway.

Why don't Astana and Tinkof-Saxo publish Nibali and Contador's power data? They are, after all, the winners of Le Tour and La Vuelta. Are you going to post separate rants about them?

salsiccia1

Why should anyone publish anything? So the armchair experts can look it and say that they're doping? So Vayer et al can distort it and continue writing his crap?

Fuck 'em

w00dster

As a reletive newbie to watching pro-cycling (only a couple of years) I would find the data interesting, but I totally understand why the teams are reluctant to share the riders data.
As an example, watching this years Vuelta on a couple of mountanin stages, Froome attacks Contador, Contador follows Froome, then counter attacks. Just being purely interested in the stats (not thinking of PEDs at all) - I would love to see the figures that the top guys in the world can attain and maintain.
I know what my stats are (woeful), so to see the stage and then to have the stats there would make great reading for me. And I really don't mean that in a consipracy theory way - just out of pure respect for the efforts that the pro's put in.
The same for sprint stages, I love watching the teams tactics in the last 10km, I would find it interesting to see the data of the increase in work by the lead out men alongwith the sprinters power output for the final 1km and last 2 or 300 metres.

tom3

w00dster wrote:

As a reletive newbie to watching pro-cycling (only a couple of years) I would find the data interesting, but I totally understand why the teams are reluctant to share the riders data.
As an example, watching this years Vuelta on a couple of mountanin stages, Froome attacks Contador, Contador follows Froome, then counter attacks. Just being purely interested in the stats (not thinking of PEDs at all) - I would love to see the figures that the top guys in the world can attain and maintain.
I know what my stats are (woeful), so to see the stage and then to have the stats there would make great reading for me. And I really don't mean that in a consipracy theory way - just out of pure respect for the efforts that the pro's put in.
The same for sprint stages, I love watching the teams tactics in the last 10km, I would find it interesting to see the data of the increase in work by the lead out men alongwith the sprinters power output for the final 1km and last 2 or 300 metres.

I think one day we will be hooked up to a rider completely. e.g helmet or bike cam and the riders vital statistics over the graphics. heart rate, power, speed. the whole lot.

Pross

madasahattersley wrote:

Seriously now, they've selected what could well be the least impressive stages from one of their smallest name domestiques ....

That's a bit harsh on Deignan, he came close to stage wins at the Giro and was often the last man standing in support on the mountain stages.

xavierdisley

Maybe his left leg isn't very strong

wallace_and_gromit

mm1 wrote:

......estimating climbing speeds from dodgy feeds of race coverage and guessing riders' weights...

A lot of the Clinic's "thinking" is genuine madness, but all the same, a couple of points here...

If you know a particular climb, you can easily get meaningul data from watching telly. e.g. on Alpe D'Huez, simply start timing when they pass the EDF pole at the bottom and stop when they go under the banner. You then know the time of a 13.8k climb up 1080m.

You don't need to bother about the riders' weights as on climb (*), for a TT type effort, the time taken is directly proportional to watts/kg.

I think the biggest issue in comparisons is varying weather conditions from one ride to another, in particular wind strength and direction along with the impact of when a rider commits fully to the climb. In the Clinic last year there was a great hoohah over Froome's Ventoux performance, as though he won easily, it wasn't as "alien" as some wanted to portray. There was a lot of debate about wind direction and whether Froome was idling for the first third of the climb.

(*) roughly constant gradient

Macaloon

mm1 wrote:

Damned if they do, damned if they don't, but on balance they'd surely be better to be more transparent. Its a nonsense that the Clinic 12, Vayer, Shane Stokes and the other self appointed guardians of the sport use fictional data that they have "calculated" by estimating climbing speeds from dodgy feeds of race coverage and guessing riders' weights, releasing real data would at least open up a proper debate about what's humanly possible.

Seeing more data might also move discussion back towards greater appreciation of the(beautiful) tactical aspects of the sport. The best aren't just the strongest they're the smartest too. None of the idiots seem to understand that its possible to hide in the wheels and conserve energy, or that tactics are about where and when to make the effort.

Superb. Nibali's 2014 Tour campaign had all the deep logic and peerless execution of a Beethoven symphony. 'Journalists' and Teams who pander to the desperate X-Factor discards in the doperati are beneath contempt.

e: Shane Stokes 'outing' Froome and Porte as mutants, citing Madone anecdotes from the discredited propagandist David Walsh - beneath those already beneath contempt.

Macaloon

Rick Chasey wrote:

Still waiting for your lecture on why modern economies benefit from their best Physics phds discovering exotic correlations in dead dog Futures markets.

ddraver

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Why should anyone publish anything? So the armchair experts can look it and say that they're doping? So Vayer et al can distort it and continue writing his crap?

Fuck 'em

One is reminded of the anecdote when Laurens Ten Dam posted his numbers and pointed out how much lower they were than the calculated numbers

The conclusion of Vayer, Stokes and the Clinic was that his powermeter needed recalibrating or replacing

There is literally (and I use the word properly) no way that any rider, and certainly not Team Sky, can win with those people. I'm not at all surprised that Teams have given up bothering to try.

dolan_driver

Pross wrote:

madasahattersley wrote:

Seriously now, they've selected what could well be the least impressive stages from one of their smallest name domestiques ....

That's a bit harsh on Deignan, he came close to stage wins at the Giro and was often the last man standing in support on the mountain stages.

+1. You obviously didn't watch the Giro or Vuelta this year. He made a significant contribution to both races, particularly the Giro.

DD.

ozzzyosborn206

the problem with publishing data aside from misinterpretation is that not all power meters are going to be calibrated the same, and different riders/bikes are more or less aero than others so even if you know what w/kg each rider was doing it doesn't tell the full storey.

A lot of people look at the number and think 'i could do that' but being in the middle of a stage race 150k into a race makes so much difference compared to going out fresh and smashing a climb