Froome vs Contador, are the numbers believable ?

http://53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=65

so what was the weather like?

It means I reckon they're both on the pop. And don't call me surly.

But it does seem like there is an awful lot of guesswork involved in 'reckoning' rider a has doped/rider b has not etc...

Quote:

One man's 'very strong likelihood' is another man's 'possibility'.

What on earth does that mean? Innocent until proven guilty surly?

The other point is that it was a <7min effort. That means above threshold, way above if you're attacking hard. If we assume 6W/kg for 40min up an HC climb is a top clean performance, then we can accept that 6.8W/kg for a 7 minute above threshold effort isn't extraordinary at all.
It's also worth noting that of all the bloggers and tweeters who do the clever power estimations, Ferrari was estimating the highest by at least 0.2W.

Where is Ferrari getting the power data from to quote Froome and Contador's watts per kilo?

Last time Froome released his power data was to l'Equipe for them to independently analyse and verify, and the opinion was that it was within the bounds of normal for an athlete at his level.

If he is estimating this based on incline over distance and an idea of what he weighs, that doesn't in any way make that an accurate figure, it could be higher or lower by a long way depending on drafting, tailwind, headwind, temperature etc, so many variables would influence it.

Ferrari is a nasty piece of work, and has a great many axes to grind, so unless he is basing this on accurate power data, I think he is just trying to make himself look better by making everyone else look worse.

Worth reading this

www.thesportsgene.com

The training techniques haven't changed. There's often a fashion for one over the other, but the basics have established a long time ago. It's Armstrong's hyperbole "we've got the oldest secret in the book: 'hard work'".

Some people point at the body shapes, and certainly Froome, Nibali and Quintana are very light weight. The issue is how they sustain the power and strength at those weights. Your body will cannabalise itself if it is at starvation levels and would strip itself of muscle and power. Or else, you'd get sick. I'm not saying that their physiology is impossible to have, but it's pretty hard to maintain year on year and be competitive. I think if you saw riders from the past that looked like them naturally you could point and say their clean. But that simply isn't the case.

Dr Evil is the first and foremost scientist that could reveal the difference between clean and doped. I'm sure he could tell you what is achievable and what isn't. I think the problem with the authenticity of cycling performances is that the cyclists always have 'that performance' waiting in the bag on the big stages. In three weeks of cycling you can't expect to have that and should have as many bad days as good days. The point is that endurance fatigue should make it hard for you to know if you will be able to keep the effort up and we see few signs that riders are weighed down.

It's not only cyclists though. Look at Mo Farah and his connections.

' Could they still be doping? Of course. But there's a very strong likelihood they're not.'

One man's 'very strong likelihood' is another man's 'possibility'.

It's hard to know - Sky and other more modern teams like to say that cycling kind of ignored sports science for years in favour of doping - in terms of bang for buck, doping is just miles ahead of anything else you can do.
But the accumulation of marginal gains is very much an ethos that works, demonstrably so. Better training - not more riding, people have been doing 'more riding' since the year dot - but better, targeted training, weights, intervals, etc etc... all that makes a huge difference.
Nutrition is massive - wasn't so long ago that people used to eat steak and drink wine after stages in the grand tours. Thing like vegetable juices make vast, vast differences to the way your body burns energy.
Hydration science, aero gains, better team riding, race radio, power meters - everything, whether tiny or huge, adds up and makes everything different.
Look even at the physiology of the top riders - in doped days, chunky people like Armstrong and Indurain climbed like angels. Now we've got skeletal Froome going alongside the traditional climber build of a Quintana.
Could they still be doping? Of course. But there's a very strong likelihood they're not.

Out of interest - and on a bit of a topic tangent - has there been any good scientific research into how much performance advantage PEDs/doping etc can give?

I'm guessing this is unlikely given the secrecy of cheating by elite athletes. (and any research which has been conducted must have been on a relatively small sample set?)

Without this kind of data - how can we reliably say 'this performance is withing doping levels'?

In my mind, I have always seen PEDs and doping as a way to gain that last extra bit of performance - but I don't know if that right or not. 'He who should not be named' had (at the time) winning margins at the tour of over 7 min - would he not still have won that if he had ridden clean? (And that is NO excuse btw)

Unless there is any good evidence about any riders being doped, I trust them as being clean. I know this is possibly naïve but if I think everyone's doping it takes the fun out of the sport and watching it.
Also as a 16yr old I would one day love to be a pro (I know probably unlikely) and view these people as role models, hard work + a bit of tactics=results. This is imo a good attitude to help exams and also my training....
And also this guy clearly wants to drag other riders into the sh*t without mentioning his riders

Look, I'm fine with performances being analyzed - but when it come to analysis and conclusions - I would say this guy has clear motive to spread sh!t

Think people need to put their sentiments aside and realise that Ferrari knows his onions on this lark, if doping hadn't 'have happened' to the sport then he would still have been a leader in his field... with regards to not Nibali bashing - he writes alot of articles and and makes comments such as extraordinary perfomances are now there is a chance he was/is working with Astana, but think he knows his comments will provoke peeples imaginations - look for the TdF article commmenting VN's ability to use Fat as a fuel.

Oh and back flipbedlam;

hmm Non Doping reason??
Maybe they are just the best guys out there, and put in hours and hours of hard graft every day!

You're starting to sound like Lance Armstrong - 'we have the oldest secret in the book - hard work' Lol

I'm not making apologies for the man, but it read a few of his blog pieces, and the ones not relating to his own defence are actually fairly good, he is probably the foremost authority on cycling performance, legal or illegal.

He remains a staunch supporter of Graeme Obree and speaks openly of the way the UCI destroyed GO's career. And Graeme of course if staunchly anti doping.

Ferrari is of course, rightly banned in my opinion.

Funny how he's saying Froome and Bertie are dopers, and yet handily doesn't allude to his (alleged) rider, Nibali, showing numbers that push well into the traditional doping levels here: http://53x12.com/do/show?page=indepth.view&id=148.

Just reading some of his other articles and the total horse shit that comes from him is quite amazing.

Not even worth bothering with.

He's basing these on different distances for one the stages Contador won he's used distance and the Froome one he is using time.

He even admits that in stage 3 from came back towards the end of the stage which shows he had more power towards the end.