Author Topic: Tour de France 2020  (Read 20241 times)

Karla

  • car(e) free
    • Lost Byway - around the world by bike
Re: Tour de France 2020
« Reply #450 on: September 24, 2020, 11:15:52 pm »
LA made tens of millions from Uber, so he hasn’t got holes in his shoes. His TdF wins have officially gone but he still has the yellow jerseys on his wall. Didn’t he say that he would do the same thing again if he had his time over?

He's worth a cool $50 mil if the link is to be believed, and yes, I recall him saying that too.

simonp

Re: Tour de France 2020
« Reply #451 on: September 24, 2020, 11:24:25 pm »
The BBC looked at EPO microdosing years ago. If you take a small dose the half life being so short and the fact that you only have to give a small window each day for testing means it’s easy to avoid detection. Microdosing also helps with covering up blood doping. I’d say the testers have a huge uphill battle.

Re: Tour de France 2020
« Reply #452 on: September 25, 2020, 09:28:22 am »
The Science of Sport podcast was interesting. Ross Tucker has been vocal in the past about performances that he thought were just not credible, and he seems to have done the math and concluded that Pogacar's performance while outstanding was not outside the bounds of a top level cyclist. That gives me a certain level of hope that it wasn't just ridiculous.
It's a shame that there will never be any actual measured power data on the climb, but apparently doing the bike swap meant that sorting out power data for both parts of the ride wasn't a priority. It has to be doable, as CX riders manage it with 3 bikes and swapping every 6 minutes no problem.

Hot Flatus

  • Mediocre polyglot.Scoutmaster and nudist
Re: Tour de France 2020
« Reply #453 on: September 26, 2020, 02:06:00 pm »
I think Tucker was a little sceptical. If you remember where he describes how Pog went faster on the flat that flat TT specialists, and then faster up the mountain than climbing specialists.

And all after 3 weeks of being on the pointy end of the race.

Re: Tour de France 2020
« Reply #454 on: September 26, 2020, 02:44:05 pm »
He was sceptical, but wasn't accusing Pog of being an alien. In the past he has basically said that certain performances were outside the realms of human physiology.

Hot Flatus

  • Mediocre polyglot.Scoutmaster and nudist
Re: Tour de France 2020
« Reply #455 on: September 26, 2020, 02:49:35 pm »
Interesting comparison between Pog, who chose to ride crucial tour TT on "feel", and this...

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/geraint-thomas-left-to-rue-missing-garmin-after-fourth-place-finish-in-worlds-time-trial/

Karla

  • car(e) free
    • Lost Byway - around the world by bike
Re: Tour de France 2020
« Reply #456 on: September 26, 2020, 03:21:17 pm »
Pog had a PM on his TT bike but chose to lose it from the climbing bike to save weight, according to his team.

T42

  • *** fool in a hurry
Re: Tour de France 2020
« Reply #457 on: September 26, 2020, 03:31:11 pm »
The Science of Sport podcast was interesting. Ross Tucker has been vocal in the past about performances that he thought were just not credible, and he seems to have done the math and concluded that Pogacar's performance while outstanding was not outside the bounds of a top level cyclist. That gives me a certain level of hope that it wasn't just ridiculous.
It's a shame that there will never be any actual measured power data on the climb, but apparently doing the bike swap meant that sorting out power data for both parts of the ride wasn't a priority. It has to be doable, as CX riders manage it with 3 bikes and swapping every 6 minutes no problem.

You can get a very approximate average from the physics involved. Pog weighs N + bike weight + kit and climbed through X metres at average speed of V. Plug the figures in and you get a figure that's too low because it leaves out rolling resistance and drag, but it gives you a rough idea. Back in the LA days a couple of physicists did this and screeched "drugs!"

I'd need to be on a different type of drug just to think about doing les Belles Filles. The climb, that is.
I've dusted all those old bottles and set them up straight.

Re: Tour de France 2020
« Reply #458 on: September 26, 2020, 04:08:15 pm »
Yeah, there are riders who had power data though, so you can assume that the effect of the wind and the rolling resistance were very similar for them and for Pog. That's what Ross Tucker did - I think he was basically saying it worked out to about 6.7 W/kg for 15 minutes, which is super high, but not impossible without drugs.

Karla

  • car(e) free
    • Lost Byway - around the world by bike
Re: Tour de France 2020
« Reply #459 on: September 26, 2020, 04:14:03 pm »
On the Geraint Thomas comparison, I'd also note that 4th is about where I'd have expected Thomas to place so it's not like the lack of data cost him a massive amount. 

Re: Tour de France 2020
« Reply #460 on: September 26, 2020, 08:28:18 pm »
Yeah, there are riders who had power data though, so you can assume that the effect of the wind and the rolling resistance were very similar for them and for Pog. That's what Ross Tucker did - I think he was basically saying it worked out to about 6.7 W/kg for 15 minutes, which is super high, but not impossible without drugs.

The TDF climb had 506 m height gain over 5.82 km.

Wikipedia has Pog at 66 kg (who knows at the end of 3 week TDF). Legal bike race weight is 6.8 kg. Additional kit (skinsuit, shoes, helmet, socks, gloves, GPS, etc) will be about 1 kg, so total weight ~ 74 kg.

Pog's time was 16 min 17 s for the climb = 977 s.

Average power required for Pog + bike to gain that potential energy over that time = 375 W, which equates to 5.7 W/kg (rider weight).

Power required to overcome wind & rolling resistance on a still day (no idea what the wind would have been on that climb, mostly in trees, with 5 hairpins) on the flat at a velocity of 21.44 kph (~ 6 m/s) is reckoned to be ~ 60W on drops at 750 m altitude and 25 °C.

435 W at 66 kg is ~ 6.6 W/kg. Online power calculators give about 450 W or 6.8 W/kg. So 6.7 W/kg is about right.

But, this was after beating every other rider (including Tom Dumoulin by 4s) on a gently rising course for the previous 40 minutes.

Re: Tour de France 2020
« Reply #461 on: September 27, 2020, 08:01:03 am »
Doping seems just like computer hacking - the dopers (or their doctors) find new exploits, and the testers and rule-makers are always playing catch-up.  You'd be stupid to use dexedrine or testosterone in a race these days but someone will be out there working on something which isn't tested for, isn't yet banned (hello Pedro Delgado) or mimics natural body chemistry closely enough that it's very hard to detect.
And Darkness and Decay and the Coronavirus held illimitable dominion over all.

Hot Flatus

  • Mediocre polyglot.Scoutmaster and nudist
Re: Tour de France 2020
« Reply #462 on: September 27, 2020, 08:29:33 am »
Remember, the rule-makers dont want to catch the cheats. The people running the events certainly dont want to catch the cheats.

Re: Tour de France 2020
« Reply #463 on: October 01, 2020, 04:35:29 pm »
Following on from the half-attempt of the 2020 tour to show solidarity to the BLM cause on the final stage, here's a link to a story that shows some riders still have divisive views on race.

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/trek-segafredo-suspend-quinn-simmons-for-divisive-incendiary-and-detrimental-statements-on-social-media/

Re: Tour de France 2020
« Reply #464 on: October 24, 2020, 10:26:22 am »
https://www.bicycling.com/tour-de-france/a34252569/tadej-pogacar-tour-de-france-win-unfair-doubt/

Interesting article.    Not much new in it but it’s a more complete analysis of the TT than I’ve read elsewhere

fd3

Re: Tour de France 2020
« Reply #465 on: October 24, 2020, 11:55:57 am »
Quote
a mark that is within Sassi's bounds for clean riding.
To my untrained eye this sounds a lot like reading about riders' Hemocrit levels being within the bounds for clear riding.  Looking back at that data the bounds for clean riding were about double what they should have been and anyone near those levels was fo sho a cheating bastard.
And we know the flag of love is from above/And we can force you to be free

Re: Tour de France 2020
« Reply #466 on: October 24, 2020, 12:31:29 pm »
Quote
a mark that is within Sassi's bounds for clean riding.
To my untrained eye this sounds a lot like reading about riders' Hemocrit levels being within the bounds for clear riding.  Looking back at that data the bounds for clean riding were about double what they should have been and anyone near those levels was fo sho a cheating bastard.
Haematocrit levels were set at 50%. Normal range is mid 30s to mid 40s, so it's hardly double.
And the article is basically saying that performances above a certain W/kg for a certain length of time immediately raise questions about whether the athlete is clean, and that Pogacar's numbers were below those thresholds. Doesn't make him clean, but isn't totally alien. That's basically what Ross Tucker said on his podcast too - it was a spectacular performance, but not one that is beyond the possibilities of a clean rider.
None of that can take away the doubt. To be an exceptional cyclist is to be outside the normal, and to produce performances like that will always bring some shadow. The article implies that if he wants to be viewed as clean then he should move to a different team, but you can cast shade over any pretty much any team, either from past associations with known doping (like they do with his current team), or from other shady practises (like the clouds that hung over Sky). Could you "put your hand in the fire" and name 5 riders in the 100 year history who have won the TdF clean?

Hot Flatus

  • Mediocre polyglot.Scoutmaster and nudist
Re: Tour de France 2020
« Reply #467 on: October 24, 2020, 12:40:35 pm »
If you listen to Ross Tucker's podcast he is far from comfortable with Pogacar's performance. It's about context of the climb. He didn't just put in a superlative climb, he did it after putting in a superlative flat tt.

T42

  • *** fool in a hurry
Re: Tour de France 2020
« Reply #468 on: October 24, 2020, 01:03:06 pm »
Sounds to me as if everyone wants him to be found out and shamed.  Reminds me of the peelers who stopped us once in Edinburgh because they thought one of us was a villain. After the tall bloke who arrived in the unmarked Jag said "it's not him" another one said "oh come on, we'll get them for something". Hey, maybe Pog cheated on his school lunch money when he was 7.

In other words, until the preserved samples are opened up and analysed N years from now there's no point in worrying it to death. The best you can hope for until then is that he's caught at another event.  Keep on hoping.
I've dusted all those old bottles and set them up straight.

fd3

Re: Tour de France 2020
« Reply #469 on: October 24, 2020, 02:19:05 pm »
Nice to see that the consensus is that "he might bot have cheated" as his results are on the below/borderline of "definitely cheated" levels.
And we know the flag of love is from above/And we can force you to be free

Re: Tour de France 2020
« Reply #470 on: October 24, 2020, 03:20:04 pm »
Nice to see that the consensus is that "he might bot have cheated" as his results are on the below/borderline of "definitely cheated" levels.
That's every Tour winner for 40 years, except the ones that were at "definitely on something" levels.

fd3

Re: Tour de France 2020
« Reply #471 on: October 24, 2020, 11:27:36 pm »
It's less believable than Landis' win or Froome's mad attack on the Giro.  When even the journos run an article which might as well be saying "he probably cheated but it's not totally impossible" you do wonder what the point is.
And we know the flag of love is from above/And we can force you to be free

Karla

  • car(e) free
    • Lost Byway - around the world by bike
Re: Tour de France 2020
« Reply #472 on: October 25, 2020, 12:29:41 am »
Not really. 

Firstly, he only beat Roglic by the margin he did because Roglic had a really bad day.  Roglic already has form for fading toward the end of grand tours - just ask Richard Carapaz - and here he did it in spectacular form. 

Secondly, Pogacar had been looking stronger than Roglic all race, but didn't have the same level of team support to back him up.  Come the ITT where the team-mates weren't there for either of them, and that disadvantage disappeared.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the gap between them really wasn't exceptional by TT standards.  If Roglic hadn't fallen apart, Pog would have beaten him by a minute on the day and they'd have been neck and neck on GC.  A minute, or even two minutes, really isn't anything to write home about though. 

This year's Giro TT: Ganna beat everyone else by 22 seconds, on a course only 15k long. 
Last year's world's TT: Dennis beat Evenepoel by over a minute, and everyone else by another minute, on a course that took them only 10 minutes longer to ride than this year's TdF course. 
Going back to 1989, that was on a 25k course that didn't even have a hill. 

I could go on, but I don't need to do that.  A minute or even two minutes' gap on a TT of that length simply isn't enough to warrant suspicion.  You can think he's a dirty doper if you like but if you're using the final TT as your reason, it's a very ill-founded one.

Re: Tour de France 2020
« Reply #473 on: October 25, 2020, 09:15:53 am »
Also, he beat Roglic in the Slovenian national TT, on a course that suited Roglic, when Roglic was absolutely flying and Pogacar was not at peak form. And Pogacar only lost his major time on the crosswind day - he was clearly the strongest rider in the race otherwise. None of this says that he's clean. But there's no more reason to think that he's dirty than that for the previous 2 winners.

Landis was utterly ridiculous. He lost a ton of time on one day and then took it all back the following day. The only era that happened was back in the days of amphetamines, otherwise a blow up one day means you're going backwards the next day too.

Re: Tour de France 2020
« Reply #474 on: October 25, 2020, 10:16:42 am »
Quote
a mark that is within Sassi's bounds for clean riding.
To my untrained eye this sounds a lot like reading about riders' Hemocrit levels being within the bounds for clear riding.  Looking back at that data the bounds for clean riding were about double what they should have been and anyone near those levels was fo sho a cheating bastard.
Haematocrit levels were set at 50%. Normal range is mid 30s to mid 40s, so it's hardly double.
And the article is basically saying that performances above a certain W/kg for a certain length of time immediately raise questions about whether the athlete is clean, and that Pogacar's numbers were below those thresholds. Doesn't make him clean, but isn't totally alien. That's basically what Ross Tucker said on his podcast too - it was a spectacular performance, but not one that is beyond the possibilities of a clean rider.
None of that can take away the doubt. To be an exceptional cyclist is to be outside the normal, and to produce performances like that will always bring some shadow. The article implies that if he wants to be viewed as clean then he should move to a different team, but you can cast shade over any pretty much any team, either from past associations with known doping (like they do with his current team), or from other shady practises (like the clouds that hung over Sky). Could you "put your hand in the fire" and name 5 riders in the 100 year history who have won the TdF clean?
I think up to 50 is considered normal. I have had one a smidge over that along with some other odd measurements. I had a repeat test a couple of weeks later and it was lower. The gp put it down to lab error or dehydration.