Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Interesting Contador insight I hadn't heard before [jandev] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It's not just shorter, it's a lot shorter: 7-8km and parts are steep. That would inflate the VAM/HR.

The graph is not as definitive as some are pointing it out to be. The difference between the highest and lowest VAMs is 5-6%. If he had to do a climb twice as long as the Verbier would he slow down?

Anyway, I'm not defending Contador. And I'm certainly not saying he was clean or doped and pointing to this data set to argue one way or the other doesn't make a lot of sense.
Quote Reply
Re: Interesting Contador insight I hadn't heard before [styrrell] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
styrrell wrote:
And likely drinking liquids out of plastic bottles.

Styrrell

I always thought, why not go back to storing your blood in glass bottles like they used to do.
Quote Reply
Re: Interesting Contador insight I hadn't heard before [styrrell] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Your understanding of the test is obviously limited since this does not matter.

Also, like the other guy said they can go to glass bottles. When the testing protocol has to be stated prior to the test, then it is very easy for athletes/doctors to determine what you can do to get around them. It is not that difficult. For example: I can get 3 missed tests before a failure. For the time period I am on drugs I hide until i get 2 misses, then I have to ease up for a while. This is called the 3 strikes plan and has been mentioned for many years. There are lots of ways around the test. If you know you can't be tested at night and if you take a certain dose it is out of your system within 8 hours then there you go. Just because you are tested and it doesn't come up positive means nothing. It is no big suprise the PR firms don't want the public to actually understand how the tests are performed and they can keep chanting the "he is the most tested athlete" garbage.

Ride Scoozy Electric Bicycles
http://www.RideScoozy.com
Quote Reply
Re: Interesting Contador insight I hadn't heard before [TriDavis] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm sure they will now. I dislike doping as much as the next guy, but i also believe in fairness. this is peoples livelihoods and reputations afterall. Even the people that did the plasticizer test stated that they couldn't be sure it was due to an IV vs normal environmental factors, but many fans see it as proof positive.

I really wish they would release the blood passport numbers. AC didn't test positive for Clem the day before, then did the next day. If the conspiracy theorists are correct and the Clem came from previous doping administered by IV transfusion, there should be an increase in HCT levels I would think.

Styrrell

Styrrell
Quote Reply
Re: Interesting Contador insight I hadn't heard before [Skippy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Skippy wrote:
I think the Armstrong Alpe d'Huez number from 2004 was the time trial, correct? I think there is some margin of error in there since he didn't ride 2 or 3 Cat 1 or HC climbs over 100 miles before he hit the bottom of the climb.

That can't be true because that is the excuse I am using for not beating Pantani's time up Alpe d'Huez last summer. I did not get that nice 100 mile, 2 HC climb warm up before I hit the bottom. :-)

Skippy wrote:
There are just too may factors at play for this chart to give too much insight into Contador's performance.

Seriously, I agree. WAY too many factors. As you mentioned, how long was the climb? When in the Tour did they hit it? First week? Two days before the end? Big difference. And what about tactics? Realisticly, Armstrong's two wins on Alpe d'Huez, the TT and "the look" should be among the fastest as in either case it was full gas from the bottom of the climb.

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava
Quote Reply
Re: Interesting Contador insight I hadn't heard before [nslckevin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
nslckevin wrote:
Skippy wrote:
I think the Armstrong Alpe d'Huez number from 2004 was the time trial, correct? I think there is some margin of error in there since he didn't ride 2 or 3 Cat 1 or HC climbs over 100 miles before he hit the bottom of the climb.


That can't be true because that is the excuse I am using for not beating Pantani's time up Alpe d'Huez last summer. I did not get that nice 100 mile, 2 HC climb warm up before I hit the bottom. :-)

Skippy wrote:
There are just too may factors at play for this chart to give too much insight into Contador's performance.


Seriously, I agree. WAY too many factors. As you mentioned, how long was the climb? When in the Tour did they hit it? First week? Two days before the end? Big difference. And what about tactics? Realisticly, Armstrong's two wins on Alpe d'Huez, the TT and "the look" should be among the fastest as in either case it was full gas from the bottom of the climb.

From the article in question - responses to some of these questions. Not saying there isn't still some questions

Wind

It's been reported that there was quite a strong wind blowing up the valley on the climb. Alex very helpfully calculated what impact a wind would have on the required power output on the climb. It turns out that with NO WIND, the power output required on the climb is approximately 422W. A tail-wind speed of 3m/s (10km/hour) reduces the power output required to 387W, which is a pretty sizeable difference. Of course, the climb cannot have had a tailwind all the way up - it had hairpins and so there will have been headwinds and tailwinds. However, this is an average tailwind, and it seems reasonable. I tried to watch for signs of strong winds on the climb, but must confess it was not noticeable.

Also, in the graph above, there is no controlling for the wind. Perhaps LeBlanc had a mighty tail-wind on Hautacam in 1994? Perhaps Pantani faced a head-wind in 1997 and could even have been faster? It's impossible to factor that in, which is why it can be risky making judgements in isolation! That is why averages over longer time-periods provide more meaningful information than once off events. The average power output on climbs over the course of a Tour tells you more than single climbs (but more on that in other posts). However, it's safe to say that wind can have a substantial impact on climbing power calculated from ascent time.

Climb length

Many have been quick to point out that the climbing rate should be higher, given that Verbier is a shorter climb than most of those done at the end of Tours. This is certainly a factor, since most of the climbs in the above list are 35 minutes long (Hautacam) or even longer (Alpe d'Huez). Soler's climb in 2007 was short - 22 minutes, but the difference in length is certainly partly responsible. Therefore, Contador's record VAM is at least partly due to a shorter climb.

I say "partly", because I don't believe that the effect of length is as great as many seem to believe. It's certainly a factor, I don't wish to dismiss it, but not as large as one might first thing. For example, when the Tour did the time-trial on Alpe d'Huez in 2004, the climbing times of all the main riders was only just marginally faster than when the same climb was done at the end of a 200km stage (all the other times in that list above). Similarly, long climbs like the Tourmalet and Mont Ventoux are climbed only a few percent slower than the shorter climbs, and so while length plays a role, and would account for some of Contador's record ascent rate, it's not as simple as saying "shorter equals faster".

Race situation

I will say that the way this Tour had gone, the first big finish was always going to be spectacular. The Tour was effectively dormant for 8 days, and the Pyrenees were done with minimal attrition. Therefore, given the situation and the way that the race had developed, the climb was always going to be fast. This again illustrates how isolated climbs can't be taken out of context, and is the reason one should look at a collection of climbs to reduce the impact of these confounders as much as is possible.

Doping?

Finally, I did mention in yesterday's post that given the change in pro-cycling over the last few years, one would expect a drop in climbing rates, not new records. People will wonder about what this record ascent means - it's only natural given cycling's history!

I've hopefully managed to explain some of the other factors that must be considered in the Contador climb, but this question remains, without a doubt. It would be naive to dismiss it out of hand. I will say that performance analysis of single performances does not constitute proof of anything. In fact, it's a weak method of inferring doping. That was never my intention in yesterday's post, by the way (in case it came across that way). The better approach is to look at all climbs and work on averages, as I did for Tour winners from 1989 to 2001 in a previous post.

Why? Because doping has an effect on the repeatability of the performance, just as much as it affects performance acutely. Many will think only of the acute doping effect, but in fact, most of the doping products exert an even bigger effect on recovery, and hence the ability to produce this level of performance over and over. Think testosterone, growth hormone, cortisone, insulin - all are used to reduce stress response or improve post-exercise recovery. Even EPO would have this effect. Therefore, one cannot infer too much from a once-off performance. Rather, you have to look at a collection of performances, which also partly addresses variability provided by wind speed, temperatures and race situation.

In time, however, this performance will be placed into context - one of perhaps 10 climbs in the 2009 Tour, just as there may have been 10 climbs in 2008, 2002 or 1996. At that point, one will get a better idea of what is happening, and hopefully the analysis we did of the Tour winners 1989 to 2001 will be comparable to what is happening now.

Conclusion

That's the short analysis of Contador's climb. It was spectacular, without a doubt - a record in the Tour, even factoring in wind and climb length. There are too many unanswered questions regarding wind, absolute power, gradients and distances, however, which is a pity. Hopefully the discussion and the great debate it produces is worth the absence of a definitive answer! Certainly it has generated a lot of discussion, for which we thank you once again!
Quote Reply

Prev Next