There I said it. Heck, I'll say it again. Alberto Contador is a doper!
Kloden too.
I guess that might mean as much as I hate to say it maybe the Schleck bros too. I had-have always thought of Frank and Andy to be stand up guys. So, I'm on the fence about this one.
But Contador? COME - ON - This guy just had 3 or 4 super human days on the bike and didn't sweat, didn't look to be struggling, didn't look to be in the hurt box whatsoever. Look at his face and Cadel's face or heck Armstrong's face at the finish line a few days ago. Who is truly looking blown and who isn't? I am not sure his performance is possible given the high difficulty of this last week. Maybe the Spanish govt. is feeding him.
On the flipside, yes the guy did basically sit on and do NO work for the entire first week of the tour. But, I am sorry, I just can buy into his abilities. I call FOUL.
At least I can follow some others and make them my personal favs and still enjoy watching the Tour.
Here is some interesting tidbits I found from the web (Credit: :
Analysing Alberto Contador's Tour-winning climb up to Verbier.
In the article, Antoine Vayer calculates that given Contador's power output on that climb (which he calculates as 490W for a 78kg "normalized" rider - more on that later), and with one or two assumptions to turn that power output into oxygen consumption, Contador would be riding at 5.55 L/min. The problem with this is that it implies that Contador's VO2max is about 99.5ml/kg/min!
Not that VO2max is the be-all and end-all of exercise, mind you (though some still believe it's the key variable), but that value is off the charts. Some would say preposterous. Most elite athletes have VO2max values between 70 and 80 ml/kg/min, with a few above this. For Contador to be approaching 100ml/kg/min clearly raises a flag.
Greg Lemond called out for proof that Contador is capable of achieving these numbers without using performance enhanching products "assuming the validity of the calculations".
I personally, don't care too much for Lemond or his bikes old or new. Plus, he's become a bit of a weenie in his old age. I do not agree with his tactics of showing up at press conferences calling people out in this manner. It seems to call too much attention to him and not enough of what he is trying to say or the questions he is asking.
The Cycling News article is actually incorrect when it quotes Vayer as calculating a power output of 490W. In fact, what Vayer has done is to work out a power output and then normalize it for a rider of 70kg and a bike of 8kg, so that different riders can be compared. This value of 490W actually corresponds to an 'absolute' power output of 440W for Contador. This has implications for how one discusses Vayer's subsequent calculations.
Just on this note, I still think that this calculated power output of 440W is a little on the high side. For example:
- Contador's climbing rate (VAMs) using Michele Ferrari's formula, =power output of 6.78 W/kg, or 420W.
- Calculations for the climb, given the speed and gradient, a value of 422 W. Even assume even a small following wind, this power output drops to 397W.
- More "aggressive" assumptions, calculated power output at around 440 W.
Let's assume this high a power output is due to a headwind (which is very unlikely), or that the climb was steeper or longer (or that Contador was riding a bike weighing 28 lbs!). The length and gradient are contentious - there was no data on how long it was or how high it climbed, so Vayer may well be right. In the end, the data from Trainingpeaks.com showed an 8.7km climb and 640m ascent, which seems the safest bet.
There are some other assumptions you have to make - the air density, surface area and so on. However, these have a much smaller impact on the power output than gradient, speed and mass - a lot of people wrote in about this, the effect of air density and road surface. They're factors, don't get me wrong, but they're really very small in comparison with speed, mass and grade.
If this kind of analysis is to be useful, then every single aspect must be factored into the calculation - the wind speed throughout the climb, the mass of rider and bike, the length and gradient of the climb. Then one might be able to make a strong case for the position that what we are seeing is impossible physiologically.
There are people (experts in the sport) who believe that the upper limit of performance should lie around 5.6 to 5.8 W/kg on a longer climb. This is well below what is being calculated for the current Tour, particularly the Verbier. However, if the wind speed is not controlled, then the calculated power output may well fall below that "ceiling". The point is, we don't know what the wind is doing and so the margins are currently too large. Therefore, you cannot use isolated performances, lacking control over variables, to infer doping.
What we should rather do, and hope can be done after this Tour, is to look at the average of all the major climbs - Arcalis, Verbier, Col de Colombiere, Col de Ronne, and see how the power output goes on average. Why? Because doping's biggest impact may not be on the single performance, but on repeat performances through its effect on recovery between rides. Analyzing many riders over a longer period also helps to control the influence of these variables a little better. This analysis would still require accurate estimations of power output, however.
There are some other assumptions you have to make - the air density, surface area and so on. However, these have a much smaller impact on the power output than gradient, speed and mass - a lot of people wrote in about this, the effect of air density and road surface. They're factors, don't get me wrong, but they're really very small in comparison with speed, mass and grade.
If this kind of analysis is to be useful, then every single aspect must be factored into the calculation - the wind speed throughout the climb, the mass of rider and bike, the length and gradient of the climb. Then one might be able to make a strong case for the position that what we are seeing is impossible physiologically.
There are people (experts in the sport) who believe that the upper limit of performance should lie around 5.6 to 5.8 W/kg on a longer climb. This is well below what is being calculated for the current Tour, particularly the Verbier. However, if the wind speed is not controlled, then the calculated power output may well fall below that "ceiling". The point is, we don't know what the wind is doing and so the margins are currently too large. Therefore, you cannot use isolated performances, lacking control over variables, to infer doping.
What we should rather do, and hope can be done after this Tour, is to look at the average of all the major climbs - Arcalis, Verbier, Col de Colombiere, Col de Ronne, and see how the power output goes on average. Why? Because doping's biggest impact may not be on the single performance, but on repeat performances through its effect on recovery between rides. Analyzing many riders over a longer period also helps to control the influence of these variables a little better. This analysis would still require accurate estimations of power output, however.
On another note:
LA & Team Radio Shack - ha ha ha.
what does Radio Shack sell anyway? batteries? What do they gain by paying to sponsor a cycling team?
I used to be a huge fan of RS. for many years I shopped there and supported them and their products. The best part is, their most recent CEO was fired, after they found out he lied about his qualifications on his resume. Really? Wow.
Just like Crocs and thousands of other products that go cheap and lame after becoming popular, RS did the same and got bought out (a few times I think) and took their nice receivers, turntables, speaker technology and went on the cheap. At least I can still go there to buy connectors to build my own cables.
what no comments from the peanut gallery?
