| Author |
 Topic  |
|
KD teammate
Hors Categorie
Denmark
5683 Posts |
 Posted - 06/08/2009 : 12:54:35
|
Number of doping cases in 2007-2009
Back in January (page 9 in this topic) you find my latest statistical update about the number of doping cases. Since then, quiet a few new cases ticked in. So now its time to post a new updated statistic, that also will include the new doping cases from 2009. Just like my statistic at page 9, it will be divided in two parts to show the number of cases for ProTour riders and PCT riders, and supplemented by a statistic to show the number of doping cases pr ProTour team. As a general principle, the exact date of each doping violation, has decided to what year/team the case has been counted (irrespectively of the date where the rider got suspended).
Number of doping cases in the ProTour teams from 2007-2009
In 2008 we several times discussed, how often riders from different nations were testing positive. For sure its a difficult area to make statistics about, since a lot of parameters influence the numbers. For instance the numbers are influenced by, how often the riders are tested, and how agressively the national authoraties are working to discover the doping cases. Finaly we also have to remember, that riders often are introduced to doping through a network in their current team, or through some of their training pals. So its not always just a "national" issue.
In spite of my reservations above, I still find it interesting to look at the numbers in a complete overall statistic. In order to make the statistic as usefull as possible, I decided it should only cover 2007+2008+2009, in order to reflect the numbers from the time frame, who by many is considered to be the true turning point for the Cycling World. So riders who lately were suspended for implication in Operation Puerto (2006) and Operation Oil for Drugs (2004), have not been included, since their violation took place in the "earlier years". Furthermore the statistic has been limited to only cover the ProTour teams, in order to reflect the number of caught riders only at the highest level in Cycling. The decision not to include Professional continental teams, were also made in order to elliminate the uncertainty, related to the fact that riders from the teams in second division still are being tested less often than ProTour riders. Here are the numbers:
Doping cases in 2007: 14 out of 569 ProTour riders (2.5%)
Doping cases in 2008: 19 out of 506 ProTour riders (3.8%)*
Doping cases in 2009: 6 out of 483 ProTour riders (1.2%)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Doping cases 2007-09: 39 out of 732 ProTour riders (5.3%)
*Biological Passport cases with I.Astarloa, P.Caucchioli, F.De Bonis, R.Lobato and T.Dekker are counted in 2008 (since we can presume the crime took place in that year).
In the statistical numbers above, its important to note that only violations made by a rider while having a ProTour status, have been counted. So if a ProTour rider from 2007 changed status to professional continental in 2008, and submits a positive test in that year, he is not counted. This way its possible to create a seperate statistic for respectively ProTour riders and Professional Continental riders. When we add up all the doping cases among ProTour riders in 2007-2009, then we have 39 suspended/fired riders, who caused this percentage of "doping caught" ProTour riders pr. nation:
Austria......: 33% (2/6: B.Kohl, C.Pfannberger)
Ukraine......: 20% (2/10: S.Gonchar, V.Bileka)
Kazakhstan: 17% (3/18: A.Vinokourov, A.Kashechkin, D.Fofonov)
Italy..........: 14% (14/103: Piepoli 07+08, Petacchi, Moreni, Bernucci, Fertonani, Moletta, Bossoni, Murro, Ricco, Rebellin, Da Ros, Caucchioli, De Bonis)
Spain.........: 10% (10/98: I.Mayo, A.Pena, P.Vila, M.Beltran, A.Colom, M.Astarloza, I.Landaluze, R.Serrano, I.Astarloa, R.Lobato)
Germany....: 6% (3/49: P.Sinkewitz, M.Kessler, S.Schumacher)
Denmark....: 5% (1/21: M.Rasmussen)
Russia........: 4% (1/25: V.Gusev)
Netherlands: 2% (1/42: T.Dekker)
Belgium......: 2% (1/64: B.Leukemans)
France.......: 1% (1/129: E.Berthou)
And the remaining big cycling nations (with more than 10 PT riders), who didnt get any PT riders implicated in a doping case from 2007-2009:
Australia.....: 0% (0/28)
Switcherland: 0% (0/19)
USA............: 0% (0/26)
Due to the statistical uncertainty it can not be concluded, that USA is a "cleaner" nation than Denmark. Since the average percentage of riders being implicated in new doping cases was 5.3% in 2007-2009, each nation will under an equal distribution only produce 1 doping case pr. 19th ProTour rider. So thats why we need a nation to have either 2 doping cases or more than 38 riders, in order to make it possible to conclude anything with statistical certainty. So only thing we can conclude for sure, is that France (1%) is a far more clean nation than Austria (33%), Ukraine (20%), Kazhakstan (17%), Italy (14%), Spain (10%) and Germany (6%). A theory to explain why Spain has a lower number of doping cases than Italy, could likely be, that Italian authoraties are working seriously to combat the doping problem, while Spanish authoraties on the contrary always try to protect their riders, from any kind of doping cases.
*Update: Pfannberger, Colom, Astarloza, Landaluze, Serrano and Da Ros consitute those 6 ProTour riders testing positive in 2009.
Number of doping cases in the Professional Continental Teams from 2007-2009
As stated earlier, we have a smaller amount of testing, and normaly also less focus to target the riders, at the Professional Continental Teams. Thats why it didnt make sence to include those teams, in the statistic above with calculation of the caught riders pr nation.
Instead I have created this comparable statistic, for doping related cases at the Professional Continental Teams:
Doping cases in 2007: 4 out of 489 Professional Continental riders (0.8%)
Doping cases in 2008: 9 out of 474 Professional Continental riders (1.9%)
Doping cases in 2009: 3 out of 400 Professional Continental riders (0.8%)
Giuseppe Muraglia (Acqua e Spone, ITA): positive for HCG in March 2007.
Sergio Ribeiro (Benfica, POR): positive for EPO in April 2007.
Jose Pecharroman (Benfica, ESP): positive for Finasteride in Aug.2007.
Nathan O'Neil (HealthNet, AUS): positive for Phentermine in Aug.2007.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximiliano Richeze (CSF Group Navigare, ARG): positive for Stanozolol (anabolic steroid) in April 2008.
Francisco Ventoso (Andalucia, ESP): positive for Furosemide in May 2008.
Ondrej Sosenka (PSK Whirlpool, CZE): positive for Methamphetamine in June 2008.
Moises Duenas (Barloworld, ESP): positive for EPO in July 2008.
Emanuele Sella (CSF Group Navigare, ITA): positive for EPO in July 2008.
Matteo Priamo (CSF Group Navigare, ITA): suplied doping to Emanuele Sella, and doping products were found after searching his house.
Stefano Cavallari (Acqua e Sapone, ITA): positive for EPO in September 2008.
David Kopp (Cycle Collstrop, GER): positive for Cocain during a track competition in Sep.2008.
Iljo Keisse (Topsport Vlaanderen, BEL): positive for cathine and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in November 2008.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Redondo (Andalucia, ESP): positive for methyl-testosterone in March 2009.
Clement Lhotellerie (Vacansoleil, FRA): positive for methyl-hexanamine in April 2009.
Danilo Di Luca (Team LPR, ITA): positive for CERA in 3 samples during Giro d'Italia 2009.
*Update: The cases of Ventoso, Redondo, Lhotellerie and Di Luca have recently been added to the list.
Number of ProTour riders fired/suspended pr.team in 2007-2009
In my statstic before, I posted the 39 doping cases in the ProTour according to nationality. Looking back in the doping history, it was however more common that doping networks were centered around specific teams rather than nations. In example we had lately almost the entire T-mobile team implicated with the Freiburg doctors (until 2006), the most prominent riders from Rabobank involved in Operation Wienerblut (2006), and the entire Liberty Seguros plus Kelme involved with Operation Puerto (2006).
One could speculate, that perhaps some teams are still operating on the dark side in the doping fight, and hence we should see a statistical overweight of cases in those teams. At the same time we should however also remember, that teams with an internal independant doping program and respect for ethical rules, will automaticly also be better to discover any possible riders who cheat with doping, compared to the teams who have no such program and prefer to close their eyes towards all suspectfull facts.
In spite of those reservations the number of doping cases can still be interesting to analyse pr. team (as long as we remember not to judge the teams on the numbers alone, but only use them as part of a further analysis). Below you therefore find the statistic of doping cases pr. ProTour team. To reflect the difference between cases caused by a normal doping test (X) and doping cases caused by some internal action (Y), the statistic has listed the cases as X+Y.
Number of doping cases pr. ProTour team in 2007-2009:
CSC/Saxo Bank.................: 0+0
AG2R...............................: 0+0
Bouyges Telecom..............: 0+0
Francaisse des Jeux...........: 0+0
Garmin.............................: 0+0
Quickstep.........................: 0+0
--------------------------------------
Cofidis.............................: 1+0
Caisse d'Epargne..............: 1+0
Rabobank........................: 1+1
--------------------------------------
Liquigas...........................: 2+0
Katusha...........................: 2+0
Milram.............................: 2+0
Silence-Lotto....................: 2+0
T-mobile/Columbia...........: 2+1
--------------------------------------
Credit Agricole..................: 3+0
Euskatel..........................: 3+0
Lampre...........................: 3+0
Astana............................: 3+1
Gerolsteiner.....................: 4+1
Saunier Duval/Fuji-Servetto: 6+0
Total................................: 39
As you can see from the list, the T-mobile/Columbia team has scored rather high with 3 cases. But those cases all relate to 2007, where the team just had implemented a new strict internal antidoping program and a commitment to discover all cheaters. So a likely theory could be, that they in 2007 failed to also implement a strong enough antidoping culture among the riders. The task was to transform the team from a doping Mecca in 2006 to a completely clean team in 2007, and I think they in 2007 underestimated the work needed to be done, with implementing a new culture among the riders. In comparison CSC-Saxobank already had a strong antidoping culture in place among their riders, before the Damsgaard program was launched in Nov.2006, and hence this team has been succesfull to avoid any doping cases in the last 3 years.
Finaly I also have to highlight, that teams like Caisse d'Epargne, Liquigas and Lampre have all several times acted disrespectfull towards the ethical rules and agreements. Hence I would not be surprised, if those teams are still working to hide doping cases at their team, rather to expose them. When judging the numbers we should be aware about that. Its not likely those 3 teams, will ever launch an internal ethical suspension, even if they have good reason to do so, and hence the number of doping cases perhaps can be a bit lower, compared to some of the other teams.
¤ Winner of the Golden League Fantasy Game 2008 |
Edited by - KD teammate on 09/08/2009 01:02:02 |
 |
|
|
Heppu
Stagiaire
Finland
10 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2009 : 16:59:19
|
Great statistics KD teammate. It is obvious that it is now harder to dope without getting caught. On the other hand where there is money there is always chance to be ahead of testers. I have not seen any time comparisons of the climbs of the Tour 2009 to previous years. I think I saw a couple of years ago that the pace of climbers had come down from those "free" epo years. Can anyone find something on this?
Heppu |
|
|
|
KD teammate
Hors Categorie
Denmark
5683 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2009 : 00:28:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heppu
Great statistics KD teammate. It is obvious that it is now harder to dope without getting caught. On the other hand where there is money there is always chance to be ahead of testers. I have not seen any time comparisons of the climbs of the Tour 2009 to previous years. I think I saw a couple of years ago that the pace of climbers had come down from those "free" epo years. Can anyone find something on this?
Thanks for appreciating my statistic above. It took quiet some time to compile. Unfortunately its still also a hard job to keep track on all the doping cases. The official UCI website only update the status for the UCI controls, and not those samples/violations belonging to the jurisdiction of the national federations. To stay updated about most of the cases, I can recommend to frequently visit all these websites: www.sportpro.it , www.coni.it , www.uci.ch (the uploaded file with antidoping violations), www.tas-cas.org and www.cyclingnews.com .
But let's move on with your question above. You asked for mountain times, and last year I posted the mountain times for Alp d'Huez:
http://forum.team-saxobank.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8031
When Sastre won the Tour de France at this mountain, he did so by climbing up in the 25th fastest time ever on the mountain, and it was in fact slower than his own personal record. To me this was a good sign. But I also believe we shall be very careful to compare the mountain times, since we have a lot of factors making an impact at the times. For instance the wind will always be important, and also at what point in the race the mountain is ridden. If its ridden as an ITT after a restday, then you have the best option to ride as fast as possible. But if its raced after a long hard day in the saddle (and the previous day also was tough one), then the legs might be a little more tired. Finaly the racing tactic will also be extremely important. If riders are doing yo-yo attacks, it will go slower, compared to launching a more constant high speed, and finaly it will help the pace, if you have strong domestique riders exploding in front of you (to set a high speed at the bottom of the mountain).
Of course it could be interesting to have some experts calculate what kind of mountain performances are natural or supernatural. But I think we have so many different factors to compensate for, that they most likely never will agree about the conclusion. In this years Tour de France, we had a lot of debate about the times made by Contador at the 8.7km Verbier mountain, where he set a record high VAM around 1830m/hr. Afterwords some experts debated whether or not it was natural, but couldnt agree. You can read more about it here:
Article 1: www.cyclingnews.com/news/contadors-climbing-credibility-questioned
Article 2: www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-2009-contador-climb.html
¤ Winner of the Golden League Fantasy Game 2008 |
|
|
|
Totally
National Champion
Denmark
660 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2009 : 09:56:00
|
The day that Sastre won on Alpe d'Hues there was a strong headwin, so he could have ridden much faster and the headwind was the main reason that he won so big because none of the other favourites would pull for the others... I think the climbing times are a little less than 5-10 years ago, but only very little and we still have a rider like Contador who very mmuch differ from that general tendency... think about that for a moment if you'd like.
In order to really understand me you must think |
|
|
|
OctaBech
National Champion
Denmark
898 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2009 : 11:06:35
|
Strong headwind on L'Alpe d'Huez? oO Heh, didn't even know that would be possible with its trees, 180 degree slopes and the walls.
- Professional Couchrider |
|
|
|
Totally
National Champion
Denmark
660 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2009 : 17:07:13
|
Well, unless the top of the climb is directly above the riders' heads when they begin the ascent, they will have to move in a general direction. They may bend, twist and curl as much as they want but they will still have a general direction... that should be obvious to anyone above the age of 5 or even less...
On another note the climb is not that full 180 degree turns in the beginning.
In order to really understand me you must think |
|
|
|
KD teammate
Hors Categorie
Denmark
5683 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2009 : 21:03:29
|
Mountain times, VAM and Power Ratio
Mountain times and VAM (vertical ascent in meters per hour) should only be compared with great precaution! As mentioned in my post above, we have too many variable factors impacting the numbers, to use them to decide whether or not a rider deliver a supernatural performance. When calculating Contadors record high VAM (1864m/hr) at Verbier, then experts have pointed out that he was also helped by a wind from behind at 10km/hr (meaning that he needed to pedal 8% less Watts, compared to if no wind had been blowing). The fact that the mountain also was ridden after an easy stage (and the previous stages being easy) also made it possible for Contador to attack the mountain with fresh legs. Finaly his record was also helped by Saxo Bank setting a blistering high tempo at the bottom of the mountain, so when Contador attacked with 5km to go, he already had a great time to build upon. I speculate Contador was doped, but his VAM record is no proof by itself.
In regards of VAM it shall also be noted, that it depends upon how steep the mountain is. We have a special formula for that, but without going into details, I just want to highlight that a rider performing the same Watts, will get a higher VAM when the gradient gets steeper. Of course it shall also be noted, that the longer the climb is, then it will be more difficult for the rider to sustain a high VAM all the way. Contadors record at Verbier (8.7km=7.5%) was to some degree therefor also helped, by the fact that the mountain was short and steep.
Instead of comparing VAMs, then its normaly a lot better to compare and discuss the recorded mountain times for each mountain. Here we at least have the same course and gradients for all riders. But again we should remember to counter in factors like racing tactics and wind conditions. When Sastre won at Alp d'Huez in 2008, he attacked right from the bottom of the mountain, and basicly raced it as an ITT. So I have no doubt that he raced it as fast as he could. Its also correct, as Octabech pointed out, that wind conditions have less impact at Alp D'Huez compared to a wind blown mountain like Mont Ventoux. So its not reasonable to expect the wind slowed down Sastre incredibly much. Under those circumstances, it was very reassuring for me to know, that Sastre didnt post a new world record at the mountain, but instead posted a time that was only the 25th best in the racing history of the mountain, and comparable to the level of his former personal record.
With all this being said about mountain times, then we shall however be aware that its still not an accurate enough measurement, to decide whether or not a performance was supernatural. In order to do that, we instead need to measure the exact Watts being performaned by the rider, all the way at the mountain. In this years Tour de France we had 2 Saxo Bank riders (Nicki Sørensen and Chris Anker) riding with a SRM computer. Most of you already know, but this computer measured the Watts each 1.3s (with an accuracy of 0.5%), and stored them into a big datasheet. But unfortunately Contador didnt ride with that, so we have no measured values of his Watts. And the experts cant calculate it with enough accuracy, since they dont know the exact wind speed, and how efficient Contadors aerodynamic position is on the bike.
If all riders start to ride with a SRM computer, then we can read an accurate number of their Watts. Knowing the riders weight plus the bike weight (could be measured each day by the race organiser, and adjusted for water biddons), then its possible to calculate the riders exact power ratio (W/kg). Those power ratios can sometime in the future perhaps be part of the biological passport. If UCI bring each rider into a lab, they can measure his personal VO2max and calculate a maximum power ratio for each rider, based on that. The problem with that will however be, that a doped rider will know his speed limit, and be able to adjust his speed in the races, so he never gets caught.
Currently I therefor doubt, that Greg Lemonds interesting suggestion to use Max. power ratios as a new tool in the antidoping fight, will be something that UCI will ever consider for real. Lately it has been a hot topic, and I have been reading several articles about it. In one of the latest one (www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-2009-contador-climb.html), we find a calculation of the power ratios for all Tour winners in 1989-2001. The average values have been calculated for the Tour winners performance at the last mountain, on all those stages ending with a mountain summit. Since its based upon calculated Watts from VAM, rather than measured Watts, we should of course be aware of all the uncertainties. But the numbers are still interesting to read in order to check if we can find some general overall tendencies.
Greg Lemond has suggested, that we shouldnt trust any values above the level of 5.7 W/kg. Knowing that 90% of the riders doped in the 90s, and checking the average values of the Tour winners in 1989-2001, he might have a valid point about that. But rather than jumping to any conclusions, about what the true limit should be for a "natural performance", I would instead prefer some experts to define this maximum value for each rider (based on VO2max). And then again, we need the riders SRM data, and not VAM, to show us his exact Watts/Kg. 
EDIT: To get a sneak peak of how the SRM data looks like, then here it is for Chris Anker Sørensen at the Verbier mountain (5.6W/kg):
www.srm.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=420:analyse-der-15-etappe-tdf-%2009&catid=112:le-france-09-blog&Itemid=260&lang=en
¤ Winner of the Golden League Fantasy Game 2008 |
Edited by - KD teammate on 09/08/2009 23:57:08 |
|
|
|
sander
Hors Categorie
Belgium
2336 Posts |
|
|
Heppu
Stagiaire
Finland
10 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2009 : 13:11:41
|
Thanks for very broad and interesting reply KD teammate. Also some links were new to me and of good quality. Bottom line seems to be that now I am aware of the problem on a higher level, but we don´t really have the answer to the question "do present top riders climb mountains more quickly than heavily doped riders 5-10 years ago"?
For me Contador and other top riders are suspicious cases. Actually every spanish endurance athlete ought to be suspected. Thinking in the light of Jackshe´s and Sinkewitz´s revelations and thoughts I am sure they would not believe present top riders to be clean.
But the TdF is a great show and show must go on. With professional sports we are more and more in a situation were public "knows" that the athletes are doped but they don´t give a damn. Like in US where 104 MLB players were secretly tested positive (2003) but the game flourishes like it has done already for generations.
Heppu |
|
|
|
Paul@CSC
World Champion
United Kingdom
1415 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2009 : 13:59:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by OctaBech
Strong headwind on L'Alpe d'Huez? oO Heh, didn't even know that would be possible with its trees, 180 degree slopes and the walls.
- Professional Couchrider
It's up the side of a mountain, of course its posible............
Honesty is the best Policy!!
http://pauljones-journey.spaces.live.com |
|
|
|
OctaBech
National Champion
Denmark
898 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2009 : 14:45:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paul@CSC
quote:
Originally posted by OctaBech
Strong headwind on L'Alpe d'Huez? oO Heh, didn't even know that would be possible with its trees, 180 degree slopes and the walls.
- Professional Couchrider
It's up the side of a mountain, of course its posible............
Honesty is the best Policy!!
http://pauljones-journey.spaces.live.com
Yes if one overlook the 180 degree turns making headwind to ______ 
I'm just saying that the wind played a smaller factor than the Schlecks constant attacks and Evans underestimating Sastre(he only had his eyes on Fränk till at was too late).
- Professional Couchrider |
|
|
|
KD teammate
Hors Categorie
Denmark
5683 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2009 : 17:06:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heppu
Thanks for very broad and interesting reply KD teammate. Also some links were new to me and of good quality. Bottom line seems to be that now I am aware of the problem on a higher level, but we don´t really have the answer to the question "do present top riders climb mountains more quickly than heavily doped riders 5-10 years ago"?
For me Contador and other top riders are suspicious cases. Actually every spanish endurance athlete ought to be suspected. Thinking in the light of Jackshe´s and Sinkewitz´s revelations and thoughts I am sure they would not believe present top riders to be clean.
During the Tour, we had a small discussion about Contador in the Tour folder. Without going into details, I would just like to repeat, that the reason why I dont trust him, is due to his shady past as a client in Operation Puerto, and that he now has developed to become both superior in the mountains and the long flat ITTs. Normaly you would expect a light and acceleration strong mountain rider, to at least loose a small amount of time against great Rolleurs in the long flat ITTs. I cant recall other riders in the past history than Contador, to be superior in both disciplines, and this turn on a good amount of suspicion. But in regards of evaluating whether or not a rider has made a supernatural performance, then I dont believe this can be decided by just calculating his mountain times.
As I wrote in my post above, one of the problems is to include all uncertainties into the equation. But even if we get access to a riders "Power ratio by weight" (accurately measured by a SRM computer), we still have the problem to figure out what kind of natural level the rider is supposed to have? This question cant be solved, without a lab performing detailed VO2max test of the rider "when being clean". And with the long term effect of doping, plus the fact that those riders who cheat, most commonly dope with small undetectable dosis throughout the entire year. Then I think most of us can imagine, how difficult it is to draw a clean basis line, to decide how big a riders maximum Power Ratio by weight can be.
The problem is, that each rider will show different levels. Some will have a higher VO2max than others, and some will benefit of having a higher effeciency to convert O2 to energy in the muscles. Those who scores high in both areas will have the best option, to also perform with a natural high "Power Ratio to weight". But how can we then decide who is born with better genes, and who is doping? Unfortunately their exist no easy shortcuts! We still have to rely on conventional doping tests to reveal, whether or not a rider cheats, or posses a great talent.
Some years ago a small research was made in Denmark, that showed a rider who doped with EPO "just" became 28% stronger, meaning he would be 7% faster to ride a mountain (corresponding to 7% higher VAMs). Of course this is a great improvement in the pro world. But if we decrease Contadors record high VAM at Verbier (1864m/hr) with 7%, it would still be 1733m/hr. A value meaning he would have been 1:35 slower (with a mountain time of 22:30 instead of 20:55), and according to the result of the stage, Contador would then still have finished as nr.9 that day, and posted the exact same time as Lance Armstrong. My only point is, that eventhough doping will still make a big difference for a rider, then its not likely a good rider will be miles away without! So its almost impossible to know, when the "extra" speed is caused by superior talent, or the rider being doped.
I am aware that the overall positive effect of doping, is difficult to measure. Because what will happen, when riders mix viagra, endurance pills, testosterone, insuline, cortisone, EPO, and who know what else, at the same time? We also lack research to establish how much positive effect an athlete gain through a sustained doping program in several years. So I acknowledge the positive effect from the right doping mix, perhaps could increase the speed with more than 7%. We dont know the exact numbers for sure.
Even if we assume a sustained and comprehensive doping program perhaps can yield a 14% faster speed (corresponding to 56% higher energy consumption), then I however still think its difficult to say for sure, if a certain rider is doped, or just blessed with a very big fysical talent. In the past history we have learned about many doped riders, who inspite of their doping program didnt become good enough to even take part as domestique riders in Tour de France. So its hard to tell. Perhaps an undoped Contador would perform at the level of Sastre? And perhaps a doped Andy Schleck could outclass the old mountain records of Pantani? Nobody knows for sure, so we can only speculate. I believe the natural variation between the riders will still make a huge difference by itself. So I think its increasingly difficult to set an upper limit of the maximum "Power to weight ratio" to be allowed.
To cut it out plain and simple, then we of course have an upper limit of whats possible to be achieved in natural ways. But I just believe its impossible to say if the limit should be 6.0, 6.5 or 7.0 W/kg. Looking back at previous numbers posted by Lemond, we should also remember to count in the effect of faster bikes and better training. Of course doping in the 90s also had a huge impact, but if we imagine that Greg Lemond would be 30 years today, then one could perhaps claim, that his previous value of 5.7 W/kg would correspond to an improved value of 6.2 W/kg, due to those "natural" improvements.
What I try to point out, is that we cant rely on old power to weight ratios, to draw a basis line of what the natural limit should be today. We need very solid research to establish that limit, and take all variables into account. I wouldnt even try to guess about it, and I think its wrong if someone claims, that a natural limit cant exceed the previous values posted by Tour winners in 1989-1993.
And again, we shall also be aware, that even if an expert calculates an upper limit, then it will be no guarantee at all, that riders below that limit are clean! The limit will also variate for each rider, depending at his fysical characteristics/talent. So a rider without talent might have a natural limit of 5 W/kg, while a super atlethe will have a natural limit at 6.5 W/kg. Without a lab test its impossible to know.
In spite of all my reservations about using Power to Weight ratio statistics, to establish an upper limit, then I couldnt help to compile a nice little overview of the numbers, to show how it has developed in the recent years. Once again we should be aware of the numbers being calculated from VAMs, and not measured by SRM computer, so the wind effect is not shown by the numbers. The ratios has been calculated for the Tour winner, as an average of his "Power ratio" on the last Cat.1/HC mountain in all the mountain stages:
Average Power Ratio for Lemond (1989)..: 5.7 W/kg
Average Power Ratio for Lemond (1990)..: 5.7 W/kg
Average Power Ratio for Indurain (1991)..: 5.3 W/kg
Average Power Ratio for Indurain (1992)..: 4.9 W/kg
Average Power Ratio for Indurain (1993)..: 5.7 W/kg
Average Power Ratio for Indurain (1994)..: 6.0 W/kg
------------------------------------------------------------
Average Power Ratio for Indurain (1995)..: 6.35 W/kg
Average Power Ratio for Riis (1996).........: 6.47 W/kg
Average Power Ratio for Ullrich (1997)......: 6.33 W/kg
Average Power Ratio for Pantani (1998)....: 6.63 W/kg
------------------------------------------------------------
Average Power Ratio for Armstrong (1999): 5.88 W/kg
Average Power Ratio for Armstrong (2000): 6.1 W/kg
Average Power Ratio for Armstrong (2001): 6.3 W/kg
Source: www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-de-france-2009-power-estimates.html
Average Power Ratio for Armstrong (2002): 416 st.W = 5.94 W/kg
Average Power Ratio for Armstrong (2003): 423 st.W = 6.04 W/kg
Average Power Ratio for Armstrong (2004): 442 st.W = 6.31 W/kg
Average Power Ratio for Armstrong (2005): 425 st.W = 6.07 W/kg
Source: www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=2500
Average Power Ratio for Landis (2006)*....: 387 st.W = 5.53 W/kg
Average Power Ratio for Contador (2007)*: 410 st.W = 5.86 W/kg
Average Power Ratio for Sastre (2008)*....: 415 st.W = 5.93 W/kg
Average Power Ratio for Contador (2009)*: 414 st.W = 5.92 W/kg
*Calculated upon all the mountains specified in next chapter.
When analyzing the data above, the Tour winners power ratio average, can be divided into these 4 time frames:
1989-1994 average: 5.55 W/kg, with all years in the interval from 4.9-6.0 W/kg
1995-1998 average: 6.45 W/kg, with all years in the interval from 6.3-6.6 W/kg
1999-2005 average: 6.09 W/kg, with all years in the interval from 5.9-6.3 W/kg
2006-2009 average: 5.81 W/kg, with all years in the interval from 5.5-6.0 W/kg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NB: All calculations above has assumed the standard weight of the bike to be 8kg. But since the average bike became 2kg lighter from 1994 to 2000 (where it ended at UCIs min.weight of 6.8kg), we have a positive theoretical impact on the calculated Power ratios with +0.2W/kg from 1994 to 2000. But most remarkably the ratios didnt rise, but actualy declined! A likely explanation for the decline, is that UCI at that time started to perform strict control of riders, to never exceed heamatocrite levels of 50%. The decision didnt prevent riders to dope, but it put an upper limit to how heavily they could dope.
Inspite of average values being interesting to look at, its highly recommended not just to look at the average. Instead we should take a closer look at all the mountain values for each year, to truely understand how we should interpret the performance of the Tour winner. One important tendency to look out for, is that the Tour winner quiet often only ride at his maximum at one stage to settle the GC, and after that he rides more defensively and awaits attack from his competitors. So while the Tour winner sets the pace for 1 mountain, it might be his competitors deciding the pace for the next following mountains. This could very well have ment a huge difference both in 1991-1994 and 2009 (to lower the speed of the Tour winner compared to his potential). So one should also look out for the Tour winners best mountain power ratio, and not just the average during the entire Tour. In top of that we shall of course also continue to remember impacting factors like wind, temperature, density of air, road surface, race situation, and the length of the climb. 
Here is a detailed specification for some of the years:
The Tour winners power ratio by weight, has been calculated on the last Cat.1/HC mountain on all mountain stages. When a mountain was ridden to end the stage at the summit, it has been noted in the list with a * (to indicate that tactical considerations was less complicated).
High power ratios above 6.5 W/kg are marked with red. All numbers from 1989-2005 are from this article: www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=2500
The notion "Standard Watt (St.W)" is the calculated Watts it will take to move a standard 70kg rider + 8kg bike, up the mountain at the posted time.
Pr. definition the final power ratio value is shown per Kg rider, and therefor calculated by dividing the "Standard Watt" with 70kg.
The riders "Absolute Watt" will depend upon his weight, and has not been calculated below. NB: Be careful not to mix the 2 different notions.
If the rider has a SRM computer, it will measure "Absolute Watt", and then the power ratios can easily be calculated by dividing with his weight.
Lemonds power ratios in Tour de France 1989:
Superbagnères*...: 400 st.W = 5.71 W/kg (Robert Millar won the stage)
Izoard.................: 390 st.W = 5.57 W/kg (Pascal Richard won the stage)
Alp d'Huez*.........: 376 st.W = 5.37 W/kg (Fignon was the fastest rider with 390 st.W = 5.57 W/kg)
St.Nizier..............: 393 st.W = 5.61 W/kg
------------------------------------------------
Average ratio for 4 mountains: 5.57 W/kg
Note: Data for the two mountains Cambasque* (won by Indurain) and Orcieres-Merlette* (ITT, with Theunisse as fastest climber), has not been calculated.
Indurains power ratios in Tour de France 1994:
Hautacam*..........: 460 st.W = 6.57 W/kg
Luz Ardiden*.......: 415 st.W = 5.93 W/kg (Pantani was 3:08 faster than Indurain => An estimated power at 452st.W = 6.46W/kg)
Mont Ventoux......: 424 st.W = 6.06 W/kg
Alpe d'Huez*.......: 420 st.W = 6.00 W/kg (Pantani was the fastest rider with 460 st.W = 6.57 W/kg)
Val Thorens*.......: 402 st.W = 5.74 W/kg (Pantani was the fastest rider with 437 st.W = 6.24 W/kg)
Avoriaz (ITT)*.....: 434 st.W = 6.20 W/kg (Ugrumov was fastest at the last mountain to Avoriaz)
-----------------------------------------------
Average ratio for 6 mountains: 6.08 W/kg
Note: Data for the mountain Colombiere (where Ugrumov apparently was fastest), has not been calculated.
Bjarne Riis power ratio in Tour de France 1996:
Les Arcs*............: 410 st.W = 5.86 W/kg (Luc Leblanc was 0:56 faster than Riis)
Val d'Isere (ITT)*: 450 st.W = 6.43 W/kg (Berzin won the ITT, but Riis was fastest to ride the 6km=8.3% of Val d'Isere)
Sestrieres*.........: 450 st.W = 6.43 W/kg
Hautacam*.........: 480 st.W = 6.86 W/kg
-----------------------------------------------
Average ratio for 4 mountains: 6.40 W/kg
Note: Data was not calculated for the mountain Port de Larrau (15.3km=7.9%), where a favourite group of 8 riders (incl.Riis) was fastest.
Ullrichs power ratio in Tour de France 1997:
Azet....................: 416 st.W = 5.94 W/kg
Arcalis*...............: 475 st.W = 6.78 W/kg
Chaubouret (ITT).: 484 st.W = 6.91 W/kg
Alpe d'Huez*.......: 450 st.W = 6.43 W/kg (Pantani was the fastest rider with 465 st.W = 6.64 W/kg)
Courchevel*........: 373 st.W = 5.33 W/kg (Attack/chasing between the favourites from start of the stage, made them tired before the final climb)
Joux Plane..........: 432 st.W = 6.17 W/kg (Pantani was 1:02 faster than Ullrich)
-----------------------------------------------
Average ratio for 6 mountains: 6.26 W/kg
Note: Data was not calculated for the mountain La Croix (where Riis was droped, due to Mercatone Uno setting a high pace in the favourite group of 23 riders).
Armstrongs power ratios in Tour de France 1999:
Sestrieres*..........: 430 st.W = 6.14 W/kg
Alpe d'Huez*.......: 410 st.W = 5.86 W/kg (Guerini attacked with 2.8km to go, and was 25s faster than Armstrong)
Piau Engaly*.......: 387 st.W = 5.53 W/kg (Virenque was droped at the penultimate mountain, but climbed the last mountain Piau Engaly 1 min. faster than Armstrong)
Soulor................: 436 st.W = 6.23 W/kg (Tonkov+Elli+D.Etxebarria launched an early breakaway, and climbed Soulor 1:05 faster than Armstrong)
-----------------------------------------------
Average ratio for 4 mountains: 5.94 W/kg
Note: Data for stage 16 was calculated for the penultimate mountain Soulor, and not the final Aubisque (where Armstrong+Zülle+Escartin+Contreras were fastest).
(Source: www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-de-france-2009-power-estimates.html)
Armstrongs power ratios in Tour de France 2000:
Hautacam*.........: 450 st.W = 6.43 W/kg
Mont Ventoux*....: 418 st.W = 5.97 W/kg
Izoard................: 418 st.W = 5.97 W/kg
Courchevel*........: 422 st.W = 6.03 W/kg (Pantani was 0:50 faster than Armstrong => An estimated power of 6.1 W/kg)
Joux Plane..........: 396 st.W = 5.66 W/kg (Virenque was 2:01 faster than Armstrong => An estimated power of 6.0 W/kg)
-----------------------------------------------
Average ratio for 5 mountains: 6.01 W/kg
Armstrongs power ratios in Tour de France 2001:
Alpe d'Huez*.......: 452 st.W = 6.46 W/kg
Chamrousse........: 445 st.W = 6.36 W/kg
Plateau Bonascre*: 475 st.W = 6.79 W/kg
Pla d'Adet*..........: 439 st.W = 6.27 W/kg
Luz Ardiden*........: 411 st.W = 5.87 W/kg (Laiseka was 1:08 faster than Armstrong => An estimated power of 6.06 W/kg)
-----------------------------------------------
Average ratio for 5 mountains: 6.35 W/kg
(Source: www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-de-france-2009-power-estimates.html)
Armstrongs power ratios in Tour de France 2005:
Courchevel*....................: 450 st.W = 6.43 W/kg
Galibier...........................: 373 st.W = 5.33 W/kg (Favourite group set a calm pace, and allowed a breakaway to last)
AX3 Domaines(Bonascre)*: 452 st.W = 6.46 W/kg
Pla d'Adet (St.Lary)*........: 423 st.W = 6.04 W/kg
Aubisque........................: 426 st.W = 6.09 W/kg
---------------------------------------------------------
Average ratio for 5 mountains: 6.07 W/kg
Note: Data was not calculated for the mountain Ballon d'Alsace (9.1km=6.8%), where a breakaway and big peleton posted the same climbing time (around 21-22min).
Floyd Landis power ratios in Tour de France 2006:
Marie Blanque, final (5.35km=9.93% =>530m).: T=19:38 => VAM=1620m/h, Ferrari formula=5.41 W/kg (Michael Rasmussen was fastest with 19:00=>5.59 W/kg)
Pla-de-Beret (13.0km=5.5% =>715m)*.........: T=30min => VAM=1430m/h, Ferrari formula=5.61 W/kg
Alpe d'Huez (13.8km=8.11% =>1120m)*.......: T=38:36 => VAM=1741m/h, and 440 st.W = 6.29 W/kg
La Toussuire (18.85km=5.88% =>1108m)*.....: T=53:29 => VAM=1243m/h, and 330 st.W = 4.71 W/kg (Sastre was fastest with 45:06 and 415st.W=5.93 W/kg)
Joux Plane (11.7km=8.5% => 995m)............: T=36:57 => VAM=1616m/h, and 395 st.W = 5.64 W/kg (Sastre was fastest with 35:50 and 410st.W=5.86 W/kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Ratio for the 5 mountains: 5.53 W/kg
(Source: www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=3466 + www.letour.fr/2006/TDF/LIVE/us/1100/depeches.html + www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=2470)
Contadors power ratios in Tour de France 2007:
Colombiere, last part (7.3km=8.67% =>633m)..: T=23:03 => VAM=1648m/h, Ferrari formula=5.75 W/kg (Soler was fastest with 22:00 => 6.02W/kg)
Tignes, part of Iseran (18.0km=5.4% =>971m)*.: T=44min => VAM=1324m/h, Ferrari formula=5.21 W/kg (Mayo was 44s faster => 5.33 W/kg)
Galibier (12.5km=7.80% =>975m).................: T=36:20 => VAM=1610m/h, Ferrari formula=5.79 W/kg (Soler was fastest with 35:45 => 5.89 W/kg)
Plateau de Beille (15.9km=7.89% =>1255m)*.: T=44:17 => VAM=1700m/h, and 431 st.W = 6.16 W/kg
Col de Peyresourde (8.78km=7.48% =>656m): T=23:26 => VAM=1680m/h, and 436 st.W = 6.23 W/kg
Aubisque, total (17.0km=6.97% =>1184m)*.....: T=43:58 => VAM=1616m/h, Ferrari formula=5.99 W/kg (Michael Rasmussen was 35s faster => 6.07 W/kg)
Aubisque, final (10.85km=8.01% =>869m)*.....: T=31:28 => VAM=1657m/h, and 419 st.W = 5.99 W/kg (M.Rasmussen was 35s faster => 428 st.W=6.11 W/kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Ratio for the 6 mountains: 5.86 W/kg
(Source: www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=3466 + www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=5192 + www.letour.fr/2007/TDF/LIVE/us/900/depeches.html)
Sastres power ratios in Tour de France 2008:
Col d'Aspin, first part (4km=5.38% =>215m).: T=08:00 => VAM=1613m/h, Ferrari formula=6.35 W/kg (peleton was compact and got advantage of "wind suck")
Col d'Aspin, total (12.6km=6.38% =>804m)...: T=30:36 => VAM=1576m/h, Ferrari formula=5.98 W/kg (due to first 4km of "wind suck", this value cant be used!)
Col d'Aspin, last part (8.6km=6.85% =>589m): T=22:36 => VAM=1564m/h, and 414 st.W = 5.91 W/kg (Ricco was fastest with 21:20 and 445 st.W = 6.36 W/kg)
Hautacam (13.8km=7.68% =>1060m)*........: T=39:47 => VAM=1599m/h, and 408 st.W = 5.83 W/kg (Piepoli was fastest with 37:30 and 439 st.W = 6.27 W/kg)
Prato Nevoso (8.5km=7.88% =>670m)*......: T=24:10 => VAM=1663m/h, and 423 st.W = 6.04 W/kg
Bonette, midsector (8.4km=7.02% =>590m)...: T=23:00 => VAM=1539m/h, and 400 st.W = 5.71 W/kg
Bonette, total (26.8km=6.18% =>1658m).......: T=68:13 => VAM=1458m/h, Ferrari formula=5.57 W/kg
Alpe d'Huez (13.8km=8.11% =>1120m)*......: T=39:30 => VAM=1701m/h, and 430 st.W = 6.14 W/kg
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Ratio for the 5 mountains: 5.93 W/kg
(Source: www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=4386 + www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=4348)
Contadors power ratios in Tour de France 2009:
Arcalis (10.0km=6.9% =>690m)*..............: T=25:20 => VAM=1634m/h, Ferrari formula=6.08 W/kg
Agnes (12.39km=6.36% =>788m).............: T=35:52 => VAM=1318m/h, SRM measured=5.48 W/kg (Astarloza was fastest with 35:07, and estimated 5.59 W/kg)
Tourmalet (17.05km=7.00% =>1193m)......: T=54:05 => VAM=1324m/h, SRM estimated=4.81 W/kg (Pellizotti was fastest with 53:17, and estimated 4.89 W/kg)
Verbier, first part (2.7km=6.70% =>181m)*: T=05:57 => VAM=1825m/h, and 550 st.W = 7.86 W/kg (peleton was compact and got advantage of "wind suck")
Verbier, total (8.5km=7.61% =>647m)*......: T=20:55 => VAM=1856m/h, and 490 st.W = 7.00 W/kg (due to first 2.7km of "wind suck", this value cant be used!)
Verbier, final (5.8km=8.03% =>466m)*......: T=14:58 => VAM=1868m/h, and 472 st.W = 6.74 W/kg (In the note below its however calculated to 6.83 W/kg!)
Petit St.Bernard,tot (13km=5.75%=>748m)...: T=30:27 => VAM=1474m/h, Ferrari formula=5.72 W/kg (but in last 2.75km the power droped to 4.97 W/kg)
Petit St.Bernard,adj (10.25km=5.9%=>609m): T=23:45 => VAM=1539m/h, and 430 st.W = 6.14 W/kg (excl. the last 2.75km where favourites waited for help)
Colombiere (8.0km=8.06% =>647m)........: T=22:48 => VAM=1703m/h, and 430 st.W = 6.14 W/kg
Mont Ventoux (21.6km=7.4% =>1599m)*..: T=58:40 => VAM=1635m/h, Ferrari formula=5.97 W/kg
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Ratio for the 7 mountains: 5.92 W/kg
Note: When Portoleau calculated the riders standard watt at the first section of Verbier, he apparently made the mistake to assume that the mountains average gradient of 7.61% could be used for this part of the mountain. When using the correct gradient of 6.93% for the first 2.7km (measured by Chris Ankers SRM computer), then his calculation for this section will instead just show 510 standard watt = 7.28 W/kg (Ferrari=7.00 + correction=0.28). And the remaining 5.8km will then show 478 standard watt = 6.83 W/kg (Ferrari=6.55 + correction=0.28). To read more about these specific calculations, then check the next long post I wrote about it at page 19 in this topic.
(Source: www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=5218 + www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=5184 + www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=5221)
(Source for Agnes: www.srm.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=414&Itemid=260&lang=en + www.letour.fr/2009/TDF/LIVE/us/800/depeches.html)
(Source for Tourmalet: www.srm.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=415&Itemid=260&lang=en + www.letour.fr/2009/TDF/LIVE/us/900/depeches.html)
When listing the power ratio numbers from 2009, I had 2 different data set. But I only used the data from my main source Frédéric Portoleau (from Cyclismag). This choise was made, in order to stick with the same source and calculation method for all the years. My alternative data was found at the webpage of Michele Ferrari (www.53x12.com/do/show?page=indepth.view&id=105). His calculation give the same result as Portoleau (with a max.deviation of 0.2W/kg), but sometimes they differ a lot (ie in the value for Verbier, and measured sections of Mont Ventoux). The numbers from Ferrari are shown below, and calculated by the formula: Power ratio = VAM/((2+(Gradient*10))*100)
Data of Contadors power ratios in 2009 from Michele Ferrari:
Arcalis (10.6km=7.1% =>751m)...................: VAM=1671m/h => 6.18 W/kg
Verbier (8.5km=7.5% =>638m)...................: VAM=1852m/h => 6.73 W/kg
Mont Ventoux, part1 (5km=9.5% =>475m)..: VAM=1850m/h => 6.27 W/kg
Mont Ventoux, part2 (5km=7.8% =>390m)..: VAM=1450m/h => 5.22 W/kg (where the favourite group slowed down due to "waiting game" and "yoyo attacks")
Mont Ventoux, part3 (5km=8.6% =>430m)..: VAM=1755m/h => 6.13 W/kg
Mont Ventoux, total (15km=8.6% =>1295m): VAM=1685m/h => 5.88 W/kg
EDIT 17/8: The latest update is just about adding a note for the years in 1989-2005, of those mountains not being included in the calculation, and additional info if someone else than the Tour winner, was fastest rider at some of the last mountains. At some later point of time, I will also update the mountains with ??? in 2006 and 2007, with some calculated power ratios. Of course the last details are only for reference (and wont change any of the conclusions).
EDIT 26/8: Todays update has added calculated power ratios for the last 3 mountains: Pla-de-Beret (2006), Tignes (2007) and Galibier (2007).
EDIT 29/8: This final edit, was just to update the calculation of the Verbier mountain in 2009.
Final comment about the method/idea to compare power ratios of the Tour winners:
After some additional thoughts, I decided for some of the mountains also to post values for several sections. In the calculations of Standard Watt made by Frédéric Portoleau, he often chose to let power ratios get calculated only for a certain part of the mountain. One of the reasons is not to let the numbers get polluted by "Wind suck", when the peleton is compact. But on the other hand we should also be aware, that this correction -to only measure a certain part of the mountain-, doesnt necessarily mean that we then will find the true strength of the rider! If we for instance have a look at Col d'Aspin in 2008, then its correct that "wind suck" helped to increase the speed of the peleton at the first 4km. In those situations, the riders in the front line normaly use 20% more watts compared to wheelsuckers behind. So inspite of a situation where the favourites go faster than normal, they actualy use less Watts than normal for that part of mountain. But here is where the uncertainty start to materialize! Because if you can ride on "power saving mode" in 4km before the real action is opened up, then you basicly save up powers for the "big bang" to happen, and we should theoreticly therefor also expect the calculated watts for the final part of the mountain, to be higher than normal.
There is no correct/wrong way to show the data. But I just wanted to highlight, that due to "Wind effects" a rider will always perform higher standard watts if he arrive at the bottom of the mountain in a compact peleton (where he can ride with "power saving mode" before he attacks), compared to when he arrive at the bottom in a small selective favourite group (where he cant save up his powers for the action to come, at least not to the same extent). So due to the racing situation alone, its impossible to compare the values for each mountain between the years!
The theory of some "experts" is, that if we take the average value for the last mountain, and add them together for all the stages, then we sort of "wash out" the impact of different racing situations going on in the Tour. But this is the point where we should be really careful, since by doing that we risk to arrive at some false conclusions! If we one year have a Tour winner, who race with a different tactic compared to other years, then the average of his power ratios will be highly affected. In that sence it would be even more false, if we start to compare the power ratio average between different years!
In top of this post, I mentioned the effect of a "Tour Champ" only riding maximum at 1 mountain stage, and then afterwords riding defensivly (and letting his competitors decide the pace). Another difference could be, how many stages we have where the speed of the favourite group is not turned up to max, due to a situation where a breakaway group fights for the stagewin (rather than the favourites).
Finaly the statistic of power ratios is also dependent upon how early the favourites and Tour winner are "opening up". When the favourite group opens up right at the bottom, then the average value for the entire mountain will become higher (compared to the situation where they play a waiting game, and only attack within the last 3km). But we should also remember, that if a GC rider launch a full out solo attack right at the bottom of the mountain, then he can normaly start out high with 500W (7.1 W/kg) for the first 4km, but then slow down to 450W (6.4 W/kg) for the next 4km, and finaly be knocked down to 415W (5.9 W/kg) for the remaining part of the mountain. So beside of the direct impact of the racing situation, it also matters a hell lot how long the mountain is, and at what sectors we look, when calculating the riders power ratio.
My final advice therefor goes, that we shouldnt jump to any conclusions based on "average statistics" alone. Basicly its impossible to judge the average numbers, because we have so many factors either pulling in one direction or the other. So even the average result for each year is not necessarily telling the truth! We probably need 5 years of average to get a "correct" average of all "racing situation" factors, and even then, they can tend to have an overweight into certain directions (in example if we have several years with the same Tour winner, he might tend to impose the same kind of racing tactics for each year). So here is what I propose to do instead: Analyse the Power to weight ratios for all mountains at each stage, and then check for each mountain result, if the "racing situation" can explain the result to be "natural".
|
Edited by - KD teammate on 29/08/2009 11:21:21 |
|
|
|
Heppu
Stagiaire
Finland
10 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2009 : 22:32:02
|
Stunning work in such a short time KD teammate. I let others put questions marks on the validity and reliability of the numbers. I try to give some preliminary thoughts and possible interpretations. I read the figures as if they were “true” representations of those riders´ form during cited Tours. This could be one possible short story behind the figures.
Lemond acts and speaks as if he has been totally clean rider. OK, numbers give credit to him (but I put a question mark on him too, was he ever tested on steroids?). Indurain is clearly product of the rising epo doping era. Riis is known to be a doper as well as Ullrich. Armstrong is darkly tainted. Figures might suggest that he doped to recover well and to be steady performer. Except on 2001, or was that Tour different like KD teammate suggests that some numbers may reflect different developments during the race. Landis numbers shout “I doped” at least on that famous day. How on earth could Contador be clean?
I take seriously Jorg Jaksches´s story. He was elite rider but in spite of doping heavily with all available stuff for years could only reach 16-18th places on the Tour. He says that those who were clearly faster than him were all dopers. Otherwise he cannot understand their speed. Perhaps doped Jaksche was somewhere around Lemond´s figures? So genes count.
I´ve read two user stories directly from epo users´s mouth. They confirm what that Danish study you cited above tells. The performance level rises a lot. Other one of these was the only Finnish cross country skier who has admitted to use epo (1996). He said “Oh boys what a joy it was to drive Ferrari”! He became from places around 10 to a one time Finnish Champion in 50 kilometers race by using epo and HGH.
We know with all probability that numbers from Indurain to Landis are doped. And we know that the effect of doping for performance in endurance sport is considerable. I do not believe that human race and training developes so fast that in ten years time it is possible for clean ones to catch former dopers. Look what happened in 100 m dash: Ben Johnson´s times were soon put behind – but by new dopers. And that continues.
Surely Contador cannot dope like Jaksche did. Use of epo must be much more cautious. For sure we know that human growth hormone can be used practically freely as there is not a single positive doping case on HGH. And there are new products and methods coming on to the market. You probably all know the story of US scientist who could increase mouse´s muscle strength by gene technology. His telephone started immediately to ring like crazy. And those who called were athletes and coaches.
A final note. It is ok to help athletes to perform better. That´s what the elite sport is all about: to perform outstandingly. And the technology will help athletes more and more and the line between doping and enhancing gets smokier and smokier. Athletes use today tens of different nutrional add-ons like they were normal food. Perhaps Contador is only enhanced healthily but by means that are as effective as “ancient” doping methods?
___________
I must say that I´ve lost track what you KD teammate are after. Watts? You´ve got plenty of those and basicly they seem to make sense. But if you are looking for what is a maximum output that a clean rider can produce, you do not find him because you do not have a clean benchmark. Only possible candidate of those would be Lemond but he might have used GH, steroids, insulin who knows what. Even if you would find a clean rider you cannot benchmark his general talent level and genes. I am afraid that to find a clean rider you should go really far back as the problem has been with us - I do not know the beginning date - surely from 1920`s.
It might very well be that Indurain used epo in all his Tour wins. Probably he boosted it already with GH. Riis and names after him did so anyway. I have no guess when IGF-1 was taken into use in cycling to boost epo. It has been very difficult to get but two commercial IGF products were on the market during 2008. So it is possible that Contador mixes these products much more cleverly and as GH and IGF are not detectable but enhance epo´s impact so epo use may be pretty low or used only during certain hard training sessions. This is pure guessing but I claim that the help riders got from doping during 1990-200x was so great that it is not possible today to attain that performance level without doping (or some comparable medical help). But your figures show that Contador can....
Heppu |
Edited by - Heppu on 13/08/2009 21:20:46 |
|
|
|
OctaBech
National Champion
Denmark
898 Posts |
Posted - 13/08/2009 : 23:07:26
|
Thanks KD, I feel that conclusion pretty much sums up the consensus on this forum(ie. Ricco's climbing time can't be compared with Sastre's L'Alpe d'Huez because the Cobra only accelerated at the last half) but now it's backed up with an elaborate analysis
However I'm a bit puzzled by Armstrong's watt/kg numbers, because when multiplied with his testified 74kg weight we get higher watt ratio than the ones given in the analysis and that's not including the bike.
But in the end the forgiving numbers used as a foundation for the calculations only make the results seem more suspicious.
- Professional Couchrider |
|
|
|
KD teammate
Hors Categorie
Denmark
5683 Posts |
Posted - 14/08/2009 : 14:19:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heppu
I must say that I´ve lost track what you KD teammate are after. Watts? You´ve got plenty of those and basicly they seem to make sense. But if you are looking for what is a maximum output that a clean rider can produce, you do not find him because you do not have a clean benchmark. Only possible candidate of those would be Lemond but he might have used GH, steroids, insulin who knows what. Even if you would find a clean rider you cannot benchmark his general talent level and genes. I am afraid that to find a clean rider you should go really far back as the problem has been with us - I do not know the beginning date - surely from 1920`s.
My quest was only to collect and show the most reliable performance numbers for the Tour winners, in the past 20 years. All the way, my purpose was to highlight the uncertainties, and illustrate how careful we need to be, when reading such numbers. As I stated in my post above, its impossible to calculate a general upper limit for a natural performance. In case we seek a "natural limit", then it would take a lab test of each riders VO2-max (while being clean) + power ratios under those conditions. So my point is: We cant use statistics of average power ratios, to establish an upper limit!
My scope with the post above, is however also broader than that. I only made an arbitrary choise to highlight numbers for those mountains exceeding 6.5 W/kg, because in my point of view, such numbers need at least to be justified by "explaining factors", in order to be considered as something, that a few highly talented riders might be able to achieve by natural means. But my conclusion was, and still is, that the power ratios by themself dont reveal who is doped and who is not! Each rider will posses his own personal limit. If you dope a Volkswagen Trabant, then you will get a Volvo. If you dope a Volvo you will get a Mercedes. If you dope a Mercedes, then you will get a Ferrari. And if you dope a Ferrari, you might get a "rocket car".
Since we dont know whether or not Contador was born as a Mercedes or Ferrari, its impossible to judge if his Ferrari speed is natural or supernatural. In my point of view the calculated power ratios, so far only reveal riders with a "rocket car" speed in 1996-1998. This however dont change my point of view, that I believe all Tour winners from 1991-2007 was doped. I also believe doping was used on a general level in 1948-1990, but for that time frame we should keep in mind, that they hadnt access to the big performance boosters like EPO and only "few" used blood doping (so thats why a performance jump in the 90s, should still be visible compared to the 80s).
When looking at the power ratios posted above, my point of view is, that we cant conlude wheter or not a certain rider is doped, based on those numbers alone. At the moment I have a theory, that Contador was doped both in 2007 and 2009, and that Carlos Sastre was the first and only clean rider to ever have won Tour de France in 2008! What I liked about Sastre's performance, is that he in many years has been able to ride the GTs with the same power ratio level. And he didnt win the Tour in 2008 by a higher power ratio, but simply won, because all his competitors suddenly had decreased their performance to his level! The riders who were stronger than Sastre's power ratios in the mountains (Ricco, Piepoli and Cobo), were all withdrawn from the race due to doping. In the end I however acknowledge, that Sastre still won the Tour with the speed of a Mercedes. So whether or not he was doped, in the end will depend upon if you believe he was born as a Trabant/Volvo/Mercedes. For me it was just reassuring for the first time in history, not to have a Tour winner with Ferrari or "rocket car" speed. If you know what I mean.
If my theory is correct, then the peleton these days around is way cleaner compared to earlier years. It has become more difficult to dope due to the biological passport, and ASOs determination to store all samples and test them during the next 8 years with new methods. This however still doesnt guarantee, that the entire peleton will be riding clean. A few riders will still expiriment with new substances and methods (and succeed). My only hope is, that sooner or later these few cheaters will get caught, so we can celebrate a true clean winner.
After having ellaborated about the limitations of using power ratio numbers, to judge whether or not the performance of the rider is natural, then I dont believe "monitoring power ratios with SRM computer" will ever become a valuable tool in the antidoping fight (or part of the biological passport). Basicly its impossible to conclude anything, even by looking at accurately measured SRM values, because you still have to know the natural "undoped limit" of the rider (measured in a lab at a time where he was undoped). And even if that was possible, it would still be a very week method, because all riders then would know their "speed limit", and a doped rider would have no problem to adjust his speed during the race (to stay within his personal limit).
quote:
Originally posted by OctaBech
However I'm a bit puzzled by Armstrong's watt/kg numbers, because when multiplied with his testified 74kg weight we get higher watt ratio than the ones given in the analysis and that's not including the bike.
I dont blame you of being puzzled, because this difference between "Standard Watt" and "Watt/kg" notion confuse many people (including the guys at Cyclingnews). In my post above you find the detailed description, but since its rather important I will also repeat it right here:
The notion "Standard Watt (St.W)" is the calculated Watts it will take to move a standard 70kg rider + 8kg bike, up the mountain at the posted time.
Pr. definition the final power ratio value is shown per Kg rider, and therefor calculated by dividing the "Standard Watt" with 70kg.
The riders "Absolute Watt" will depend upon his weight, and has not been calculated below. NB: Be careful not to mix the 2 different notions.
If the rider has a SRM computer, it will measure "Absolute Watt", and then the power ratios can easily be calculated by dividing with his weight.
So to give a short example. When Contador delivered 490 St.W at Verbier, then this pr definiton corresponds to 490 St.W/70kg = 7.00 W/kg. In order to calculate Contadors absolute watt numbers we need to multiply that ratio with his actual weight of 61kg. So at Verbier Contador delivered 427 Absolute Watts. The same principle goes for Armstrong. So for all calculated power ratios, you should multiply with the riders weight to find his personal Absolute Watt value. ASO has by the way measured all the weight of the riders 3 days before the Tour de France, and published those weights right here: www.letour.fr/2009/TDF/RIDERS/us/partants.html (just click at the starting nr)
EDIT: Those rider weights (Contador=61kg and Armstrong=75kg) posted by the link above, however differs a lot compared to the other values posted by ASO in their PDF presentation of all teams (Contador=62kg and Armstrong=72kg). And I dont know which one we should trust.
Alternative link for rider weights: www.letour.fr/2009/TDF/LIVE/fr/equipes_presentation.html (Click on the red "Details" error)
To be honest I think the notion "Standard Watt" creates too much confusion, and I therefor prefer to convert them to W/kg numbers.
Only reason why I posted them above, was due to Portoleau always using that notion in his articles. Its important to stress, that the numbers in no way are calculated wrong by Portolou, but he just prefer to post the result as Standard Watt (pr.70kg rider) instead of W/kg.
¤ Winner of the Golden League Fantasy Game 2008 |
Edited by - KD teammate on 14/08/2009 16:59:22 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Doping affairs in Cycling since 1980
