Tour de France 2013 *spoilers*

[lukesdad]

Perhaps they re expecting a crash.

 

[rich p]

Perhaps they re expecting a crash.

Maybe but it they may want to show they're not broken completely!

 

[lukesdad]

Sky and OPQS having negotiations to. Although its probably other stages they will really need their help.

 

[dragon72]

Sky are nearer the front than they have to be. The sprinters' teams will bring this back

It's breezy. I think they're hedging against possible echelon splits.

 

[Crackle]

from the learn manx, click on the name, press play

http://learnmanx.com/cms/audio_collection_11126.html

Kennyeck of Canute it is then.

 

[The Couch]

Rolland with the ugly short again in the picture again

Still... you have to congratulate him as he was bringing water bottles to the rest of his team

 

[Hip Priest]

Pete Kennaugh's father posted on Twitter that their surname is pronounced Kenn-Yick.

 

[smutchin]

How do you account for a genuine outlier performance - you can't. How do you account for a masterful race strategy and pacing - you can't. How do you take conditions on the day into consideration? You can't. Even the uncertainty boundaries on their calculation are huge. 6.2 watts/kg is clean and 6.5 w/kg is doped? Bollocks. The uncertainty boundary is that large.

To be fair, the article linked to by FM does cover that and advises caution when interpreting the data. It also makes the point that you can't draw firm conclusions from one-off performances like Saturday, you have to look at the bigger picture for the context.

I bet there's doped riders in the race this year, who haven't even broken through 6 w/kg up Ax 3.

Indeed. I'm working on the assumption that the peloton isn't 100% clean, purely on balance of probabilities, but there's no evidence as far as I can see to point the finger at any individual yet - although Cunego was named on the Mantova hitlist.

Pub chit chat is all it is. Performance biomechanics is much more complex then these guys try to reduce it to.*
* - by these guys I'm more referring to Vayer then the Science in Sport guys, but they too are too quick to endorse this approach.

Surely the method is sound, it's just the data that's shaky? There's a bit more substance to the SIS analysis than pub chit chat though.

 

[Slaav]

Having just read Tyler Hamilton's book - which I recommend by the way; despite seemingly now benefitting further from his doping - he uses an analogy of a match box. The match box contains a set number of matches. As you use one, it burns out. You then light another one when required but you will run out of matches eventually. Now, using that analogy for the climb on Saturday? would it be fair that Sky burnt quite a few matches and paid the price on Sunday? I cannot remember if he was referring to BBs (Blood bags) or micro doses of Edgar (EPO) but it works for me in context with Sky recent performance.

Also, this then in turn got me over to the Clinic - my God there is not a lot of love for Sky and Froome on there is there???? I am amazed that the lawyers allow some of the posts.....

 

[The Couch]

... although Cunego was named on the Mantova hitlist

No?? Really?? Cunego!?
My world just got smashed to pieces

 

[smutchin]

No?? Really?? Cunego!?
My world just got smashed to pieces

Yeah, shocking, innit?

 

[Dave Davenport]

'the channel is the main body of water between France & England' Is there no end to Phil Liggett's knowledge?

 

[dragon72]

'the channel is the main body of water between France & England' Is there no end to Phil Liggett's knowledge?

To be fair on the senile Armstrong-apologist douchebag, bear in mind that we're getting Liggett's commentary on ESPN here in Mexico too, where people don't necessarily know these things.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

'the channel is the main body of water between France & England' Is there no end to Phil Liggett's knowledge?

Is he keeping la Manche up his sleeve?

 

[VamP]

Surely the method is sound, it's just the data that's shaky? There's a bit more substance to the SIS analysis than pub chit chat though.

Both the data and the method.

Taking a power average over a 40 minute climb tells you nothing about the delivery, the peaks and the troughs. Compound that by estimating the average based on some algorithm and you've got a mish mash. Of interest to statisticians only. It has no persuasive evidential value. And if you're doubting that then go and compare some Strava power calculations for your favourite hillclimb.

What annoys me about the SIS guys is that they acknowledge this on the one hand, but then go on to say that if it was 6.5 w/kg ''I would be calling shenanigans for sure''. That's going from plausible to cheat within self-confessed error boundary on power estimate alone.