Interesting article on Tourmalet VAMs & watts/kg
Mike Jacoubowsky
Makes for very good reading, lots to discuss. One area I think these
guys don't get it is exposed here though-
"Look at Andy Schleck on the final climb - his hand was forced by the
race situation - he had to attack early (9km to go is still later than
some attacks back in the 90s and 2000s), and for his efforts, he and
Contador paid so much that the chase group held them over the final 5km.
Their maximum effort was not sustainable. And that's expected of
physiology. Doping, on the other hand, would allow it."
My take is that Andy collapsed mentally, not physically. He gave up on
the idea that he could drop Contador while he still had gas in the tank.
Contador was marking him so effectively that he (Andy) felt he wasn't
going to be able to get away, so why burn the candle to the last part of
the wick when you (mistakenly) believe you still have a long-shot chance
at the TT? That's assuming more than is in evidence... from what I saw
in person and on TV, Andy simply gave up towards the end of the climb.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Choppy Warburton
Mike Jacoubowsky
"Choppy Warburton" <choppyw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:03d13a21-1f34-4127...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> we beat it to death already
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_thread/thread/b0833c018a7b5c8d/f2f99e7d83d21376?lnk=gst&q=watts+per+kg#f2f99e7d83d21376
>
There was virtually no substance in that thread at all, just a bunch of
guys throwing insults at each other.
Do people here think that Schleck & Contador tapered off at the top of
the Tourmalet because they had nothing left, or because Andy basically
gave up and there was nothing left for either to prove? Contador was
smart not to keep it up, because it was really difficult to know just
what Schleck might have been capable of. Schleck was to Contador as Jan
was to Lance in my opinion. Lots of mind games going on. And thus the
decline in output at the top of the climb had nothing to do with doping.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> "Choppy Warburton" <choppywarbur...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:03d13a21-1f34-4127...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...> we beat it to death already
>
>
> Beat what to death? No, don't answer that.
>
> There was virtually no substance in that thread at all, just a bunch of
> guys throwing insults at each other.
>
> Do people here think that Schleck & Contador tapered off at the top of
> the Tourmalet because they had nothing left, or because Andy basically
> gave up and there was nothing left for either to prove? Contador was
> smart not to keep it up, because it was really difficult to know just
> what Schleck might have been capable of. Schleck was to Contador as Jan
> was to Lance in my opinion. Lots of mind games going on. And thus the
> decline in output at the top of the climb had nothing to do with doping.
>
I don't think one can deduce the presence or
absence of doping from a decline in output at the
top of a climb.
Any given climb is affected by racing tactics, how fast the
previous climb was raced, whether the two guys at the
top are better or worse than last year ... If the estimated
power outputs from climb times continue to be lower than
mid-90s to mid-2000s values over a variety of riders
and climbs, maybe that will allow us to tell something.
But the sportsscientists.com guys have a tendency to
jump to conclusions that fit their mental model.
I stopped taking the sportsscientists.com people seriously
when one of their criticisms of Coyle's article on Armstrong's
efficiency was that Coyle only tested LA during the off- or
early-season, never during the Tour which is when it really
counts, and asked, why didn't he do that? There are a lot of
criticisms one can make of Coyle, but that is being
deliberately dense or misleading. Why didn't Armstrong submit
to a VO2max test during the god-damned Tour de France?
Not even God's own cleanest of the clean would consent to a
VO2max test to exhaustion during a 3-week Tour! Sheesh.
Fredmaster Ben
Beloved Fred No. 1
> I stopped taking the sportsscientists.com people seriously
> when one of their criticisms of Coyle's article on Armstrong's
> efficiency was that Coyle only tested LA during the off- or
> early-season, never during the Tour which is when it really
> counts, and asked, why didn't he do that? There are a lot of
> criticisms one can make of Coyle, but that is being
> deliberately dense or misleading. Why didn't Armstrong submit
> to a VO2max test during the god-damned Tour de France?
> Not even God's own cleanest of the clean would consent to a
> VO2max test to exhaustion during a 3-week Tour! Sheesh.
Perhaps they can have a VO2 test instead of a prologue.
Andy Coggan
> I stopped taking the sportsscientists.com people seriously
> when one of their criticisms of Coyle's article on Armstrong's
> efficiency was that Coyle only tested LA during the off- or
> early-season, never during the Tour which is when it really
> counts, and asked, why didn't he do that?
I found their incorrect claim that EPO does not significantly increase
VO2max more eye-opening.
Andy Coggan