Tour de France: Estimating the Probability of Doping as a Function of Power | Hacker News Reader

Tour de France: Estimating the Probability of Doping as a Function of Power

veloclinic.com

18 pointsbraythwayt21 comments

One thing I don't like from the start in this analysis is the assumption of a Gaussian distribution for power. If you're riding in the Tour de France, you're in the tail of a distribution of power generation of the human race. To assume it falls off symmetrically balanced in each direction from the mean of qualifying riders is wrong. The cutoff to even be able to ride in the Tour is far to the right on a Gaussian curve.

I'm not saying there isn't a way to model what the poster is talking about, but I don't think this is it.

Indeed. While the peloton is undoubtedly not clean, I'm very, very sceptical of this kind of power analysis and modelling by armchair experts.

Everybody is doping and has not stopped. The numbers guys are doing up big climbs do not lie. This goes for every sport.

In cycling, look at what the Brits have been doing the past few years- they look like zombies, but they stay healthy and can put out superhuman power. Revolutionary stuff!

Re Lance: Everybody was. Lance was just an exceptional asshole who ruined other people's careers and was widely disliked. Contador, Nibali, Wiggins... not huge assholes. Liars, yes, but not assholes.

Astana and Sky are ridiculously good. They go to the front of the peloton and start putting out the power, and the other teams are shattered. One by one the domestiques drop off like flies until the leaders from the other teams are isolated.

Astana have had a series of embarrassing drug busts, and were supposed to be dropped from World Tour status as punishment, but they bought their way back in. Sky alone manages to remain untainted by drug busts.

Presumably, their “incremental gains” are as good as everyone else’s nighttime EPO micro-dosing out of pig’s bladders.

Sky most likely has similar protection as the US team had in the last decade.

Lance lost my respect when he sued other people for telling the truth. I will never understand using money/legal system to manipulate your ongoing lie, and livelihood. Disgusting!

That said, I don't care about the drugs, or that he lied. If he didn't ruin other people's lives--I would still like the dude.

I honestly don't think the drugs played the role we think in his victories. I said it. I know everyone will disagree. I remember his Doctor/Coach being attacked in a interview. That Italian Doctor, I forget his name. His doctor said, 'The main reason Lance won those races is because of the placebo effect. Lance thought those drugs would help him perform better, and magically his body performed better." Just like the Placebo Effect operates? I doubt Lance knew anything about the Placebo Effect? He strikes me as a perfect candidate for a Placebo response? (Kinda dumb, and believes whatever that doctor told him?).

I do wonder if all that training brought on his cancer? It just doesn't seem healthy to train that rigriously? We will probally never know why he got cancer, but I wish researchers would follow these bikers for the next two decades, and see if their is a correlation between extreme training and cancer. The results would be skewed because of all the drug use going on, but I feel they should be studied anyways.

> That Italian Doctor, I forget his name

Michele Ferrari.

>> This goes for every sport.

Indeed. One only has to look at the recent rash of doping convinctions in MMA (and convenient short-notice "injuries" before fights) following introduction of more doping scrutiny as one piece of anecdotal evidence of this. But across sport, it's endemic.

Heck, the NFL practically allows doping.[1] And let's not forget baseball.[2]

The only reason why certain sports receive more attention than others is due to their prior association with doping, in some weird circular logic. The Tour has Lance, baseball as Rodriguez, MMA has Anderson Silva, and so on.

But look at soccer. Strange that there is so little discussion about doping in soccer. And strange there have been so few convinctions for doping in soccer. Similarly rugby. They're not sports traditionally associated with it.

But back to the main topic: the Tour. Yes, some performances this year have been dramatic such as Froome's acceleration on that first proper climb. Yes the pace of the tours is still high. It's clear the peloton is not clean, whatever that means and however it breaks down. Lance was just the king rat bully who went so far as to - like you say - "ruined it" for everyone else.

But I'm always very sceptical of armchair power analysis as evidence of doping, no matter how interesting it is. We need more stringent independent testing - IF we want the sport to be clean, which is a different matter entirely.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/sports/27iht-nfl.1.9522468...

[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23578738

>>> This goes for every sport

.. and many professions. Popping Aderalls is doping for geeks much like EPO is doping for cyclists.

Maybe a bit OT here but... The thing I always wondered about what the probability that Lance Armstrong was the only one doping. I know some others have been caught but it did seem to me like there was a second agenda there.

Literally everyone in professional cycling at that level was taking PEDs. Think of it in the same way everyone knew the NSA was spying on us. When proof came to light we all just shrugged our shoulders.

Can we have an equivalent of Godwin's Law for the NSA please?

I went looking for an old graphic showing doping status of other top Tour de France finishers during the years Lance Armstrong won, and couldn't find it, but the Wikipedia article on doping at the tour should go a long way to satisfying your curiosity on this question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France

He definitely wasn't the only one doping. There have been huge scandals, but Operation Puerto (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operaci%C3%B3n_Puerto_doping_c...) left a lot of people in legal trouble. Many riders have been previously implicated in doping and returned to cycling.

Here's an old (2012) infographic that illustrates how many of the top finishers in previous Tours have been caught (or otherwise implicated) doping: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/24/sports/top-fin...

Tyler Hamilton's book on that era is a great read:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B008WOUJQG

I think you'd have to be crazy to dope now, after Lance's fall from grace. My default opinion is that systemic doping isn't happening and I'll be really sad if it is.

That's borderline naive to believe that the best teams don't dope anymore. E.g. the ascent times prove that the winners in the last years cannot be undoped.

Mount Ventoux: 2013: 59m:00s Chris Froome 21.86 km/h Such a time is not possible undoped. See e.g. http://sportsscientists.com/2013/07/froomes-first-mountain-p...

But same as Armstrong or Contador only the best do it the best way, and will not get caught for some time.

Of course it’s possible. If a human body can do it without mechanical aid, it’s possible there’s someone with the requisite attributes.

Whether it’s likely is a different matter.

That analysis is extremely flawed. We have no standardised start point for any of the grand cols and no accurate power data for most performances, meaning there is an enormous amount of guesswork.

Team Sky have invested heavily in technology, which includes many significant improvements to tyre rolling resistance and drivetrain losses - someone riding Froome's Pinarello would need about 30w less power to equal the performances of the 1990s.

Course profile is also highly significant. A rider who arrives at a major climb with low lactate levels can remain above threshold for longer and sustain far higher power outputs. Without taking into account the parcours and previous attacks on the day's stage, any comparison is meaningless. Again, technology plays a significant role - Sky have been criticized by many fans for riding by the numbers, precisely pacing an effort for maximum efficiency rather than attacking and counterattacking. This kind of data-driven pacing simply wasn't possible during the Festina era.

I'm sure that doping was incredibly widespread. Just like in baseball. Look at the raw numbers in MLB today: the number of pitchers with an ERA under 3.0 has doubled this years compared to ten years ago, and the power homerun leaders are down about 20 HRs as well. You've got some technical and strategic changes that might help to account for the ERA improvements, like increasing emphasis on defensive skills at some positions, and massive increases in the usages of aggressive defensive shifts, but the HR numbers are pretty clearly the result of cleaning up steroid usage among hitters. There's been a few ballpark changes that have switched some of the old bandbox parks over to parks with larger outfields, but that's not enough to get us from having random third-basemen and shortstops cranking 40-50 HRs to where we are now.

Armstrong was one doper amongst many, but that's not the reason he is held in such low esteem by the cycling fraternity. Armstrong was the chief enforcer of the omerta, cycling's code of silence regarding doping.

Armstrong destroyed Filippo Simeoni's career in punishment for speaking out over doping. He sued at least a dozen people for defamation, in many cases successfully; he has so far escaped criminal prosecution for his rampant perjury.

Armstrong is resented not because he was a doper, but because he was an aggressive bully who fought tirelessly to protect the culture of doping. Armstrong had no respect for the sport, and we have no respect for him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Simeoni https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taWGQNKUgQQ https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/10/lance-armstrong-li...

a good follow-up read, "The Power of the Tour de France 2013: Performance analysis groundwork" ~ http://sportsscientists.com/2013/07/the-power-of-the-tour-de...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com