# The 410 magical level!!!



## c_h_i_n_a_m_a_n (Mar 3, 2012)

This is a very interesting article ... will copy and paste here in case the link is no longer available ...
_Vayer Casts Doubt Over Performances Of Indurain And Jalabert | Cyclingnews.com_

*Says Armstrong was some way behind in doping race*

Former Festina coach Antoine Vayer has cast doubt on performances produced by Miguel Indurain and Laurent Jalabert in Grand Tours during the 1990s, describing them as only being achievable by “mutants”. Working in collaboration with French daily Le Monde, Vayer has been calculating the power output of the sport’s top stage racers on major climbs since 1999 and has regularly suggested that many of them were beyond belief.

Asked about the World Anti-Doping Agency’s description of disgraced Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong as benefiting from “the most effective doping program in history,” Vayer responded, “With his record average of 438 watts on the 2001 Tour, ‘The Boss’ only manages sixth place in our palmarès. He looks almost like a bit-part player next to ‘king’ Miguel Indurain, who has five Tours to his credit. The Spaniard seems unlikely to be dethroned thanks to his average of 455 watts in the 1995 edition… The fact that Armstrong’s reign began after the Festina affair in 1998 and the introduction of the EPO test forced him to pay more ‘attention’. He couldn’t take EPO in an unlimited way like his predecessors”.

Speaking to Le Monde two days before the publication of his new book, "La Preuve par 21", which investigates the power output of Tour de France winners since 1983, Vayer also put together a list of the Tour winners who had produced the greatest power output over the course of the last 30 years, ranking Indurain (1995 version) at the top with 455 watts, ahead of Bjarne Riis (449) and Marco Pantani (446).

According to Vayer’s rating scale, any figure over 450 falls into the “mutant” category, while those between 430 and 450 are described as “miraculous”. Three more Tour winners appear among the “miraculous” – Jan Ullrich (441), Alberto Contador in 2009 (439) and Lance Armstrong in 2001 (438).

Asked if any Tour winner since 1983 is beyond suspicion, Vayer said Greg LeMond “seems to have always produced ‘human’ performances”. He gave LeMond’s average power output during his three Tour-winning years as 381 watts in 1986, 408 in 1989, and 407 in 1990. He added that “following the arrival of EPO at the start of the 1990s, any rider who could produce 400 watts for 20 minutes could subsequently manage to put out 440 watts over 40 minutes! That was the case with the Dane Bjarne Riis… who, in 1993 was stuck at 399 watts, but progressed to 449 watts during his winning Tour in 1996 when he was 32. LeMond remained at 410 watts after 1990 and was dropped by older riders who had become thoroughbreds.

With regard to Laurent Jalabert, a sprinter in his early years as a pro and twice crowned King of the Mountains at the Tour towards the end of his career, Vayer said, “During the Vueltas of 1996 and 1997, the former [Tour de France] green jersey climbed to Lagos de Covadonga, 8.5km at 9.18%, in less than 25 minutes, producing 468 and 478 watts, respectively. On the Tour, we even had to re-baptise the ascent of the Col de Mende the ‘Montée Jalabert’, after his 495 watts in 1995!”

Vayer describes the last 30 years as being split into three different eras. “Before 1990, we were in the pre-EPO era: riders were flirting with the figure of 410 watts thanks to corticoids and steroids. Then there was a leap to 450 watts with the arrival of massive usage of EPO up to 1998. After the introduction of the EPO test, blood transfusions made a big return: that was in the Armstrong era, where levels stabilised at 430 watts. Since 2011, we can talk about a new ‘mixed’ era where performances have taken a step down but there are some suspect power outputs above 410 watts.”

The former Festina coach describes Cadel Evans’ 2011 Tour-winning average of 406 watts as being in the “green” zone below 410 watts.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

Just read it over at CyclingNews. Very interesting that, yet again, LeMond's name pops up as being a believable performance. And the numbers post 1990 are interesting regarding where LeMond's output stayed in relation to other riders. 
Also interesting to see Cadel's numbers from 2011....


----------



## hicksycle (Jan 8, 2013)

If indeed the numbers are correct, and not just massaged to fit the story to sell the book. The story to sell the book matches the most common prejudices, to maximize the number of people who will be able to buy the book and say "I was right all along".


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Lots of bunk info there. Number of watts means little without considering rider size. For his size Indurain's numbers are what you'd have to expect. Pantani's and Jalabert's numbers are the most incredible. If these were real Jalabert would have won TdF's by 30 minutes.


----------



## supercrank (Feb 20, 2004)

I think the calculated power outputs are normalized for rider weight, otherwise they'd be useless, I agree.
For example, Big Mig is listed at 455 watts, but it's been calculated he averaged about 510 watts for his hour record.


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

*Interesting article questioning standout performances*

New report presents data-driven doubts on performances, past and present


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

> *Thomas Voeckler*, Hinault and Wiggins fall into Not Normal’s suspicious category; Chris Froome, Andy Schleck and Laurent Jalabert into the miraculous; Alberto Contador, Miguel Indurain, Jan Ullrich, and Lance Armstrong fall into the mutant classification on some performances, or had at times in their careers.


More bad news for the resident Tommy V/Europcar apologists. . .


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

biting the hand that feeds you edition



> Not Normal? is kindest to three-time Tour winner Greg LeMond, a member of Change Cycling Now; most of his rides appear in green, and only three appear in yellow, or as “suspicious” — a climb up Avoriaz in 1984 while chasing Hinault, and the rides up Superbangnères and Izoard in the 1989 Tour.


 Um, shouldn't that number be zero?


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

How are the actual wattage values for these comparisons being obtained? If they're being calculated based on climb time, gradient, weight, distance, etc. that is quite fallacious... you really don't know the weight of the rider, or his bike, or his water bottles, or the speed fluctuations during the climb that add to the inefficient use of power, or the rolling resistance of the road, or the tires, etc, etc. And even still, on climbs with average speeds <10mph, the wind conditions and drafting still play a big role. For example some of my best times on a local hill where I average <10mph I frequently put out a relatively lower power average, and vice versa. If you tried to calculate my power based on a formula for such a climb, you could easily be off by 10-15%.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Cableguy said:


> How are the actual wattage values for these comparisons being obtained? If they're being calculated based on climb time, gradient, weight, distance, etc. that is quite fallacious... you really don't know the weight of the rider, or his bike, or his water bottles, or the speed fluctuations during the climb that add to the inefficient use of power, or the rolling resistance of the road, or the tires, etc, etc. And even still, on climbs with average speeds <10mph, the wind conditions and drafting still play a big role. For example some of my best times on a local hill where I average <10mph I frequently put out a relatively lower power average, and vice versa. If you tried to calculate my power based on a formula for such a climb, you could easily be off by 10-15%.


Agreed. Over the last couple of years on my TT routes, my fastest days tend to be weather assisted. My slower days tend to have bigger power numbers. Occasionally I get lucky and produce a good ride with good power numbers. Just not on race day this year. :blush2:


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

A little surprising to have my suspicions so soundly seconded.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Jalabert only may have taken hydrocortisone. Nothing to see here.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

It must have been time consuming to compile data from all of the winners' power meters since the 80s.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> It must have been time consuming to compile data from all of the winners' power meters since the 80s.


Maybe they're just Strava power estimates.


----------



## CHL (Jun 24, 2005)

spade2you said:


> Agreed. Over the last couple of years on my TT routes, my fastest days tend to be weather assisted. My slower days tend to have bigger power numbers. Occasionally I get lucky and produce a good ride with good power numbers. Just not on race day this year. :blush2:


Hi Spade:

You ride competitively. So have you noticed better performance as a correlation to training strategies. Does a cyclist from the 1980s train like a cyclist from our current generation? Can some of the numbers be explained by better training methodologies and better equipment? I bike in the 1980s was probably around 20-22lbs, where a current bike is at 15lbs. 

Don't get me wrong, many of the names on that chart have "chequered past or have out right been caught doping." I'm not naive to think that cheating didn't play a part in some performance. However, how do you differentiate the natural evolution of a sport vs one that is artificially produced?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

According to the authors, does it help to have teammates "set the pace" up a climb? If so, how much?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

CHL said:


> Hi Spade:
> 
> You ride competitively. So have you noticed better performance as a correlation to training strategies. Does a cyclist from the 1980s train like a cyclist from our current generation? Can some of the numbers be explained by better training methodologies and better equipment? I bike in the 1980s was probably around 20-22lbs, where a current bike is at 15lbs.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, many of the names on that chart have "chequered past or have out right been caught doping." I'm not naive to think that cheating didn't play a part in some performance. However, how do you differentiate the natural evolution of a sport vs one that is artificially produced?


Simply getting a TT bike and training/racing with a power meter have blown a lot of my old speeds out of the water. No doubt tactics and better gear will improve speed.

The idea of back extrapolating power numbers is interesting, but only tells us so much. The idea that numbers are "getting back to normal" makes us feel good, but probably more of a sign that riders are using microdosing techniques to simply get some advantage while avoiding detection.


----------



## thighmaster (Feb 2, 2006)

Cableguy said:


> How are the actual wattage values for these comparisons being obtained? If they're being calculated based on climb time, gradient, weight, distance, etc. that is quite fallacious... you really don't know the weight of the rider, or his bike, or his water bottles, or the speed fluctuations during the climb that add to the inefficient use of power, or the rolling resistance of the road, or the tires, etc, etc. And even still, on climbs with average speeds <10mph, the wind conditions and drafting still play a big role. For example some of my best times on a local hill where I average <10mph I frequently put out a relatively lower power average, and vice versa. If you tried to calculate my power based on a formula for such a climb, you could easily be off by 10-15%.


10-15 works for me. A court may not like it, but even removing some error, the estimates still corroborate what actually happened. Those above average watt figures are backed up by doping. As I near 290w for 20min I would like to think anyone over 300 is a doper


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

thighmaster said:


> 10-15 works for me. A court may not like it, but even removing some error, the estimates still corroborate what actually happened. Those above average watt figures are backed up by doping.


Well I agree that repeatedly doing "mutant" level efforts is a red flag, but otherwise it's not so black and white. The difference between a "mutant" effort and just a "good" effort falls within 15%, so a rider who actually just put in a "good" effort could possibly be considered a "mutant" for any of the following, in any combination: 1) there was a tailwind, 2) the actual length/gradient of the climb is off (pretty much always the case), 3) when the rider actually started/ended the climb is off 4) actual weight is less than claimed weight (including bike and components), 5) drafting. The combination of all the above variables complicates the theoretical caclulations greatly.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

I would bet that there are a ton of guys in the peloton that are doped that are nowhere near those wattage numbers. A guy who weighs 135 pounds and averages 390+ watts avg for the entire tour is very suspect.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> A guy who weighs 135 pounds and averages 390+ watts avg for the entire tour is very suspect.


FYI the numbers are for very specific efforts (I think all are climbs) no more than hour in length. Doing 390 watts for an entire 5+ hour stage, and throughout the whole tour, is basically impossible.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

Cableguy said:


> FYI the numbers are for very specific efforts (I think all are climbs) no more than hour in length. Doing 390 watts for an entire 5+ hour stage, and throughout the whole tour, is basically impossible.


Hmm, wait till gene doping!


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Cableguy said:


> FYI the numbers are for very specific efforts (I think all are climbs) no more than hour in length. Doing 390 watts for an entire 5+ hour stage, and throughout the whole tour, is basically impossible.


Geez. Thx for clarifying so I can sorta keep my ego in tact. I almost shed a tear when I saw that 455w avg number!


----------

