# Lance vs nibali



## pr0230 (Jun 4, 2004)

Feels like we are back in the Armstrong days, with a lead approaching 5.5 minutes... Amazing how strong Nibali is. And taking stages too... Now some will say if Froome and Conador were still in the gap would not be so big. Im not sure about that... I did not see anything from either...

Following copied from Wiki: 
Armstrong In 1999 won the Tour de France, including four stages. He beat the second rider, Alex Zülle, by 7 minutes 37 seconds. However, the absence of Jan Ullrich (injury) and Marco Pantani (drug allegations) meant Armstrong had not yet proven himself against the biggest names. 

In 2000, Ullrich and Pantani returned to challenge Armstrong. The race that began a six-year rivalry between Ullrich and Armstrong ended in victory for Armstrong by 6 minutes 2 seconds over Ullrich. Armstrong took one stage in the 2000 Tour, the second individual time trial on stage 19. In 2001, Armstrong again took top honors, beating Ullrich by 6 minutes 44 seconds. In 2002, Ullrich did not participate due to suspension, and Armstrong won by seven minutes over Joseba Beloki.[copied from wiki]


Armstrong riding the prologue of the 2004 Tour de France
The pattern returned in 2003, Armstrong taking first place and Ullrich second. Only a minute and a second separated the two at the end of the final day in Paris. U.S. Postal won the team time trial on stage four, while Armstrong took stage 15, despite having been knocked off on the ascent to Luz Ardiden, the final climb, when a spectator's bag caught his right handlebar. Ullrich waited for him, which brought Ullrich fair-play honors.[34]

In 2004, Armstrong finished first, 6 minutes 19 seconds ahead of German Andreas Klöden. Ullrich was fourth, a further 2 minutes 31 seconds behind. Armstrong won a personal-best five individual stages, plus the team time trial. He became the first biker since Gino Bartali in 1948 to win three consecutive mountain stages; 15, 16, and 17. The individual time trial on stage 16 up Alpe d'Huez was won in style by Armstrong as he passed Ivan Basso on the way despite having set out two minutes after the Italian. He won sprint finishes from Basso in stages 13 and 15 and made up a significant gap in the last 250 m to nip Klöden at the line in stage 17. He won the final individual time trial, stage 19, to complete his personal record of stage wins.[coppied from wiki].


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

you need to do a bit more history - in the pre-epo days leaders were even more dominant.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

Ibtm.......


----------



## PJay (May 28, 2004)

they are hard to compare - lance had a team focused year-round on the overall tour win.
They planned to peak in July.
they reconnoitered stages, including steepness on climbs and twists on down-hills.
They observed the competition with intent.
They composed a team willing to support all the way - Hincapie, Popovich, Leipheimer, and may other great riders were the supporting riders with this strategy.
Lance knew who he would be head-to-head with - Ullrich.

One way to compare is to check out time of each up a significant climb.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

1) Froome and Contador are not here anymore. Hard to get a good gauage of Nibali when the 2 top favorites are gone.

2) This is hypothetical assuming Froome and Conti were still with us, then a lot of Nibali's gain would have been from the wet cobble stage, and nothing more. This hypothetical gain would be weather related. Nibali has proven to be king of bad weathers amongst the GC contenders.

3) I will say this though. During the Dauphine, Nibali was struggling in a very bad way against Froome and Conti. Then three weeks later at the start of the TdF, he was in the best shape of the season. Even before the Dauphine, he wasn't in the sort of shape that he is currently in. Endurance at his level doesn't doesn't improve like that in a matter of weeks, unless he was just sandbagging the whole time.


----------



## adjtogo (Nov 18, 2006)

The difference between Lance and Nibali...Lance cheated and admitted it years later. Lance had all seven of his titles stripped. Nibali, so he claims, is drug and doping free. We'll see if it's true. However, I lost all respect for Lance. I couldn't give a rat's ass about him anymore.


----------



## upstateSC-rider (Aug 21, 2004)

aclinjury said:


> 1) Froome and Contador are not here anymore. Hard to get a good gauage of Nibali when the 2 top favorites are gone.


This is your answer.


----------



## teoteoteo (Sep 8, 2002)

upstateSC-rider said:


> This is your answer.


Yup, Riis with a strong Bert, Froome and motivated team. 

I think the conjecture is what makes it all fun, but Nibali had the jersey early. Maybe his team is tired by the time a motivated Bert in the Pyrenees would have had huge crowd support. I've ridden the Tourmalet to Hautacam portion of the stage a few times, one on my favorite rides, the descent from top of tourmalet to base of Hautacam is a pure downhill adrenaline. 

While Average grade isn't killer that yellow middle, I'd have to think having 3 strong teams slugging there would have been fantastic. There is always next year, and again what makes the TdF so great. 

profile of the Hautacam

If you ever go there, ride later in the day, plan a visit to watch the sunset over the mountains at this place at the bottom from the patio. 

https://plus.google.com/110218198725180063939/about?gl=us&hl=en

AUBERGE LE BOUIC - AYROS ARBOUIX - Détail


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

yeah but Ten Dam is still in it and nibali is crushing him!


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

ammattipyöräily @ammattipyoraily 

#TDF, Pla d'Adet (last 10 km)

2005 | Basso, Armstrong 29:59
2014 | Nibali, Peraud 30:05 | prov.

Discuss.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

55x11 said:


> ammattipyöräily @ammattipyoraily
> 
> #TDF, Pla d'Adet (last 10 km)
> 
> ...


Slower than the drug cheats. nuf said.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

foto said:


> Slower than the drug cheats. nuf said.


oh yeah. much, much slower.
Very comforting to know all the doping was worth 6 seconds on 30min climb.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

foto said:


> yeah but Ten Dam is still in it and nibali is crushing him!


Ten Dam also got dropped by Wiggins on one of the climbs in (Diablo?) in Tour of Cali. Shame that Sky did not bring Wiggins


----------



## BacDoc (Aug 1, 2011)

55x11 said:


> oh yeah. much, much slower.
> Very comforting to know all the doping was worth 6 seconds on 30min climb.


I agree, 6 seconds is a wash. A small gust of headwind or tail wind would account for that.

It would be interesting to compare more stats, where do you find that info?


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

In my opinion Nibali's commanding lead isn't due solely to the fact that he's good, but it's also due to the fact that most of his stiffest competition has crashed out of the TDF.


----------



## dwt (Apr 2, 2002)

55x11 said:


> ammattipyöräily @ammattipyoraily
> 
> #TDF, Pla d'Adet (last 10 km)
> 
> ...


Drugs still rampant. Duh. Froome too, and all others who are close

Too good to be true , not true


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

SauronHimself said:


> In my opinion Nibali's commanding lead isn't due solely to the fact that he's good, but it's also due to the fact that most of his stiffest competition has crashed out of the TDF.


One can't forget that Armstrong was basically unopposed in '99. Jan crashed out at a race leading up to the TdF (and easily won the Vuelta). Pantani was out. Julich also crashed out early.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Lots of attention on the Froomey/Contadorian crashes. 

Let's not forget that Wiggo isn't racing either.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

55x11 said:


> ammattipyöräily @ammattipyoraily
> 
> #TDF, Pla d'Adet (last 10 km)
> 
> ...


numbers useless without context. 
for starters: one was after 115 km of racing, the other 195. Surely that can just be discarded for a quick conclusion. 
Well also one had 3 cat 1 climbs before the other 4 cat 1s and a cat 2. 
let alone any kind of tactics for the climb.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

BacDoc said:


> I agree, 6 seconds is a wash. A small gust of headwind or tail wind would account for that.
> 
> It would be interesting to compare more stats, where do you find that info?


It's from a Finnish blog. "Procycling" is what it translates to. 

Good luck understanding it if you find it. :wink:


----------



## SNS1938 (Aug 9, 2013)

den bakker said:


> numbers useless without context.
> for starters: one was after 115 km of racing, the other 195. Surely that can just be discarded for a quick conclusion.
> Well also one had 3 cat 1 climbs before the other 4 cat 1s and a cat 2.
> let alone any kind of tactics for the climb.


Which was which? Sorry, but are you saying the armstrong time was after a harder stage, and therefore nibali is clean, or saying that nibali's time is after a longer stage and he's therefore a bigger doper? (I'm short of time to google the answers right now)


----------



## geekjimmy (Mar 26, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> Lots of attention on the Froomey/Contadorian crashes.
> 
> Let's not forget that Wiggo isn't racing either.


Or Quintana.


----------



## r1lee (Jul 22, 2012)

Nibali attacked on stage 2 and no one was going to bridge it. Could they bridge it? Nibali's been that strong since.


----------



## dwt (Apr 2, 2002)

I feel sorry for Valverde. While Nibali scampered up Hautacam like he was riding a recovery ride on a bike path, Valverde struggled like just another pro, lost time and GC placing. Didn't he and his team get the memo that dope is OK again? Nibali is doing a Froome, making impossible climbing efforts look easy. Yellow jersey and Polka Dot together. One difference is that Nibali can't TT like Froome. Bad news for fans, nobody left to take time back from Nibali on the TT stage. Break out the champagne early, the winner decided once again, well before race over. Yawn. Too bad about Froome and Contador crashes. One or both would gave pushed Nibali in mountains and TT. Those 3 would have been the podium, in what order a guess. Mine is Nibali 3rd behind Froome 2nd and Contador another Yellow.


----------



## ti-triodes (Aug 14, 2006)

dwt said:


> I feel sorry for Valverde. While Nibali scampered up Hautacam like he was riding a recovery ride on a bike path, Valverde struggled like just another pro, lost time and GC placing. Didn't he and his team get the memo that dope is OK again? Nibali is doing a Froome, making impossible climbing efforts look easy. Yellow jersey and Polka Dot together. One difference is that Nibali can't TT like Froome. Bad news for fans, nobody left to take time back from Nibali on the TT stage. Break out the champagne early, the winner decided once again, well before race over. Yawn. Too bad about Froome and Contador crashes. One or both would gave pushed Nibali in mountains and TT. Those 3 would have been the podium, in what order a guess. Mine is Nibali 3rd behind Froome 2nd and Contador another Yellow.


Agreed about Contadope in Yellow. The rest of his team looks a lot stronger than Astana's and Astana is good but definitely not better than Sky.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

SNS1938 said:


> Which was which? Sorry, but are you saying the armstrong time was after a harder stage, and therefore nibali is clean, or saying that nibali's time is after a longer stage and he's therefore a bigger doper? (I'm short of time to google the answers right now)


here's what I'm saying 
"numbers useless without context. " It's really easy, just go by what I wrote. 
but you seem to be too busy anyway so another time I guess.


----------



## captain stubbing (Mar 30, 2011)

you have to look at it in context, yeah looks like he's doing it easy but who is he beating...and aging valverde, a 37 year old peroud, a few young frenchies. i'd expect him to win easy in this field.

btw, he rode the hautacam about a minute slower than armstrong did, and nearly 3 minutes slower than riis. but as said previously, different conditions etc, apples and oranges.


----------



## dwt (Apr 2, 2002)

captain stubbing said:


> you have to look at it in context, yeah looks like he's doing it easy but who is he beating...and aging valverde, a 37 year old peroud, a few young frenchies. i'd expect him to win easy in this field.


Win is fine. But obliterate "not normal" He looked human in the Dauphine, but now Armstrong-Froome like total domination. The context I see is "not normal" performances are doped to the gills, a big yawn for me. 
Too bad Froome and Contador crashed out. 3 doped riders duking it with not normal performances at least interesting. One dominating doper a total bore


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Not boring, there's plenty of GC drama left.


----------



## dwt (Apr 2, 2002)

foto said:


> Not boring, there's plenty of GC drama left.


I suppose you mean 2nd & 3rd on the podium. Other than that, it's over, except for who who will be the sprinter who wins final stage on Champs Élysées


----------



## SpeedNeeder (Aug 19, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> 1) Froome and Contador are not here anymore. Hard to get a good gauage of Nibali when the 2 top favorites are gone.
> 3) I will say this though. During the Dauphine, Nibali was struggling in a very bad way against Froome and Conti. Then three weeks later at the start of the TdF, he was in the best shape of the season. Even before the Dauphine, he wasn't in the sort of shape that he is currently in. Endurance at his level doesn't doesn't improve like that in a matter of weeks, unless he was just sandbagging the whole time.


I don't know if he is any better than at the dauphine, just the guys that beat him there aren't riding against him now, including that guy that won.


----------



## misterwaterfallin (Sep 14, 2012)

dwt said:


> I suppose you mean 2nd & 3rd on the podium. Other than that, it's over, except for who who will be the sprinter who wins final stage on Champs Élysées


Yea, other than 2/3rd's of the GC podium...it's over

/sarcasm


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

foto said:


> Slower than the drug cheats. nuf said.


by a whopping 6 seconds
and he got to ease up as he had no one on his wheel, Lance and Basso raced to the line


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

SNS1938 said:


> Which was which? Sorry, but are you saying the armstrong time was after a harder stage, and therefore nibali is clean, or saying that nibali's time is after a longer stage and he's therefore a bigger doper? (I'm short of time to google the answers right now)


Armstrong / Basso was longer stage. This years was 124K, not 115. Then again, context. We'd need to see how hard all the stages were around it


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

atpjunkie said:


> Armstrong / Basso was longer stage. This years was 124K, not 115. Then again, context. We'd need to see how hard all the stages were around it



Distances and Climb Cats (in order)
2005

Stage 10 192K 1 - 1
Stage 11 173K HC - 1 - HC
Stage 12 187k 3 - 2 - 4 - 4 - 2
Stage 13 Flat
Stage 14 220k 4 - 4 - 3 - 4 - HC - 1 
Stage 15 205K a 2 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - HC
Rest

2014
Stage 11 188k 3 - 3 - 4 - 3
Stage 12 186k 4 - 3 - 3 - 4, sprint finish
Stage 13 198k 3 - 1 - HC
Stage 14 177k 1- HC - 1
Stage 15 Downhill Flat
Rest
Stage 16 237K 4 - 4 - 2- 3 - HC
Stage 17 124k 1 - 1 - 1 - HC (Stage in question)


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

2005 977K of mountain stages (Alpes and Pyrenees)
4 HCs
8 1s
3 2s
2 3s
5 4s

2014 
933K of Mountain stages (Alpes and Pyrenees)
4 HCs
6 1s
1 2
6 3s
4 4s

44K shorter, 1 less climb. Fewer 1s and 2s lots more 3s


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

no comments based on the data?
Nibali had a flat stage, a rest, and a low rated stage before the day in question

Basso and Lance had what appears to be a much harder lead up to their day in question

but how much harder?

still only 6 seconds and Nibali wasn't pressed to the line


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

atpjunkie said:


> no comments based on the data?
> Nibali had a flat stage, a rest, and a low rated stage before the day in question
> 
> Basso and Lance had what appears to be a much harder lead up to their day in question
> ...


At the same time, thanks to the cushion that Nibali had coming out of the cobbles and the withdraws of Contador and Froome Nibali was under A LOT less pressure. Then Richie Porte has his bad day and Sky goes to pieces as they try to figure out "what next."

I still don't see why the other teams didn't try to just attack the crap out of him. Even my dad who only occasionally watches cycling was scratching his head and said that he felt like everyone else was just racing for 2nd. Movistar attacking Tee Jay...

On the 14th Nibali told Cycling news he expected Valverde and Porte to attack him. The teams never did. At some point, especially in the Pyrennes I was expecting to see all of Sky or Movistar get on the front and just start crushing it. Astana was not exactly the strongest team there in the mountains. Not bad but there were better. Instead they seemed content to mark Nibali and wait, hoping he had a bad event to attack. This meant that he could basically just ride along and push it when he felt like it, rather than have to fight day in and out. That makes a difference over a month.

Not saying he didn't dope mind you, simply that I think the tactics of the other teams benefited Nibali as much as I'll timed crashes.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Teams tried to attack. They isolated him, wound up the pace and then he said "Thanks for the tow, Ciao!" and rode away from them like they were club riders

not saying he did or didn't. slightly easier parcourse, but only a 6 second time difference between him and guys who were 'doped'


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

atpjunkie said:


> Teams tried to attack. They isolated him, wound up the pace and then he said "Thanks for the tow, Ciao!" and rode away from them like they were club riders
> 
> not saying he did or didn't. slightly easier parcourse, but only a 6 second time difference between him and guys who were 'doped'


Only Sky did and then Porte imploded and game over. The other teams attacked each other. What I mean is this..."okay Tee Jay blew mission accomplished" while they were towing along Nibali. "Okay Porte blew" while they were towing Nibali. Also I saw Sky and Movistar attack...that was about it. Now maybe this also had to do with the fact Nibali was the only GC guy to finish with a full team? They had to spare their matches and the lead out of the cobbles made it a ? Maybe I am just used to those truly fun tours where the other GC teams just gang up on the leaders jersey and attack in concert? I just got the distinct feeling that everyone was attacking everyone but Nibali. /shrug


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

badge118 said:


> Only Sky did and then Porte imploded and game over. The other teams attacked each other. What I mean is this..."okay Tee Jay blew mission accomplished" while they were towing along Nibali. "Okay Porte blew" while they were towing Nibali. Also I saw Sky and Movistar attack...that was about it. Now maybe this also had to do with the fact Nibali was the only GC guy to finish with a full team? They had to spare their matches and the lead out of the cobbles made it a ? Maybe I am just used to those truly fun tours where the other GC teams just gang up on the leaders jersey and attack in concert? I just got the distinct feeling that everyone was attacking everyone but Nibali. /shrug


in essence many of the top teams and/or riders tried to put an isolated Nibali under duress and instead put themselves into the red and then Nibali typically dropped them all in under 200 meters of effort


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

atpjunkie said:


> in essence many of the top teams and/or riders tried to put an isolated Nibali under duress and instead put themselves into the red and then Nibali typically dropped them all in under 200 meters of effort


No they didn't, at least I didn't see it. I saw Sky sorta try like once. Other than that the other teams attacked they attacked everyone but Nibali and once their target was down they let off.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

atpjunkie said:


> in essence many of the top teams and/or riders tried to put an isolated Nibali under duress and instead put themselves into the red and then Nibali typically dropped them all in under 200 meters of effort


Here is an idea...I don't know enough about doping to know if this is correct though.

We know back pre EPO we had longer time splits between competitors. Does doping have diminishing returns? Let's say athletes fit into tiers. A true world champ is t1, one of his "helpers" t2, that kinda thing. Once your body is at a t1 level does dope have a smaller effect? I say this because if dope can make a t2 a t1...but a t1 only becomes a t1.25 the natural t1 athlete now has more "danger men" to worry about and thus has to work harder throughout the entire race.

Just a thought because if true or close to true it is a dynamic we may have to account for in the future (providing there has indeed been a sea change.)


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

badge118 said:


> Here is an idea...I don't know enough about doping to know if this is correct though.
> 
> We know back pre EPO we had longer time splits between competitors.


really? 
Tour de France Winners, Podium, Times


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

den bakker said:


> really?
> Tour de France Winners, Podium, Times


Yeah look at 1981.. 14 min+, 1979... 13 min+, '74 8+, '73 15 minutes plus.

If you total up all of the 7 minute plus time gaps from 1970-1990 you get 9 such results 6 of them over 10 minutes O.O

In 1990-2010 (read EPO era) we have 3 time gaps of 7 minutes plus and nothing close to a 10 minute gap.

That to me is a VERY substantial difference.

Look at Tricky Dick in 1997, 1 year before Festina. Number 2? Then he basically comes out just as a KOM man because he knows damn well he is on the radar.

Not saying this is what is happening but one has to at least look into it as a possibility I think.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Here is Cycling news take as of this morning...

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014...ph-culmination-slow-steady-progression_338701



> “Every day I’ve taken a few seconds, 20 seconds here, 30 seconds there, maybe a minute and that’s been important in building my lead,” he said.
> 
> It has made Nibali perhaps the most credible Tour winner since the darkest days of doping.


. 

/shrug

I can see that argument as well. Nibali gained 2 minutes on the cobbles...of the other GC contenders he was the one with some history of riding well on them. Take that away he has a more "humane" 5 odd minute time gap.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

badge118 said:


> Yeah look at 1981.. 14 min+, 1979... 13 min+, '74 8+, '73 15 minutes plus.
> 
> If you total up all of the 7 minute plus time gaps from 1970-1990 you get 9 such results 6 of them over 10 minutes O.O
> 
> ...


all else being equal between 1970 and 2010 of course.... 
why not include the 60s? three runner ups within 70 seconds of the winner.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

den bakker said:


> all else being equal between 1970 and 2010 of course....
> why not include the 60s? three runner ups within 70 seconds of the winner.


Well to maintain consistency (it was the EPO "era") you need to use a 20 year time frame. So between 1950 and 1970.... 8 over 7 minutes... 7 over ten minutes...the 8th over 9 minutes.

If we even narrow the field to justify your idea... 3 between 1960 and 1970 to the 2 between 1990 and 2000 or 1 between 2000 and 2010. Those 3 all well over 10 minutes.

It is pretty clear that historically there were statistically more large time gaps AND these gaps when they exist were typically much larger. Why these statistics exists I don't know...but I do know that many chemicals introduced into the human body suffer from diminishing returns depending on biological factors. So that and the Stats....which I had already looked at BTW, were why I though it may apply to doping.

In the end though when you are looking at an " era", even one as closely defined as the EPO era, and try to compare it to others...you need to use the same time frames. You can't just cherry pick 10 years to compare to 20 and you can't just pick the "worst" decade of an era to another decade that initially appears to prove your point. As such if your one data set starts in 1990 (or 1190) and goes on for almost 2 decades, you then have to compare it to the same time frames in blocks that occurred before. 

If we do that with the record list the result is what I propose. Why? Maybe it was everyone (or almost everyone was doping) maybe something else...but it is something worthy of some consideration.


----------



## JSUlly (Jul 10, 2014)

Using pure time isn't valid. A 7 minute victor over 110 hours is a lot less than a 7 minute victory over 90 hours.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

JSUlly said:


> Using pure time isn't valid. A 7 minute victor over 110 hours is a lot less than a 7 minute victory over 90 hours.


In my longer calculations at home I accounted for this. It is why I mentioned the 10 minute plus times.

Example this year and 1970. This years tour had a % diff of -25%... However the % difference in terms of times is -38%. Add in the fact that the top guy from 1970 should have been far more cooked...

Add in the fact the average speed was only 4k faster and the race had NO split stages a was over 800k shorter and with the shorter distance Nibali only managed 3kmph faster than the winner... 

Also I am accounting for the cobbled stage. Let's be honest...of the GC contenders Nibali is the only one who really seemed to focus on cobble training AND came out of it without mishap himself, or getting slowed by other mishaps. 

That alone netted him 2 minutes. He was the only GC contender to be in the right spot when the Peleton broke up. Porte waited for at least 1 of Fromme's crashes, Valverde crashed, Tee Jay crashed...so really over the course of the rest of the race Nibali gained 5 minutes...not 7+.

So he ultimately gained 5 minutes over a race that was easier than those in the pre-EPO era and that 5 minutes seems even less impressive when you look at the time splits of the 4k+ races with split stages from "back in the day."


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Winning margin _ 1919-1939 _ 1947-2013 _ 1991-2005
count _____________ 21 ________ 67 ________ 15
mean	___________ 0:38:38 ____ 0:06:39 ___ 0:05:09
max ____________ 1:48:41 ____ 0:28:17 ___ 0:09:09
min ____________ 0:04:01 ____ 0:00:08 ___ 0:01:01
median _________ 0:30:38 ____ 0:04:35 ___ 0:04:59


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Winning margin _ 1919-1939 _ 1947-2013 _ 1991-2005
> count _____________ 21 ________ 67 ________ 15
> mean___________ 0:38:38 ____ 0:06:39 ___ 0:05:09
> max ____________ 1:48:41 ____ 0:28:17 ___ 0:09:09
> ...


Using the 1947-61 is not really applicable. During that time they did not allow "trade teams" so you were stuck with just National teams...this lead to some wildly weird set ups depending on what each individual country had to work with (this started in full force in 1930). Before 1930 you would even have individuals (touriste- routiers) entering. To have as close to an apples to apples comparison you have to start with the 1961 tour and work forward.

Also the issue isn't the median but rather the frequency of times greater than a certain amount in the same number of years. Taking the median...especially of two data sets of VERY different sizes, doesn't illustrate that.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)




----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

badge118 said:


> Using the 1947-61 is not really applicable. During that time they did not allow "trade teams" so you were stuck with just National teams...this lead to some wildly weird set ups depending on what each individual country had to work with (this started in full force in 1930). Before 1930 you would even have individuals (touriste- routiers) entering. To have as close to an apples to apples comparison you have to start with the 1961 tour and work forward.
> 
> Also the issue isn't the median but rather the frequency of times greater than a certain amount in the same number of years. Taking the median...especially of two data sets of VERY different sizes, doesn't illustrate that.


Sure, but note this is the margin from first to second place, not first to last.

In any case, the chart in my previous post should suffice.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Sure, but note this is the margin from first to second place, not first to last.
> 
> In any case, the chart in my previous post should suffice.


Or this one covering 1961 - 2014










Winning margin	1961-2014
count	_	54
mean___	05:21
max____	17:54
min____	00:08
median_	04:17


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Sure, but note this is the margin from first to second place, not first to last.
> 
> In any case, the chart in my previous post should suffice.


Yes but I think the chart and the median tell two different things. The Contention is that pre-EPO era you had larger time gaps between athletes. As this appears to be the case could modern doping products have diminishing returns as you move up the ladder in terms of "physical specimen" (for lack of a better term). When you look at the median it does not appear so. When you look at the chart it does.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

badge118 said:


> Yes but I think the chart and the median tell two different things. The Contention is that pre-EPO era you had larger time gaps between athletes. As this appears to be the case could modern doping products have diminishing returns as you move up the ladder in terms of "physical specimen" (for lack of a better term). When you look at the median it does not appear so. When you look at the chart it does.


I don't think you can draw a conclusion either way.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> I don't think you can draw a conclusion either way.


Oh I am NOT saying the times show it...it just raised the possibility in my mind. I was hoping someone here actually has a medical background and could say yea/nay or "sometimes" whatever.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

badge118 said:


> Oh I am NOT saying the times show it...it just raised the possibility in my mind. I was hoping someone here actually has a medical background and could say yea/nay or "sometimes" whatever.


Are you reading Science of Sport and Veloclinic (or do you discount them because they don't have medical degrees)?


----------



## BacDoc (Aug 1, 2011)

When I look at those old video clips I'm surprised by the speeds they reached in the 40's and 50's. Looks like a lot of the roads are not paved and even the paved roads look rough. Plus some of those guys wore spare tires around their shoulders and smoked cigarettes! Talk about training tech and aero advantage!

Like to see Nibali climbing with a tire wrapped around his body and riding a 25lb+ bike.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

asgelle said:


> Are you reading Science of Sport and Veloclinic (or do you discount them because they don't have medical degrees)?


No...are they web sites, magazines or both? I don't care if someone personally is a medical degree BTW BUT I do expect them to be able to links either info from one or a peer reviewed study. Data>anecdotes I always say.


----------

