Danilo di Luca - positive for CERA

Di Luca caught for CERA - not Tour-related, but a big name in the net

The week has been dominated by Tour de France news - you can read my recap of the Alps in a post below, and don't forget to tune in later for the analysis of the Time-trial.

But, in what is important other news, Danilo Di Luca has tested positive for CERA during the Giro d'Italia this year. You can read about the positive test here. What I will say about this is that it has alarming implications for the testing processes . Pat McQuaid (who I am constantly reminded was denying that cycling had a doping problem in 2007, until sponsors started pulling out left and right) has claimed that catching Di Luca is "further proof that the system works and we are determined to get rid of the cheats"

And he is partly right. They caught a big name, second in the Giro this year. That is obviously a good sign. Not quite so positive, however, is the fact that a big name cyclist, who KNOWS he is going to be tested, and who KNOWS that the authorities are able to pick up CERA, is still using it. It says a lot about the attitude of Di Luca to the testers and the testing processes, and suggests that he knew that the chances of getting caught were relatively slim. Or perhaps they just gamble because the risk is perceived to be worth the potential reward. Bernard Kohl's testimony, his revelations of his own use, should be taken very seriously when combined with this latest indication that CERA, despite being detectable, lives on in the pro peloton during competition.

We as observers, and people involved in cycling, often look at testing as a means to deter doping. So, when in 2008, it was clearly evident that doping controls WOULD detect CERA, it should, according to our "model" have signified the end of CERA use during competition (use of drugs out of competition still presents a problem, of course). Yet here we have a cyclist, high profile, successful and thus guaranteed to be tested, and he is still using the substance. It is a worrying symptom of what is a deeper problem. How many others like Di Luca, like Bernard Kohl, are doping and getting away with it? I suspect many. Why did Di Luca get caught, and why now? Did he make a mistake, or was he targeted only recently? Perhaps he used CERA in the off-season and then re-infused blood that contained it? Or is the "strike rate" low enough that riders can get away with it?

So rather than agree entirely with Pat McQuaid, I think this latest positive is a flag that things are not as rosy as they appear - under some control, perhaps, for I do believe that the riders are being much more cautious and are more "afraid" now than ever, thanks to the blood passport and the like. But deterred? I don't think so.

Below is part of a post from the site Cycling Fans Anonymous. It is an excellent resource from a cynical (I would say realistic) cycling fan. It sums up the situation with Di Luca excellently, so I've copied a couple of paragraphs in below. Take some time and read the whole post, though, because it provides the realistic assessment of this year's Tour de France, and the cynicism with which the sport should probably be met. Many will feel it is overly negative. I tend to think it's closer to the truth than we'd like to believe, and it's well written, thought-provoking and more accurate than most of the "fed" coverage of cycling that the associated press and general media provide.

So Di Luca is finally caught, after doping for likely his entire career. About damn time. He actually publicly stated that notorious doping doctor Carlo Santuccione was his "family doctor" since he was child, so while it is a relief to see him fall at long last, it is also a sad indictment of the total inadequacy of the usual sort of anti-doping testing that it took so many long years to catch him. Like Kohl, who explained that he should have tested positive any number of times long before his CERA positive, I think that Di Luca has long been getting away with it with ease due to the help of Santuccione and his informers, who warned the doctor about upcoming "surprise" tests. The jury is still out on whether the bio-passport will really be able to end the dark days of obvious dopers being able to smugly say they never tested positive. In catching Di Luca, the UCI can now earnestly wave a big fish under our noses as "proof" of their sincerity in the anti-doping fight. With the UCI however, cycling fans have long since learned the hard way to question everything and temper our expectations. Putting your faith in the UCI's veracity is sort of like declaring the Tour to be clean. As much as you might want to believe it, you are just asking to look stupid a few months down the line. The UCI's history is nothing if not one big object lesson on the power of denial and the misuse of official authority. McQuaid will soon be reelected as head of the UCI, without any opposition candidates even running. Verbruggen, who has to be among the worst doping apologist ever, is still in a position of power at the UCI. The UCI is still suing Dick Pound. Is this an organization that you can believe in?

The other point made by this latest positive is that some cyclists are clearly not afraid of getting caught when taking CERA. Why is this? It seems that they must have info that the chances of getting caught are relatively slim. You have to wonder what percentage of CERA users the CERA test actually is able to catch? How many other cyclists have been using CERA and got away with it? There must be quite a few if there are still high-profile, frequently-tested cyclists who are willing to take the risk and face the odds of discovery. For cyclists who have been doping and not getting caught for their entire career, the sense of invincibility must be deeply ingrained, and their attitudes toward the acceptability of doping seem to be lagging behind the growing ability of the bio-passport to catch them. The idea of many long-time dopers in the cycling world seems to be that they are simply not doing anything wrong, and that tacit acceptance of doping is and ought to be the unwritten law of the sport. Riders who have lived this reality for years will have a hard time coming to grips with the idea that the UCI might actually be serious about anti-doping this time...maybe.

Source: Cycling Fans Anonymous

Tour 2009: Alps recap

Over the Alps: Recap and highlights

I must apologize for the absence of posts in the last few days - work has simply demanded too much time squeeze out anything other than a short summary of the stages, and you can get plenty of those elsewhere, so I haven't been writing.

I am planning to be "back on the bike" for today's 40 km Time-trial in Annecy, which should be a key day in the determining the final classification when we get to Paris. Hopefully, I will be able to analyse the pacing strategies employed by the top ten riders - so tune in for that a little later today!

Until later, a short summary of the Alps.

A summary of the Alps

The last two days, Tuesday and Wednesday, produced hard riding but nothing as spectacular as the climb up to Verbier. The Tour "pecking order" was established on that climb, as Alberto Contador set himself up as the man to beat. From that moment on, it was always going to be about who would have anything left to throw at him.

The Schleck brothers certainly did their best, and their aggression and efforts on Tuesday and Wednesday made for the excitement. I really enjoy Andy's riding style, as he promised to attack and then delivered. Ultimately, it was a "failed" effort is as far as dislodging Contador goes, but he has managed to put himself into second (along with a little help from Astana's team orders that compelled Armstrong to allow the Schlecks to ride on ahead - I suspect he would be much closer had that not happened, if not ahead of them). Andy's second place will come under major threat in the time-trial and possibly on Mont Ventoux, where the big shakedown for the podium will come.

Contador's Tour?

It seems as though Contador has, barring disaster, got the Tour sewn up, since he was pretty comfortable in following the attacks in the Alps. He may lose some time in the time-trial, particularly to Armstrong and Wiggins (if he recovers and has form after the Alps, of course), but I can't see him losing the yellow now.

His attack near the summit of the Colombiere inspired criticism of a "bad move", since it put his team-mate Andreas Kloden into difficulty. Different versions of the event exist - Contador says that the plan was to attack and gain mintues, and that he discussed it with Kloden on the climb, who told him to go for it (there certainly was a lot being said between the two Astana riders). Johan Bruyneel was quoted as saying he had advised not to go, since there was no need for attack. It is the latest in a series of "misinformation" events from within Astana, and it's anyone's guess who is telling the truth - this great article from the Times sums up how Contador has been portrayed from within Astana to date. So when Contador and Bruyneel give conflicting stories after the stage, one of them is lying. Which is it? Who knows? Misinformation is certainly nothing new in cycling, especially when it comes to Bruyneel and Armstrong, who have used it tactically in the past (remember Alp d'Huez 2001 for an example - that was the best bluff in the history of the Tour). I suspect there are probably elements of truth in all the accounts - maybe it was a plan before the stage to attack, but then as the stage unfolded, Bruyneel decided rather not to.

The podium battle

The podium battle then remains, with Andy and Frank Schleck occupying second and third. Both positions are tenuous, Frank in particular will be looking over his shoulder today as Armstrong fights to regain the podium spot. But for team instructions, I suspect Armstrong would already occupy it, he has certainly shown the form on the last two days to at the very least have conserved his advantage, which he'd then be building on, rather than attempting to narrow gaps. That little sub-plot - the battle for second and third, should provide the best spectacle in the next three days.

Brad Wiggins has probably lost a little too much time to challenge seriously for the podium. Unless he produces a miracle time-trial, his great Tour will probably end in the top five, but not top 3. Nibali and Kloden make up the other protagonists, but with Mont Ventoux still to come, it's too early to say - the one advantage of the Tour route this year!

So bring on the time-trial and let us see what transpires. I'll try to analyse the pacing strategies a little later, so join us then!

Ross

Tour 2009: Contador climb

The anatomy of a climb: Contador on the Verbier - its place in Tour climbing "history"

News Update: Based on Contador's amazing climb of the Verbier, a french scientist has estimated Contador's VO2 max to be 99.5 ml/kg/min. This was the catalyst for accusations of doping from numerous commentators, including Greg Lemond. However, is this estimation accurate? Does Contador really have a VO2max of 99.5 ml/kg/min, and can we say he might be doping? For discussion on these questions, read our latest post here.

Well, the response to the post yesterday describing Contador's climb has been overwhelming - being in SA, I slept through most of your emails and woke this morning to a deluge of comments and analysis of the climb. Thank you to everyone for your input. It would be wonderful to do a more detailed breakdown of the climb, but that would require accurate information regarding the profile and the specific gradients per kilometer.

Unfortunately, there is little chance of consensus on the actual figures for the climb. Many of you have commented in the last post and referred me to profiles, breakdowns, specific kilometer-by-kilometer gradients, and thank you very much for that. However, not a single person's input agrees with anyone else's!

For example, on the Tour website, the climb is listed as 8.7km at 7.5%. However, the profiles many of you provided vary quite a bit from this. The Tour profile indicates a 9km climb with a total rise of 638m (a gradient of 7.1%). Other websites were saying it was 8.8km at 7.5%, or 7.1%, or 8.3 km long. There was even a suggestion that it was only 7.2km long! Finding the real profile seems a mission impossible! This has obvious implications for the calculated wattage and VAM on the day.

I believe that the distance of the climb is 8.7km - I base this on the fact that at the bottom of climb, as the peloton turned left, the banner signalling the start of the King of the Mountains "competition" very clearly indicated 8.7km to the summit. I can believe that the Tour website might be incorrect, but I find it difficult to believe that they would also err on the actual measurement of the route. Also, one of you said that an SRM from a Tour rider showed the length of the climb to be 8.74km. So I think it's a safe bet to say that the climb is 8.7km long.

In terms of the vertical rise, it is more difficult. It seems that most are saying that it rises 638m. A few commenters said this, and it was also the assumption used Dr Michele Ferrari in his own analysis of the climb at 53x12.com. Finally, SRM data from yesterday suggests that the climb is 640m, which differs from the 653m that is inferred from the official Tour guide and even from the mapmyride.com route, which has a 653m rise over an 8.7km length.

As a result of all this "disagreement", doing a detailed analysis on this kind of data is fraught with assumptions and therefore possible errors. As it is, Contador's climbing rate is either 1858m/hour or it is 1900m/hour. A small error - 2%, but still, going into more detail than this makes that error even greater.

So unfortunately, a detailed breakdown of the climb is not possible until one knows the altitude and distances with greater certainty - at the moment, the figures just don't match up. The mere fact that there is so much "disagreement" from one profile to the next, where the climb begins and ends, and what the gradient was means it's pretty speculative to try to work out power output per kilometer. I was really hopeful this would be possible, because it would have been fascinating to track how Contador's power peaked and then stabilised as he first followed, then attacked and built his lead.

Comparison between Contador and the history of the Tour

Nevertheless, it is still interesting to compare Contador's climb to those of riders in the past. I said yesterday that Contador's rate of 1900m/hour (based on the 8.7km @ 7.5% assumption, recall) was a record in the Tour. I know a lot of people have said that VAMs alone cannot be used to compare one climb to another. If you do so 'blindly', I agree, but provided you acknowledge that length of the climb and its gradient influences VAMs, as you'll see below, then this analysis is still quite intriguing. It will reveal, for example, that Contador's high VAM was achieved on the least steep of all the top 10 climbs in the history of the Tour. Therefore, on a steeper climb, it would be even higher. Yes, it was also a short climb, but more on that below.

If we go with the more conservative climb of 640m (as per SRM data), then the climbing rate is lower, at 1864m/hour. That is still a record in the Tour, mind you, as the graph below shows. This is a graph of the twelve highest VAMs ever in the Tour de France (click on it to enlarge if it's too small):

So Contador surpasses Riis' climb of Hautacam 13 years ago, as well as those of Pantani, Armstrong, Leblanc (a surprise name on this list!) and Ullrich. Just as an aside, Pantani's form in 1997 was astonishing.

VAM and relative power output, and influence of gradient

VAM (or vertical ascent in meters per hour) is a measurement popularised by Dr Michele Ferrari (yes, that one) as a means of comparison between riders and climbs, because it can be used to calculate relative power output.

It is important to understand that VAM is affected by the gradient. According to Dr Ferrari himself, the higher the grade, the greater the VAM at a given power output. The relationship between VAM and relative power output is defined as follows:

Relative power (W/kg) = VAM (m/hour) / (Gradient factor x 100)

This gradient factor ranges between 2.6 for a gradient of 6% and 3.1 for a gradient of 11% (The gradient factor is equal to [2 plus (% grade/10)]. You can read more on this relationship here)

Implications for the Contador climb

This has implications for Contador's climb. For Contador, the relative power output can be calculated by taking the VAM (1864m/h) and dividing by 275 (the constant for 7.5%). This gives a relative power output of 6.78 W/kg. (Ferrari calculates 6.73W/kg, but he uses a VAM of 1852m/h, because his ascent is 638m, not 640m. This shows again the discrepancies in measuring this Verbier climb!)

The point I have to make is that on a steeper climb, the same power output would produce an EVEN HIGHER VAM. Therefore, if you look at that graph above, Contador's record VAM would have been higher on any of the other slopes - Alpe d'Huez at 8.1%, Hautacam at 7.7% and Joux Plane at 8.5% would produce higher VAMS. For example, had Contador been on an 8.5% slope, producing the same power output, his VAM would increase to 1932m/hour.

In other words, Contador's climb was a record IN SPITE of the more gradual climb.

Confounders and explainers

There are a number of things that have to be factored into all these performances, particularly that of Contador. I touched on some yesterday, but here are some other contributing factors:

Wind

It's been reported that there was quite a strong wind blowing up the valley on the climb. Alex very helpfully calculated what impact a wind would have on the required power output on the climb. It turns out that with NO WIND, the power output required on the climb is approximately 422W. A tail-wind speed of 3m/s (10km/hour) reduces the power output required to 387W, which is a pretty sizeable difference. Of course, the climb cannot have had a tailwind all the way up - it had hairpins and so there will have been headwinds and tailwinds. However, this is an average tailwind, and it seems reasonable. I tried to watch for signs of strong winds on the climb, but must confess it was not noticeable.

Also, in the graph above, there is no controlling for the wind. Perhaps LeBlanc had a mighty tail-wind on Hautacam in 1994? Perhaps Pantani faced a head-wind in 1997 and could even have been faster? It's impossible to factor that in, which is why it can be risky making judgements in isolation! That is why averages over longer time-periods provide more meaningful information than once off events. The average power output on climbs over the course of a Tour tells you more than single climbs (but more on that in other posts). However, it's safe to say that wind can have a substantial impact on climbing power calculated from ascent time.

Climb length

Many have been quick to point out that the climbing rate should be higher, given that Verbier is a shorter climb than most of those done at the end of Tours. This is certainly a factor, since most of the climbs in the above list are 35 minutes long (Hautacam) or even longer (Alpe d'Huez). Soler's climb in 2007 was short - 22 minutes, but the difference in length is certainly partly responsible. Therefore, Contador's record VAM is at least partly due to a shorter climb.

I say "partly", because I don't believe that the effect of length is as great as many seem to believe. It's certainly a factor, I don't wish to dismiss it, but not as large as one might first thing. For example, when the Tour did the time-trial on Alpe d'Huez in 2004, the climbing times of all the main riders was only just marginally faster than when the same climb was done at the end of a 200km stage (all the other times in that list above). Similarly, long climbs like the Tourmalet and Mont Ventoux are climbed only a few percent slower than the shorter climbs, and so while length plays a role, and would account for some of Contador's record ascent rate, it's not as simple as saying "shorter equals faster".

Race situation

I will say that the way this Tour had gone, the first big finish was always going to be spectacular. The Tour was effectively dormant for 8 days, and the Pyrenees were done with minimal attrition. Therefore, given the situation and the way that the race had developed, the climb was always going to be fast. This again illustrates how isolated climbs can't be taken out of context, and is the reason one should look at a collection of climbs to reduce the impact of these confounders as much as is possible.

Doping?

Finally, I did mention in yesterday's post that given the change in pro-cycling over the last few years, one would expect a drop in climbing rates, not new records. People will wonder about what this record ascent means - it's only natural given cycling's history!

I've hopefully managed to explain some of the other factors that must be considered in the Contador climb, but this question remains, without a doubt. It would be naive to dismiss it out of hand. I will say that performance analysis of single performances does not constitute proof of anything. In fact, it's a weak method of inferring doping. That was never my intention in yesterday's post, by the way (in case it came across that way). The better approach is to look at all climbs and work on averages, as I did for Tour winners from 1989 to 2001 in a previous post.

Why? Because doping has an effect on the repeatability of the performance, just as much as it affects performance acutely. Many will think only of the acute doping effect, but in fact, most of the doping products exert an even bigger effect on recovery, and hence the ability to produce this level of performance over and over. Think testosterone, growth hormone, cortisone, insulin - all are used to reduce stress response or improve post-exercise recovery. Even EPO would have this effect. Therefore, one cannot infer too much from a once-off performance. Rather, you have to look at a collection of performances, which also partly addresses variability provided by wind speed, temperatures and race situation.

In time, however, this performance will be placed into context - one of perhaps 10 climbs in the 2009 Tour, just as there may have been 10 climbs in 2008, 2002 or 1996. At that point, one will get a better idea of what is happening, and hopefully the analysis we did of the Tour winners 1989 to 2001 will be comparable to what is happening now.

Conclusion

That's the short analysis of Contador's climb. It was spectacular, without a doubt - a record in the Tour, even factoring in wind and climb length. There are too many unanswered questions regarding wind, absolute power, gradients and distances, however, which is a pity. Hopefully the discussion and the great debate it produces is worth the absence of a definitive answer! Certainly it has generated a lot of discussion, for which we thank you once again!

Bring on day 2 in the Alps!

Ross

Donate and support The Science of Sport

Thank you for taking time to read and follow our coverage of the Tour de France here at The Science of Sport. We hope you've enjoyed the insights we've tried to provide! Your time and energies are greatly appreciated!

We run this site as a "labour of love" and will continue to do so, but of course, any support is greatly appreciated. So, if you would like to donate and support our continued efforts to bring you the insights and analysis, please consider donating to our site. You can do so in one of two ways:

1. If you are reading this on our site, then simply scroll up to the top of the page, where you will find the DONATE button at the top right of the page.
2. If you are reading this in our email newsletter, click here to be taken to our site, where you will see the DONATE button at the top right of our homepage.

Thank you once again, and keep on reading!

Ross & Jonathan

Tour 2009: Contador takes yellow

Alberto Contador soars into yellow in Verbier: Report and analysis

Alberto Contador rode himself into the yellow jersey by dominating the mountain-top finish in Verbier today. An attack by the Spaniard with 5.5 km to go saw him open up a gap on the Tour's elite, and then continue to build it. The damages by the finish line were 43 seconds to Andy Schleck (the only rider to respond to the initial acceleration), 1:03 to Vincenzo Nibali, 1:06 to a group containing Frank Schleck, Brad Wiggins and Carlos Sastre, 1:26 to Cadel Evans, and 1:35 to Lance Armstrong.

The result leaves the overall standings of the Tour as follows:
1. Alberto Contador
2. Lance Armstrong @ 1:37
3. Bradley Wiggins @ 1:46
4. Andreas Kloden @ 2:17
5. Andy Schleck @2:26
6. Rinaldo Nocentini @ 2:30
7. Vincenzo Nibali @ 2:51
8. Tony Martin @ 3:07
9. Christophe Le Mevel @ 3:09
10. Frank Schleck @ 3:25

A level above the Pyrenees: How it unfolded

The Tour's first mountain-top finish in Arcalis just over a week ago failed to produce the fireworks. The same can't be said of this one. At the bottom, Saxo Bank charged into the lead and the tempo was pretty close to maximal from the outset. The peloton was systematically shredded under Saxo-Bank's pressure, and with about 6.5km to go (within 2km of the start of the climb), the peloton had been cut to about 13 riders. Compare this to the 40 who made it 7km up Arcalis and you realise that today, the Tour shifted into top gear.

At 6km to go, Frank Schleck was first to attack, and his move cut the elite down to only 5 - Schleck, Contador, Armstrong, Wiggins and Andy Schleck. Noticably absent were Cadel Evans, Carlos Sastre and Kloden, though all would gradually return to the chase group. By the time they did return, however, Contador was long gone - a fierce attack with 5.5km to ride saw him open a gap of 17 seconds on Andy Schleck and 30 seconds on the group of Armstrong within one kilometer. It was an extra-ordinary acceleration, and I wish had the data to analyse it some more detail - unfortunately, I've been unable to find a kilometer-by-kilometer breakdown of the climb to Verbier - if one knew the gradient of each kilometer, and the time, it would be possible to do some interesting analyses, so if you have this, please let me know!

Contador continued to build his lead, and by the time he hit the summit it had been increased to 43 seconds over Schleck, but perhaps more importantly, over a minute to those with aspirations in the time-trial. Contador seems peerless on the climbs, and the Tour now seems his to lose, barring a dramatic change in form or an accident.

For his part, Armstrong didn't drop back onto the wheel of the chasing riders, he rode at the front, along with Kloden. Perhaps they were simply riding tempo and allowing Contador away, but it seems odd to me that they would not just sit in the group and find a wheel (that of Evans, perhaps) to follow, given the supposed "obligation" to the team. That is the usual approach, to the best of my knowledge of what happens when a team-mate is out ahead.

Attacks come from behind

In any event, it was noticeable how the fast pace was neutralising the attacks from behind. A group of eight had reformed with 3.5km to go, but no attacks came until about 3km from the finish. Then it was Brad Wiggins, perhaps the revelation of the Tour in the mountains who attacked and stretched the group. The next attack came from Frank Schleck, in an attempt to see whether he could join brother Andy to combine forces to catch Contador. He couldn't, but his move did cause the split in the group that would eventually see them come over the line in pairs or alone.

Each attack put Armstrong more and more into difficulty, though many will have expected this, given his age. What will be interesting (apart from the race situation, of course) is to see how he manages himself through the next few days - as described below, he should face attacks in this final week.

Climbing rate of Contador - a record climb

As I mentioned, I don't have a detailed breakdown of the climb - the gradient each kilometer, for example. So doing a detailed analysis must wait until hopefully someone can provide that (any takers? Alex...?)! But until then, some basic analysis reveals how fast this climb was:

The climb to Verbier is 8.7km long, at an reported gradient of 7.5% (according to the official Tour website. CyclingNews has it as 7.1%). The climbing times of some of the top riders were:

1. Alberto Contador - 20:36 for the climb at an average speed of 25.34 km/h
2. Andy Schleck - 21:19 (24.49 km/h)
3. Carlos Sastre - 21:42 (24.06 km/h)
4. Lance Armstrong - 22:11 (23.53 km/h)

One of the measures of climbing ability is Vertical climbing rate, which is the distance STRAIGHT UP, expressed as a rate in meters per hour.

For the climb to the Verbier, the vertical climb is 652.5 m (8.7km x 7.5%). Therefore, Contador's climbing rate is an extra-ordinary 1,900 m per hour. I say "extra-ordinary" because this is the fastest climb in the history of the Tour de France, in terms of vertical climb rate. I have data, courtesy one of our readers (thank you Alexander) that tracks all the climbs in the last twenty years, and I can tell you that the previous record for vertical ascension rate was Bjarne Riis at 1843m on Hautacam in 1996 (and we all know what powered Riis to that summit).

I am going to post on these figures during the next week (don't worry, you don't have to blindly take my word for it!) - I don't want to overload the race report with too many numbers. But the Contador climb today was incredible.

It was a short climb, taking just over 20 minutes, and of course that allows a higher intensity than the 37 minutes on Alpe d'Huez or the 49 minutes on the Tourmalet. So a higher VAM is partly expected. I would point out that there have been other 8 to 9km finishing climbs in the Tour, and many climbs this length, but none have ever come close to a rate of 1900m/hour. Race tactics no doubt played a part as well - the Tour has been dormant for about 8 days leading into this, and suddenly it exploded into 20 minutes of action. Then there is the wind, which is reported to have been a following wind. A lot of factors may have gone into today's record, but I guess it's only natural to wonder...? To those who are no doubt wondering whether that means anything in the big picture of doping control, you are not alone...

By way of comparison, Andy Schleck's climbing rate was 1,837m/hour, and Armstrong's was 1,764m/hour. Looking even more broadly, last week up Arcalis, Contador climbed at a vertical ascension rate of 1,687m/hour, and when the Tour dawdled its way over the Col du Tourmalet on Sunday, the rate was 1401 m/hour. The Tour really did step up a notch or two in Switzerland today.

Stage implications: Team leadership, podium implications and days' disappointments

The stage was always going to lay the foundations for what everyone expected would be a very brutal last week in the Tour. To a certain extent, that happened. At the very least, the debate around team leadership of Astana was laid to rest today - Contador is clearly the number 1 man, Kloden and Armstrong seemingly close for number 2. In fact, I'd give number 2 to Kloden going into week 3. For all the inevitable talk of "team obligations", Lance Armstrong would not have had the firepower to match Contador or the Schlecks in the mountains.

He may yet have enough for a podium finish in the time-trial on Thursday - lot depends on whether Astana instruct Kloden to ride the TT conservatively. If Kloden races hard, he becomes the number 2 for Astana, in my opinion - he did a great deal of work pulling today and seems to have better form now. Time will tell...

What will be interesting for the rest of the Alps and the climb to Mont Ventoux is that attention will shift to the question of whether Armstrong can respond to what should be some telling attacks from those currently ranked 4th to 8th in the general classification. Among those who will have eyes for the podium (if not for Contador, who seems imperious just at the moment) are both Schlecks, Evans, Sastre and maybe even Wiggins. All will recognize the need to attack, given the time-trial to come.

Whether they will have the strength to do this is another question - today did not exacly fill me with hope that anyone can match Contador. More worryingly for the race as a spectacle, even attacks from the group were not damaging. I have my reservations over whether anyone will be aggressive enough to attack on the next two Alpine days - Contador's aggression threw today wide open, I'm not sure it will happen again. So, with all the hype around a super-competitive final week, it might be that the riders neutralize one another all the way to Thursday's time-trial. Contador, for his part, may try to steal a few more seconds in the final kilometers, but need not attack like he did today. And with no mountain finish until Mont Ventoux, even that is unlikely.

So, looking ahead, it's a rest day tomorrow, then two more days in the Alps. Wednesday in particular is a monster stage, the so-called "queen stage", but that stage may be neutralised by the race situation and the fact that we still have a time-trial and a Mont Ventoux finish to come. The onus now lies on the likes of Schleck, Schleck, Evans and Sastre to attack - will they have the ammunition? Only time will tell...

Join us for more race analysis as it happens!

Ross

Donate and support The Science of Sport

Thank you for taking time to read and follow our coverage of the Tour de France here at The Science of Sport. We hope you've enjoyed the insights we've tried to provide! Your time and energies are greatly appreciated!

We run this site as a "labour of love" and will continue to do so, but of course, any support is greatly appreciated. So, if you would like to donate and support our continued efforts to bring you the insights and analysis, please consider donating to our site. You can do so in one of two ways:

1. If you are reading this on our site, then simply scroll up to the top of the page, where you will find the DONATE button at the top right of the page.
2. If you are reading this in our email newsletter, click here to be taken to our site, where you will see the DONATE button at the top right of our homepage.

Thank you once again, and keep on reading!

Ross & Jonathan