Welcome to the Science of Sport where we bring you the second, third, and fourth level of analysis you will not find anywhere else.
Be it doping in sport, hot topics like Caster Semenya or Oscar Pistorius, or the dehydration myth, we try to translate the science behind sports and sports performance. Consider a donation if you like what you see here!
2013 Tour de France // Posts categorised as 2013 Tour de France
2013 Recap. And Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, all!
As 2013 draws to a close, let's look back on the highs and lows of 2013 here on the Science of Sport, with a look ahead to what 2014 might bring!
Tour de France 2013: Alp d’Huez preview
Cycling's most famous climb is featured twice in one stage in 2013. We look back at its history to look forward to what to expect this year.
Mont Ventoux Preview: Looking forward by looking back
A look ahead to the climb of Mont Ventoux in the 2013 TDF, and what the history leads us to expect
Healthy skepticism, dealing with doping and denial
Skepticism is an essential part of cycling's quest to regain the trust of its followers. Here's why
Tour 2013 rest day: Pondering the unanswerables with physiological implications
Chris Froome's near-record ascent of Ax-3-Domaines asks some challenging physiological questions. Proof is impossible, but the implications warrant consideration.
Froome’s first mountain performance: Cue debate
Chris Froome assumed the yellow jersey and control of the Tour on Ax-3-Domaines with a near-record ascent. Brief first thoughts on the performance and debate it is likely to inspire
Clean performances to surpass doped performances?
A brief look at the the effect of doping on performance, with a view to predicting when, if ever, a clean performance will surpass a doped one
Ax-3-Domaines: History, VAMs and performance predictions
The 2013 Tour tackles its first mountain finish. We look back on Ax-3-Domaines and predict what you can expect from the 2013 race.
Froome’s non-published TDF power output: Noise for ‘pseudoscientists’?
Team Sky have refused to publish their cyclist's power outputs for fear of misinterpretation by "pseudoscientists". Does he have a point, or is transparency better in all circumstances?