Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not
Comments
-
FJS wrote:frenchfighter wrote:Also note that riders can dope even if there is no doping in the team. The team could turn a blind eye to this also.LeicesterLad wrote:With regards to Sky - I think if Froome was doping he'd turn out to be a rogue rider acting by himself - not a team wide things though they do have other riders which raise my eyebrows.
Be serious. Do you guys genuinely believe this? A team like Sky with its detailed training monitoring, anti-doping PR and national Olypmic team connections 'turning a blind eye' and keeping scope for 'rogue riders' to do their thing?
Although I personally believe it's extemely unlikely, I know better than to completely 100% rule out organised team doping on a well-organised big budget team. Again, I do not believe that is the case with Sky, but turning blind eyes to rogue riders, no certainly not. If Froome is doping, Wiggins and the Olympic track team are/were too, and Braislford is the new Bruyneel
I did say 'If' but even so it wouldn't be too far strecthed to believe it possible. After-all Sky said they would set up a team involving nobody with doping history/links etc. Turns out a fair amount of people couldn't sign the agreement last year. These things happen, people slip through the net, doping methodology is logically usually a step ahead of the testing technology. As long as there is sport and people want to win there will be doping and methods of making it undetectable progress as do the methods of testing for it.
Riders are part of a team but it doesn't mean there mentality only stretches to a 'team' mentality. Everyone is capable of making decisions for themselves. I doubt teams sanctioned all those riders who took it upon themselves to pay Ferrari a visit in the off-season.0 -
That concerned people's past behaviour, not present performance, which can be monitored, especially on a data-obsessed team as thisLeicesterLad wrote:Turns out a fair amount of people couldn't sign the agreement last year.0 -
OnYourRight wrote:
Yes, but massive oxygen-boosting doping methods were subsequently invented, and you can’t uninvent them. So Sky is really asking us to believe that not only are they clean, but so are all the other main contenders (because marginal gains presumably can’t beat doping).RichN95 wrote:The thing is if you are old enough, like me, it also looks reminiscent of LeMond or Delgado, and no doubt those older than me like Hinault and Fignon. Clean (or pre-EPO) and dirty cycling don't really look much different.
I think it’s just about possible that all the big Grand Tour GC contenders today are clean, but I can’t say I’d be shocked if some of them or all of them turned out to be lying, doping, so and sos.
Regardless, I think Sky could do a lot more to gain our trust. Brailsford is evasive in press conferences, refuses to answer questions, refuses to release data, hires dodgy people, and in the past has defended dodgy people, i.e. he acts exactly like the old guard, all the while blustering about Sky being transparent and different from the rest. That rings hollow.
Maybe the Sky promise to be open and different was misguided and unworkable from the start. If so, it ought to be formally abandoned.
A few years ago when Rob Hayles’s haematocrit breached the 50 % rule, Brailsford said a few interesting things in defending him, among them the following as reported here:
“And if he is genuinely innocent there may be something we are doing. We really push the boundaries in terms of nutrition like huge doses of fish oils, cherry juices and anti-oxidants. We train very differently from every other nation.”
See also the intriguing last paragraph of that article.
Depending on your viewpoint, those things sound like a carefully laid defence for any eventual doping violation, or a man speaking his mind about genuinely avant-garde training methods.
Foe those who can't be arsed clicking, the last para:
"Having minutely examined training methods and test results during a season in which they have undertaken an unprecedented workload, followed by a longer taper than usual, Brailsford believes Great Britain have unearthed a physiological reaction in the body called super-compensation that will consistently push haematocrit levels beyond the 50 per cent level which is currently considered acceptable."
Has he mentioned this again since 2008? 'Super compensation' would be huge news to the sports science community if true?
[Whistles....]___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
PS. My comments above - I'm certainly not implying Froome is doping and acting alone, merely saying if in the future it turns out he is doping I would be very surprised if it was a Sky-wide affair and not a lone action of their team leader.0
-
OnYourRight wrote:
Nothing, of course. I’m just laughing at people, like myself, who grasp at straws to support their cynicism.disgruntledgoat wrote:OnYourRight wrote:
You want evidence? I have evidence!disgruntledgoat wrote:I may just start responding to any insinuation or allegation against any rider with the simple, two word request
"evidence please"
Who was David Millar dining with when he was arrested in that Biarritz restaurant? Brailsford!
What's that evidence of exactly?
Truth is, I’d love Sky to be clean. I think they are, but like everyone else I’ve had enough of investing trust in teams and riders who turn out to be pathological liars.
It will take a decade of ‘clean’ cycling to rebuild trust. And I wish Sky would try a bit harder to tackle that problem.
It's not even a matter of trust for mine though, it's a matter of evidence. I don't need to emotionally invest myself in "trusting" a team or not, in the absence of any persuasive (to my subjective opinion) evidence that has some basis in fact, I'll view a performance as credible.
I view Contador's current performances as credible. I view his performances from his Liberty Seguros to pre-ban Saxo days as suspect because of the organised team doping that has been shown to have existed on all of those teams, the Puerto evidence, positive tests from team mates and, indeed, his own positive test.
I view Froome and Wiggin's performances as credible because there is not a shred of evidence that they are not."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
I said pre-2012 that I wouldn't be surprised if Froome was doping, but equally I wouldn't be surprised if he was clean. Nothing has happened to change that opinion and, when it comes down to it, that is all anyone can really say.
I don't think anything has happened this year that has raised suspicion more than last year; he looked pretty much at the same level as Nibali in Tirreno Adriatico and so far he is comfortably beating Valverde, who isn't a top tier GT rider, and Contador who hasn't looked anything like his former self post-ban.
I would be massively shocked though if it came to light that Sky was a team of organised doping.0 -
Surely the most parsimonious explanation of Froome's dominance over Contador in 2013 is simply that the convicted doper (i.e. Contador pre-2012) isn't doping anymore
PS anyone labouring under any illusions that AC didn't dope his way to victory in 2007 should read Leipheimer's account of Johan's expectations of how Discovery Channel professionals should be preparing: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7656 ... tml?pg=all0 -
calvjones wrote:OnYourRight wrote:
Yes, but massive oxygen-boosting doping methods were subsequently invented, and you can’t uninvent them. So Sky is really asking us to believe that not only are they clean, but so are all the other main contenders (because marginal gains presumably can’t beat doping).RichN95 wrote:The thing is if you are old enough, like me, it also looks reminiscent of LeMond or Delgado, and no doubt those older than me like Hinault and Fignon. Clean (or pre-EPO) and dirty cycling don't really look much different.
I think it’s just about possible that all the big Grand Tour GC contenders today are clean, but I can’t say I’d be shocked if some of them or all of them turned out to be lying, doping, so and sos.
Regardless, I think Sky could do a lot more to gain our trust. Brailsford is evasive in press conferences, refuses to answer questions, refuses to release data, hires dodgy people, and in the past has defended dodgy people, i.e. he acts exactly like the old guard, all the while blustering about Sky being transparent and different from the rest. That rings hollow.
Maybe the Sky promise to be open and different was misguided and unworkable from the start. If so, it ought to be formally abandoned.
A few years ago when Rob Hayles’s haematocrit breached the 50 % rule, Brailsford said a few interesting things in defending him, among them the following as reported here:
“And if he is genuinely innocent there may be something we are doing. We really push the boundaries in terms of nutrition like huge doses of fish oils, cherry juices and anti-oxidants. We train very differently from every other nation.”
See also the intriguing last paragraph of that article.
Depending on your viewpoint, those things sound like a carefully laid defence for any eventual doping violation, or a man speaking his mind about genuinely avant-garde training methods.
Foe those who can't be arsed clicking, the last para:
"Having minutely examined training methods and test results during a season in which they have undertaken an unprecedented workload, followed by a longer taper than usual, Brailsford believes Great Britain have unearthed a physiological reaction in the body called super-compensation that will consistently push haematocrit levels beyond the 50 per cent level which is currently considered acceptable."
Has he mentioned this again since 2008? 'Super compensation' would be huge news to the sports science community if true?
[Whistles....]
Firstly, the last paragraph strikes me as typical of Brendan Gallacher's writing. He often indirectly quotes without fully understanding the terminology he's using.
Secondly, did you think to look for "supercompensation" on Google/Google Scholar? Within 30 seconds I found use of the term dating back to at least 1986, and a significant amount of work since then. I am speaking from a position of ignorance when it comes to sports science - but at least I have the sense to undertake a quick google search before using an indirect quote as "proof" of a long-term plan to dope.0 -
Without having read a lot of this thread due to being away on vacation here are three points based on posts made by people:
1) The focus is on Sky for two reasons: a) Sky won the biggest race last year and are winning it this year. b) They won with a track guy who suddenly became a GT power and are winning with a guy who was a decent TT guy who because one of the best in the world in GT's as well as making a pretty big jump in general performance. The latter being someone who has made jumps after blood work. (see last years Tour for more info from me on this)
2) People keep talking about guys who left Sky either not taking the secrets with them or not telling on them. How often do guys tell on their former team while they are still riding? The only one I can think of was Landis, but that was only because they wouldn't hire him. Knowing the secrets does not mean you can use them. Sky has a lot more money to spend then other teams and you have to have the right talent, especially in these days when it can't be as over the top as in the 90's.
3) The UCI runs the biological passport program and, right now, it is hugely important for them if the winner of the Tour is thought to be clean...a la 1999.0 -
Just saw this, interesting timing based on how Froome compared to proven dopers of the past up Ax 3 Domaine:
The day before the climb up AX3, Team Sky Director David Brailsford told VeloNews, "At some point in time, clean performances will surpass the doped performances in the past."0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:Just saw this, interesting timing based on how Froome compared to proven dopers of the past up Ax 3 Domaine:
The day before the climb up AX3, Team Sky Director David Brailsford told VeloNews, "At some point in time, clean performances will surpass the doped performances in the past."
Not really that interesting - in track and field, swimming and such like if a record lasts for more than 15-20 years it's considered remarkable. For example 100m runners are now running quicker than those doped up 20 years ago. Why should cycling be any different?, and Froome didn't surpass the doped performances of the past anyway.
In fact in terms of the time trial he hasn't even surpassed the non-doped performances of the past, the fastest ever long time trial in the tour is still LeMond!
Also what is the context of the quote, normally team directors are asked questions, the timing of the quote was probably question dependent not Brailsford choosingthe timing0 -
Your point rests on the notion that the 100m runners of today are doing it clean.Runtothehills wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:Just saw this, interesting timing based on how Froome compared to proven dopers of the past up Ax 3 Domaine:
The day before the climb up AX3, Team Sky Director David Brailsford told VeloNews, "At some point in time, clean performances will surpass the doped performances in the past."
Not really that interesting - in track and field, swimming and such like if a record lasts for more than 15-20 years it's considered remarkable. For example 100m runners are now running quicker than those doped up 20 years ago. Why should cycling be any different?, and Froome didn't surpass the doped performances of the past anyway.
A better reference point is Flo-Jo's 100m and 200m women's records. Completely, utterly untouchable. Even by other dopers, but especially by clean athletes. Very probably no natural human will ever beat them.0 -
If performances are slowing down as a consequence of being clean, then it's going to take longer for clean performances to surpass the doped performances.
I think the 100m is a bad example, Blake & Gatlin have been popped i think, and the guy who came last in the Ben Johnson 100m said he wants to believe Bolt's time but remembers Ben Johnson so can't be sure. Like us all i guess.0 -
One thing that cycling doesn't have that athletics does is racial diversification. Almost all of what is regarded as 'human' by the cycling number cruchers is based on causcasian western Europeans. There's much more scope of humanity to be tapped into.LutherB wrote:If performances are slowing down as a consequence of being clean, then it's going to take longer for clean performances to surpass the doped performances.
I think the 100m is a bad example, Blake & Gatlin have been popped i think, and the guy who came last in the Ben Johnson 100m said he wants to believe Bolt's time but remembers Ben Johnson so can't be sure. Like us all i guess.
If 100m had the same racial diversification as cycling people would state that any time under 10s is mutant and anything under 10.1 suspicious.Twitter: @RichN950 -
bipedal wrote:Surely the most parsimonious explanation of Froome's dominance over Contador in 2013 is simply that the convicted doper (i.e. Contador pre-2012) isn't doping anymore
PS anyone labouring under any illusions that AC didn't dope his way to victory in 2007 should read Leipheimer's account of Johan's expectations of how Discovery Channel professionals should be preparing: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7656 ... tml?pg=all
I was looking for something interesting in that but was left disappointed. Four points.
1. Contador came into force in 2007, the same year many pros said they stopped doping. Which makes it more of a level playing field enabling natural talent to shine.
2. The quote provided shows there was no blood doping provided by Bruyneel and his team, just that he wouldn`t mind if it was done outside of his involvement. Within teams with institutionalized doping, not everyone is privy to it (read USADAs docs to understand this).
3. Contador didn`t go in as the leader so wouldn`t have been the one prepped with dope to the max, but as he showed his talent in the more even playing field eclipsing the boys around him in the team, they made him ride. There is one attack in particular where he makes Levi look like an amateur. If you want the video for this I will provide it.
4. He won that Tour by a WHOPPING 23 seconds over `clean as bleach` Cadel Evans.Contador is the Greatest0 -
RichN95 wrote:
One thing that cycling doesn't have that athletics does is racial diversification. Almost all of what is regarded as 'human' by the cycling number cruchers is based on causcasian western Europeans. There's much more scope of humanity to be tapped into.LutherB wrote:If performances are slowing down as a consequence of being clean, then it's going to take longer for clean performances to surpass the doped performances.
I think the 100m is a bad example, Blake & Gatlin have been popped i think, and the guy who came last in the Ben Johnson 100m said he wants to believe Bolt's time but remembers Ben Johnson so can't be sure. Like us all i guess.
If 100m had the same racial diversification as cycling people would state that any time under 10s is mutant and anything under 10.1 suspicious.
Great point and it would be great to see a racially diverse WT peloton.
On the flip-side, would it be true to say that the top end of track hasn't been racially diverse either? ( genuine question! )0 -
jamie1012 wrote:
Your point rests on the notion that the 100m runners of today are doing it clean.Runtothehills wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:Just saw this, interesting timing based on how Froome compared to proven dopers of the past up Ax 3 Domaine:
The day before the climb up AX3, Team Sky Director David Brailsford told VeloNews, "At some point in time, clean performances will surpass the doped performances in the past."
Not really that interesting - in track and field, swimming and such like if a record lasts for more than 15-20 years it's considered remarkable. For example 100m runners are now running quicker than those doped up 20 years ago. Why should cycling be any different?, and Froome didn't surpass the doped performances of the past anyway.
A better reference point is Flo-Jo's 100m and 200m women's records. Completely, utterly untouchable. Even by other dopers, but especially by clean athletes. Very probably no natural human will ever beat them.
No it doesn't, they were just the first ones that came to mind. Plus Jo Flo, although fast, is only about 0.03s faster than the next fastest so hardly untouchable. The 10.49s time was almost certianly heavily wind assisted so is probably untouchable in the forseeable future.
Your point rests on the fact that cycling, alone among all sports, should show no improvement in times ever and any improvement must be down to drugs.
Also I presume you must think LeMond was doping being as he still has the fastest long time trial in the tour set when aerodynamics was very much in its infancy.0 -
With track there's more equal opportunity though (as it's a relatively cheap sport). So the lack of diversity it's because of socio-economic reasons. There may be a Kenyan cyclist (no, not that one) that can naturally do 6.5W/kg quite naturally but doesn't get a chance - but one day he will (it took a lot of good fortune for Froome to get to the pros). Would people analyse Froome's performances as much if he was black?LutherB wrote:
Great point and it would be great to see a racially diverse WT peloton.
On the flip-side, would it be true to say that the top end of track hasn't been racially diverse either? ( genuine question! )
I just find the whole idea of what is possible a little narrow minded. Right now one of the biggest new talents is a non-caucasian Colombian who grew up two miles above sea level. If he is judged according to the standards of western Europeans a can of worms gets opened.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Runtothehills wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:Just saw this, interesting timing based on how Froome compared to proven dopers of the past up Ax 3 Domaine:
The day before the climb up AX3, Team Sky Director David Brailsford told VeloNews, "At some point in time, clean performances will surpass the doped performances in the past."
Not really that interesting - in track and field, swimming and such like if a record lasts for more than 15-20 years it's considered remarkable. For example 100m runners are now running quicker than those doped up 20 years ago. Why should cycling be any different?, and Froome didn't surpass the doped performances of the past anyway.
How many of those records are you 100% sure are clean? Take a look at Flo Jo, for an example of records from doped athletes still standing.
In fact in terms of the time trial he hasn't even surpassed the non-doped performances of the past, the fastest ever long time trial in the tour is still LeMond!
24.5 k, so it was short, only Martin yesterday rode a time trial within 9k of the length of Lemond in 1989. It was also a time trial that lost elevation the whole way.
Also what is the context of the quote, normally team directors are asked questions, the timing of the quote was probably question dependent not Brailsford choosingthe timing
It was a discussion why Sky refuse to release power numbers with Brailsford justifying why they refuse.0 -
Flo-Jo's 200m time is 0.3s faster than the nearest (Marion Jones, another doper), not 0.03. It's impossible to say which is the closest clean time, but it's at least further away than that.Runtothehills wrote:jamie1012 wrote:
Your point rests on the notion that the 100m runners of today are doing it clean.Runtothehills wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:Just saw this, interesting timing based on how Froome compared to proven dopers of the past up Ax 3 Domaine:
The day before the climb up AX3, Team Sky Director David Brailsford told VeloNews, "At some point in time, clean performances will surpass the doped performances in the past."
Not really that interesting - in track and field, swimming and such like if a record lasts for more than 15-20 years it's considered remarkable. For example 100m runners are now running quicker than those doped up 20 years ago. Why should cycling be any different?, and Froome didn't surpass the doped performances of the past anyway.
A better reference point is Flo-Jo's 100m and 200m women's records. Completely, utterly untouchable. Even by other dopers, but especially by clean athletes. Very probably no natural human will ever beat them.
No it doesn't, they were just the first ones that came to mind. Plus Jo Flo, although fast, is only about 0.03s faster than the next fastest so hardly untouchable. The 10.49s time was almost certianly heavily wind assisted so is probably untouchable in the forseeable future.
Your point rests on the fact that cycling, alone among all sports, should show no improvement in times ever and any improvement must be down to drugs.
Also I presume you must think LeMond was doping being as he still has the fastest long time trial in the tour set when aerodynamics was very much in its infancy.
Every sport will enjoy time improvements amongst clean riders over time. Cycling, like track, has had such enormous gains from such widespread doping that I think that the best times from the elite doped riders are untouchable by anybody but the rarest freaks of nature (among whom, by all accounts, we can count LeMond). If a rider without the legendary physical capacities of LeMond were to start putting out LeMond-esque times, we would be entitled to sneer until provided with an explanation.
Basically, it's conceivable that a talented and clean rider might beat times by a doped donkey from days gone by, but he is never going to beat the times of a GT winner from the EPO era.0 -
This is a really good point.RichN95 wrote:
One thing that cycling doesn't have that athletics does is racial diversification. Almost all of what is regarded as 'human' by the cycling number cruchers is based on causcasian western Europeans. There's much more scope of humanity to be tapped into.LutherB wrote:If performances are slowing down as a consequence of being clean, then it's going to take longer for clean performances to surpass the doped performances.
I think the 100m is a bad example, Blake & Gatlin have been popped i think, and the guy who came last in the Ben Johnson 100m said he wants to believe Bolt's time but remembers Ben Johnson so can't be sure. Like us all i guess.
If 100m had the same racial diversification as cycling people would state that any time under 10s is mutant and anything under 10.1 suspicious.0 -
jamie1012 wrote:Every sport will enjoy time improvements amongst clean riders over time. Cycling, like track, has had such enormous gains from such widespread doping that I think that the best times from the elite doped riders are untouchable by anybody but the rarest freaks of nature (among whom, by all accounts, we can count LeMond). If a rider without the legendary physical capacities of LeMond were to start putting out LeMond-esque times, we would be entitled to sneer until provided with an explanation.
Basically, it's conceivable that a talented and clean rider might beat times by a doped donkey from days gone by, but he is never going to beat the times of a GT winner from the EPO era.
Two points here. For the past two decades the training of cyclists has largely been driven by drug dealers who were primarily concerned with selling their drugs. That's not to say that they knew nothing, but they always promoted the drug option. There is a genuine case to be argued that legitimate scientific progress in cycling has been hampered and that there is certainly a lot of legitimate development that has been overlooked.
Secondly, we now have a much better understanding of what makes a champion. This means that we are more able to spot them. For example I bet there's barely a man over 2m tall who hasn't been asked to play basketball at some time - because that is an easily spotted attribute. It's not all that matters of course, but it's easy to spot in a member of the general public. However, the attributes that determine a cyclist are not have generally only been tested after they progress a long way in the sport. That can change.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Both good points, especially the first, though I'm not convinced that even decades of advancement in training techniques will match the gains afforded by, say, EPO. Certainly not in your bog standard white European cyclistsRichN95 wrote:jamie1012 wrote:Every sport will enjoy time improvements amongst clean riders over time. Cycling, like track, has had such enormous gains from such widespread doping that I think that the best times from the elite doped riders are untouchable by anybody but the rarest freaks of nature (among whom, by all accounts, we can count LeMond). If a rider without the legendary physical capacities of LeMond were to start putting out LeMond-esque times, we would be entitled to sneer until provided with an explanation.
Basically, it's conceivable that a talented and clean rider might beat times by a doped donkey from days gone by, but he is never going to beat the times of a GT winner from the EPO era.
Two points here. For the past two decades the training of cyclists has largely been driven by drug dealers who were primarily concerned with selling their drugs. That's not to say that they knew nothing, but they always promoted the drug option. There is a genuine case to be argued that legitimate scientific progress in cycling has been hampered and that there is certainly a lot of legitimate development that has been overlooked.
Secondly, we now have a much better understanding of what makes a champion. This means that we are more able to spot them. For example I bet there's barely a man over 2m tall who hasn't been asked to play basketball at some time - because that is an easily spotted attribute. It's not all that matters of course, but it's easy to spot in a member of the general public. However, the attributes that determine a cyclist are not have generally only been tested after they progress a long way in the sport. That can change.
0 -
jamie1012 wrote:Flo-Jo's 200m time is 0.3s faster than the nearest (Marion Jones, another doper), not 0.03. It's impossible to say which is the closest clean time, but it's at least further away than that.
Every sport will enjoy time improvements amongst clean riders over time. Cycling, like track, has had such enormous gains from such widespread doping that I think that the best times from the elite doped riders are untouchable by anybody but the rarest freaks of nature (among whom, by all accounts, we can count LeMond). If a rider without the legendary physical capacities of LeMond were to start putting out LeMond-esque times, we would be entitled to sneer until provided with an explanation.
Basically, it's conceivable that a talented and clean rider might beat times by a doped donkey from days gone by, but he is never going to beat the times of a GT winner from the EPO era.
I was refering to the 100m times (and ignoring the fastest because it was almost certianly set in a high tailwind).0 -
RichN95 wrote:
Secondly, we now have a much better understanding of what makes a champion. This means that we are more able to spot them. For example I bet there's barely a man over 2m tall who hasn't been asked to play basketball at some time - because that is an easily spotted attribute. It's not all that matters of course, but it's easy to spot in a member of the general public. However, the attributes that determine a cyclist are not have generally only been tested after they progress a long way in the sport. That can change.
And we all harbour that little dream that they should have tested us, where they would have found incredible untapped potential, hidden underneath the beer and kebabs... ;-)Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
As for racial diversity - roll on Team Qhubeka getting a few more wildcards. They could get something kickstarted.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
-
frenchfighter wrote:bipedal wrote:Surely the most parsimonious explanation of Froome's dominance over Contador in 2013 is simply that the convicted doper (i.e. Contador pre-2012) isn't doping anymore
PS anyone labouring under any illusions that AC didn't dope his way to victory in 2007 should read Leipheimer's account of Johan's expectations of how Discovery Channel professionals should be preparing: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7656 ... tml?pg=all
I was looking for something interesting in that but was left disappointed. Four points.
1. Contador came into force in 2007, the same year many pros said they stopped doping. Which makes it more of a level playing field enabling natural talent to shine.
2. The quote provided shows there was no blood doping provided by Bruyneel and his team, just that he wouldn`t mind if it was done outside of his involvement. Within teams with institutionalized doping, not everyone is privy to it (read USADAs docs to understand this).
3. Contador didn`t go in as the leader so wouldn`t have been the one prepped with dope to the max, but as he showed his talent in the more even playing field eclipsing the boys around him in the team, they made him ride. There is one attack in particular where he makes Levi look like an amateur. If you want the video for this I will provide it.
4. He won that Tour by a WHOPPING 23 seconds over `clean as bleach` Cadel Evans.
Vayer’s work has led him to consider that there is a threshold beyond which the performances of a rider are abnormal — at 410 watts, he says, a performance is considered “suspicious”, at 430 watts it is “miraculous” and at 450 watts it is “humanly impossible”.
As an example, during his record-breaking ascent of the Alpe d’Huez in 1995, Marco Pantani produced 468 watts, while Lance Armstrong registered 455 watts cycling the Hautacam in 2000 and Alberto Contador 491 watts on the Verbier in 2009.
http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/07/vayer-power-to-weight-theory-sparks-controversy/The UCI are Clowns and Fools0 -
Squaggles wrote:
Vayer’s work has led him to consider that there is a threshold beyond which the performances of a rider are abnormal — at 410 watts, he says, a performance is considered “suspicious”, at 430 watts it is “miraculous” and at 450 watts it is “humanly impossible”.
Why do you think Vayer is correct in his assessments?
a) there is very little data from verifiably very top class clean GC riders from the last 20 years and
b) he's a PE teacher - not a scientist.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
With track there's more equal opportunity though (as it's a relatively cheap sport). So the lack of diversity it's because of socio-economic reasons. There may be a Kenyan cyclist (no, not that one) that can naturally do 6.5W/kg quite naturally but doesn't get a chance - but one day he will (it took a lot of good fortune for Froome to get to the pros). Would people analyse Froome's performances as much if he was black?LutherB wrote:
Great point and it would be great to see a racially diverse WT peloton.
On the flip-side, would it be true to say that the top end of track hasn't been racially diverse either? ( genuine question! )
I just find the whole idea of what is possible a little narrow minded. Right now one of the biggest new talents is a non-caucasian Colombian who grew up two miles above sea level. If he is judged according to the standards of western Europeans a can of worms gets opened.
Good stuff Rich - food for thought0 -
Track might be cheap in cycling equipment terms but you need a velodrome to start with - and I'm going to have a wild stab here that they are generally found in rich white nations, and Scotland.RichN95 wrote:With track there's more equal opportunity though (as it's a relatively cheap sport). So the lack of diversity it's because of socio-economic reasons.
You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0
This discussion has been closed.
