Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not
Comments
-
Contador is the Greatest0 -
frenchfighter wrote:
Anyone for steak?0 -
Comparing average speed times on one way routes is a bit silly. I've clocked some segments on Strava at a 60 kmph average, and I'm confident no dope was involved (large hills maybe...)
Comapring averages on circular courses has more merit.
However, I think Tony Martin put in a good time. He would know his best power outputs, so would know if injury was causing him difficulty. He seemed genuinely surprised that anyone got close, so I imagine he felt he had ridden his best time.0 -
El Toro. Bit stronger but still tasty. Last time I ate it was at a restaurant next to the Colosseum in Arles. Thought it was apt.Contador is the Greatest0
-
TM beat Froome by 1:08 over a longer 44km TT at the Olympics, it's not unfeasible that he should get close over a shorter TT the following year is it.0
-
frenchfighter wrote:El Toro. Bit stronger but still tasty. Last time I ate it was at a restaurant next to the Colosseum in Arles. Thought it was apt.
No, Apt is at least 50kms from Arles...............0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Comparing average speed times on one way routes is a bit silly. I've clocked some segments on Strava at a 60 kmph average, and I'm confident no dope was involved (large hills maybe...)
Comapring averages on circular courses has more merit.
However, I think Tony Martin put in a good time. He would know his best power outputs, so would know if injury was causing him difficulty. He seemed genuinely surprised that anyone got close, so I imagine he felt he had ridden his best time.
FWIW
Martin: "It was not my best time trial but it wasn’t a bad one either. I’ve had stomach problems in the past few days."0 -
FleshTuxedo wrote:TM beat Froome by 1:08 over a longer 44km TT at the Olympics, it's not unfeasible that he should get close over a shorter TT the following year is it.
No he didn't. Martin beat Froome by just 26 seconds at the Olympics (Wiggo beat Froome by 1:08). So why anyone was massively surprised how close Froome was to Martin I just don't understand.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Comparing average speed times on one way routes is a bit silly. I've clocked some segments on Strava at a 60 kmph average, and I'm confident no dope was involved (large hills maybe...)
I've got some awesome times on Strava, only possible with a little help from the wind.
This whole thread is hearsay, nobody has any evidence one way or the other.
Unfortunately this is what Armstrong has left us with. Every performance comes into question, no-one can believe what they see anymore. But the fact is someone will always be faster than the rest, that's how you win.
I don't like Froome much, he's a bit characterless, but I don't think he's doping. The whole British cycling thing, the structure that Sky have in place, the professionalism. Hell even the way the guy looks he's so skeletal, built for one purpose and one purpose only.
But that's all I can do, make an educated guess based in the information I have. I understand that it's a guess and can't make my argument any stronger than that, just as those who say he is doping are guessing too based on other information, mostly that he's fast going up hills.
Froome has put in a sterling tour though. Battled through hard days, bit disappointed not to see him helping chase Saxo on the flat last week but then he probably got the team car to make a new equation based on x y and z and then decided to save his legs.0 -
Turfle wrote:TheBigBean wrote:
However, I think Tony Martin put in a good time. He would know his best power outputs, so would know if injury was causing him difficulty. He seemed genuinely surprised that anyone got close, so I imagine he felt he had ridden his best time.
FWIW
Martin: "It was not my best time trial but it wasn’t a bad one either. I’ve had stomach problems in the past few days."
I stand corrected.0 -
r0bh wrote:FleshTuxedo wrote:TM beat Froome by 1:08 over a longer 44km TT at the Olympics, it's not unfeasible that he should get close over a shorter TT the following year is it.
No he didn't. Martin beat Froome by just 26 seconds at the Olympics (Wiggo beat Froome by 1:08). So why anyone was massively surprised how close Froome was to Martin I just don't understand.
Probably because Martin demolished the field in France, while it was clearly not at his best in London. Before Froome arrived, he had a minute on the second, when the rest of the field was split by seconds... that says to me Martin's performance was a damn fine one (54 Kmh average speaks for itself).
As I said earlier, Froome can be the new Anquetil or Merckx, but that's the only clean explanation to his exploits... if that's the case, then let's cheer to the strongest rider the world has seen in the past 40 years, coming out of nowhere at the tender age of 27...left the forum March 20230 -
TheBigBean wrote:Turfle wrote:TheBigBean wrote:
However, I think Tony Martin put in a good time. He would know his best power outputs, so would know if injury was causing him difficulty. He seemed genuinely surprised that anyone got close, so I imagine he felt he had ridden his best time.
FWIW
Martin: "It was not my best time trial but it wasn’t a bad one either. I’ve had stomach problems in the past few days."
I stand corrected.
No you don`t.
I would not have thought that it was going to be so close. The good time trial riders from my team had about one and a half minutes on me. Of course, I knew that Froome is strong, but that he as such a skinny climber is so dangerous to me on such a fast and windy curcuit was surprising to me.
My time trial went perfectly. I had a good rhythm and at an average speed of about 54 km / h you can imagine that I was often on a 58/11.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Beating third by a minute in a TT is not "demolishing" the field. And that field is not stellar when you look at it either, what's De Gendt achieved at world level TTs?
I don't think beating the current crop makes anyone the new Merckx for all the reasons I listed but hey ho.0 -
Difficult to compare TTs I think. The Dauphiné was a similar distance and Porte lost the same time as in the Tour TT whereas Kwiatkowski lost 1.13 (v1.31 in the Tour). Froome lost 52 secs, so 40 secs more than the Tour.
In Romandie, which was nearly half the distance Froome lost 34 seconds, but Valverde lost 1.40! Can't remember if any of them were ill or what.0 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:r0bh wrote:FleshTuxedo wrote:TM beat Froome by 1:08 over a longer 44km TT at the Olympics, it's not unfeasible that he should get close over a shorter TT the following year is it.
No he didn't. Martin beat Froome by just 26 seconds at the Olympics (Wiggo beat Froome by 1:08). So why anyone was massively surprised how close Froome was to Martin I just don't understand.
Probably because Martin demolished the field in France, while it was clearly not at his best in London. Before Froome arrived, he had a minute on the second, when the rest of the field was split by seconds... that says to me Martin's performance was a damn fine one (54 Kmh average speaks for itself).
As I said earlier, Froome can be the new Anquetil or Merckx, but that's the only clean explanation to his exploits... if that's the case, then let's cheer to the strongest rider the world has seen in the past 40 years, coming out of nowhere at the tender age of 27...
Martin demolished the field at the olympics. Lets ignore Froome. Martin only got beaten by Wiggins (a good time trialist in the form of his life): he was 1:16 ahead of the guy in 4th, 1:32 ahead of Cancellara for goodness sake and this was a field of people competing in an olympic time trial not a 3 week race. Oh and from 4th onwards is split by seconds.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/08/ ... lts_2326070 -
Good example of how wind affects power:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2013/ ... s.html?m=1
Kimmage:
http://www.independent.ie/sport/kimmage ... 18540.htmlContador is the Greatest0 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:r0bh wrote:FleshTuxedo wrote:TM beat Froome by 1:08 over a longer 44km TT at the Olympics, it's not unfeasible that he should get close over a shorter TT the following year is it.
No he didn't. Martin beat Froome by just 26 seconds at the Olympics (Wiggo beat Froome by 1:08). So why anyone was massively surprised how close Froome was to Martin I just don't understand.
Probably because Martin demolished the field in France, while it was clearly not at his best in London. Before Froome arrived, he had a minute on the second, when the rest of the field was split by seconds... that says to me Martin's performance was a damn fine one (54 Kmh average speaks for itself).
As I said earlier, Froome can be the new Anquetil or Merckx, but that's the only clean explanation to his exploits... if that's the case, then let's cheer to the strongest rider the world has seen in the past 40 years, coming out of nowhere at the tender age of 27...
He demolished (?) a very pedestrian field, with no Wiggins, Cancellera, Phinney, Dowsett etc.
Martin and Froome were clearly the best TTers before the stage.0 -
frenchfighter wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Turfle wrote:TheBigBean wrote:
However, I think Tony Martin put in a good time. He would know his best power outputs, so would know if injury was causing him difficulty. He seemed genuinely surprised that anyone got close, so I imagine he felt he had ridden his best time.
FWIW
Martin: "It was not my best time trial but it wasn’t a bad one either. I’ve had stomach problems in the past few days."
I stand corrected.
No you don`t.
I would not have thought that it was going to be so close. The good time trial riders from my team had about one and a half minutes on me. Of course, I knew that Froome is strong, but that he as such a skinny climber is so dangerous to me on such a fast and windy curcuit was surprising to me.
My time trial went perfectly. I had a good rhythm and at an average speed of about 54 km / h you can imagine that I was often on a 58/11.
I think we've been here before and both of your quotes are correct, if self contradictory.0 -
frenchfighter wrote:El Toro. Bit stronger but still tasty. Last time I ate it was at a restaurant next to the Colosseum in Arles. Thought it was apt.
It's a lovely little amphitheater in Arles. Spent a while exploring the town where Van Gogh spent its final years and tasting the gastronomic delights of the Provence.0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Good example of how wind affects power:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2013/ ... s.html?m=1
Kimmage:
http://www.independent.ie/sport/kimmage ... 18540.html
Two very interesting articles, thanks for the link. Particually the wind data: everyone talks about the wind but seeing how accurately you need to know it is quite revealing and makes comparing across years pretty much pointless.0 -
Runtothehills wrote:frenchfighter wrote:Good example of how wind affects power:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2013/ ... s.html?m=1
Kimmage:
http://www.independent.ie/sport/kimmage ... 18540.html
Two very interesting articles, thanks for the link. Particually the wind data: everyone talks about the wind but seeing how accurately you need to know it is quite interesting.
Kimmage's article is notable for some misleading hyperbole - "[Contador] crushed the World Time Trial champion, Fabien Cancellera, in the penultimate stage of the [2009]Tour de France" (3 seconds does not equal crushed in anyone's books which is not to say the result wasnt surprising) - and some old fashioned errors - Froome was third not second in the Olympics. There are other things too. Details maybe but this is sloppy journalism.0 -
trek_dan wrote:
So your anti-doping but support Contador over Sky/Froome? Hypocrite much?rayjay wrote:Lets hope Contador goes on a long one and gets the time back and we have a race on again.
Where have I said I am anti -doping ?
Im not , Most of my fav riders have been caught doping except Cadel. I dont have to face the consequences of taking PEDs they do.
Let them dope and lets get on with it. You can't stop it. Read my previous post, which you obviously did not.
I like riders not teams, whats your problem with me liking Contador? Because I am born in England does that mean I have to support a South African rider who rides for a team sponsored by IMO one the worst and most foul organizations the world has seen. You are sounding like a xenophobe.0 -
Haha yeah. What a plonker. His name is also Fabian not Fabien.Contador is the Greatest0
-
Paulie W wrote:Runtothehills wrote:frenchfighter wrote:Good example of how wind affects power:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2013/ ... s.html?m=1
Kimmage:
http://www.independent.ie/sport/kimmage ... 18540.html
Two very interesting articles, thanks for the link. Particually the wind data: everyone talks about the wind but seeing how accurately you need to know it is quite interesting.
Kimmage's article is notable for some misleading hyperbole - "[Contador] crushed the World Time Trial champion, Fabien Cancellera, in the penultimate stage of the [2009]Tour de France" (3 seconds does not equal crushed in anyone's books which is not to say the result wasnt surprising) - and some old fashioned errors - Froome was third not second in the Olympics. There are other things too. Details maybe but this is sloppy journalism.
True - I found that one interesting because of the stuff on Froome at parties etc, makes a nice change from the person on a bike/ polite interview which is all we are normally shown. Can't make out what Kimmage thinks these days, seems to go from 'Sky is clean' to 'Sky are doping' almost daily.
The really interesting one for me was the wind calcs.0 -
That explanation of how wind effects speed out for power in blows all the pseudo science out of the water, surely?0
-
Runtothehills wrote:ugo.santalucia wrote:r0bh wrote:FleshTuxedo wrote:TM beat Froome by 1:08 over a longer 44km TT at the Olympics, it's not unfeasible that he should get close over a shorter TT the following year is it.
No he didn't. Martin beat Froome by just 26 seconds at the Olympics (Wiggo beat Froome by 1:08). So why anyone was massively surprised how close Froome was to Martin I just don't understand.
Probably because Martin demolished the field in France, while it was clearly not at his best in London. Before Froome arrived, he had a minute on the second, when the rest of the field was split by seconds... that says to me Martin's performance was a damn fine one (54 Kmh average speaks for itself).
As I said earlier, Froome can be the new Anquetil or Merckx, but that's the only clean explanation to his exploits... if that's the case, then let's cheer to the strongest rider the world has seen in the past 40 years, coming out of nowhere at the tender age of 27...
Martin demolished the field at the olympics. Lets ignore Froome. Martin only got beaten by Wiggins (a good time trialist in the form of his life): he was 1:16 ahead of the guy in 4th, 1:32 ahead of Cancellara for goodness sake and this was a field of people competing in an olympic time trial not a 3 week race. Oh and from 4th onwards is split by seconds.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/08/ ... lts_232607
Looking back at the Tour de France... I can name only a handful of riders which were the best at time trialling and the best up the slopes... just to give you an idea of the company Froome is with:
Fausto Coppi**
Eddie Merckx*
Bernard Hinault
Lance Armstrong*
Alberto Contador*
Other were excelling in one discipline and being OK in the other, so lesser riders than Froome, among those
Marco Pantani*
Laurent Fignon*
Alex Zulle
Miguel Indurain
Gregg Lemond
Jacques Anquetil**
Charlie Gaul**
Jan Ullrich*
Stephen Roche
* have been caught at least once for doping or declared they did dope during their career
** No anti doping tests were performed at the timeleft the forum March 20230 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:Runtothehills wrote:ugo.santalucia wrote:r0bh wrote:FleshTuxedo wrote:TM beat Froome by 1:08 over a longer 44km TT at the Olympics, it's not unfeasible that he should get close over a shorter TT the following year is it.
No he didn't. Martin beat Froome by just 26 seconds at the Olympics (Wiggo beat Froome by 1:08). So why anyone was massively surprised how close Froome was to Martin I just don't understand.
Probably because Martin demolished the field in France, while it was clearly not at his best in London. Before Froome arrived, he had a minute on the second, when the rest of the field was split by seconds... that says to me Martin's performance was a damn fine one (54 Kmh average speaks for itself).
As I said earlier, Froome can be the new Anquetil or Merckx, but that's the only clean explanation to his exploits... if that's the case, then let's cheer to the strongest rider the world has seen in the past 40 years, coming out of nowhere at the tender age of 27...
Martin demolished the field at the olympics. Lets ignore Froome. Martin only got beaten by Wiggins (a good time trialist in the form of his life): he was 1:16 ahead of the guy in 4th, 1:32 ahead of Cancellara for goodness sake and this was a field of people competing in an olympic time trial not a 3 week race. Oh and from 4th onwards is split by seconds.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/08/ ... lts_232607
Looking back at the Tour de France... I can name only a handful of riders which were the best at time trialling and the best up the slopes... just to give you an idea of the company Froome is with:
Fausto Coppi**
Eddie Merckx*
Bernard Hinault
Lance Armstrong*
Alberto Contador*
Other were excelling in one discipline and being OK in the other, so lesser riders than Froome, among those
Marco Pantani*
Laurent Fignon*
Alex Zulle
Miguel Indurain
Gregg Lemond
Jacques Anquetil**
Charlie Gaul**
Jan Ullrich*
Stephen Roche
* have been caught at least once for doping or declared they did dope during their career
** No anti doping tests were performed at the time
Very generous on the passes you gave some of the riders. Alex Zulle, seriously??
0 -
Depends what you mean by OK - Fignon, Anquetil and Gaul all sit comfortably in the Mercyx group for my money (and probably Indurain who was rarely bested in the mountains and had some pretty strong days).0
-
Not sure what your point is by pointing out that some of the riders have doped with your asterisks. With cycling's past if you list any random ten cyclists you would have to put * next to most of them. You've also missed that Roche and Zulle doped. In fact the only ones you I wouldn't put a star next to are Lemond and Hinault.
Remember, past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Rule No.10 // It never gets easier, you just go faster0 -
Can I just point out that Froome is not "the best at time trialling". Tony Martin is.0
This discussion has been closed.
