The Hour *** spoilers ***

ugo.santalucia

There were specialists back then... and Merckx did beat them on many occasions... De Vlaeminck, Maertens are considered great classics riders and Maertens was also a top notch sprinter... we could say he was a bit of a Gilbert... yet he got beaten by Merckx many a times.
Some won in the absence of credible opponents, like Indurain, others won despite having to race with the best, Merckx feature among the latter

tonyf34

Pah, the doper Merckx who was 'caught' doping at least 4 times in the 70s, three of which were during major events (Giro, Fleche wallone & Lombardia), the guy was a systematic drugs cheat. Given how micturate poor drug testing was to get caught 4 times (those that were mentioned in public) in 8 years proves to me he was winning because he was the biggest doped up rider out there.
A talented rider in a similar mould to Armstrong but he wouldn't have anything like the Palmere's without being a huge cheat but cycling fans don't want to accept/listen to stuff like actual real facts because he is a 'legend'.
The guy whom just happened purely conincidentally of course to introduce Armstrong to Ferrari...

Yellow Peril

tonyf34 wrote:

Pah, the doper Merckx who was 'caught' doping at least 4 times in the 70s, three of which were during major events (Giro, Fleche wallone & Lombardia), the guy was a systematic drugs cheat. Given how micturate poor drug testing was to get caught 4 times (those that were mentioned in public) in 8 years proves to me he was winning because he was the biggest doped up rider out there.
A talented rider in a similar mould to Armstrong but he wouldn't have anything like the Palmere's without being a huge cheat but cycling fans don't want to accept/listen to stuff like actual real facts because he is a 'legend'.
The guy whom just happened purely conincidentally of course to introduce Armstrong to Ferrari...

Your reasonsing is too simplistic. What did being a drugs cheat in the late 60's and 70's actually entail? Amphets? coke? It certainly wasn't EPO yet Merckx's winning margins were often EPO-esque. Having read a few books about him I haven't yet come across any fellow riders concluding that he won because he doped but that he won because he was head and shoulders better than they were. To a slightly lesser extent Hinault was the same.

ugo.santalucia

If you want to be draconian about drug cheats in the history of cycling, you might as well not talk about the all matter, as I wouldn't be able to bet on any rider being completely clean. Your argument is that Merckx was more doped than the others, based on the fact that he was caught... Armstrong was never caught, yet it is common belief he was the most heavily doped of his generation.
I don't like to draw lines and believe there is some good even at the bottom, even in Riis and Landis who happened to excel in a dirty field. It is down to how your body responds to drugs and if it responds better than in the case of another rider, does it mean you are dirtier? Some respond better to training... is it unfair? The reality is that Riis beated a filed of dopers who were probably worse responders to EPO... there is no glory in that, but there isn't much blame either... in other words it's not his fault if EPO was more effective on him than it was on others

RichN95.

I've said it on another thread and I'll say it again. You can't view doping in the 60s and 70s through the filter of modern day morality. You have to view at it was viewed at the time. And doping wasn't the big deal then that it is today.

ugo.santalucia

RichN95 wrote:

I've said it on another thread and I'll say it again. You can't view doping in the 60s and 70s through the filter of modern day morality. You have to view at it was viewed at the time. And doping wasn't the big deal then that it is today.

Very true

andyp

tonyf34 wrote:

Pah, the doper Merckx who was 'caught' doping at least 4 times in the 70s, three of which were during major events (Giro, Fleche wallone & Lombardia), the guy was a systematic drugs cheat. Given how micturate poor drug testing was to get caught 4 times (those that were mentioned in public) in 8 years proves to me he was winning because he was the biggest doped up rider out there.

He was caught 3 times, not 4, and one of those was in 1969. The first one remains controversial, the other two were for mild stimulants (which were in widespread usage in the 1970s peloton).

Quite how you conclude he was the biggest doped up rider out there is beyond me, especially given how many of his peers tested positive as often, if not more frequently, i.e. Godefroot, Gimondi, de Vlaeminck, Maertens.

pinno

andyp wrote:

tonyf34 wrote:

Pah, the doper Merckx who was 'caught' doping at least 4 times in the 70s, three of which were during major events (Giro, Fleche wallone & Lombardia), the guy was a systematic drugs cheat. Given how micturate poor drug testing was to get caught 4 times (those that were mentioned in public) in 8 years proves to me he was winning because he was the biggest doped up rider out there.

He was caught 3 times, not 4, and one of those was in 1969. The first one remains controversial, the other two were for mild stimulants (which were in widespread usage in the 1970s peloton).

Quite how you conclude he was the biggest doped up rider out there is beyond me, especially given how many of his peers tested positive as often, if not more frequently, i.e. Godefroot, Gimondi, de Vlaeminck, Maertens.

If every pro cyclist was on something, then I guess the 70's was a level playing field?

No_Ta_Doctor

pinarello001 wrote:

If every pro cyclist was on something, then I guess the 70's was a level playing field?

More so than the EPO era, yes.

When the UCI set the 50% hemocrit level it effectively distorted the playing field. Two equally good riders, one with naturally high blood levels and another with lower levels but a different advantage - the second can boost performance considerably, the first cant.

Prior to the 50% rule there was probably a natural limit anyway, 60% maybe? This would still give the second rider an advantage.

pinno

No tA Doctor wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

If every pro cyclist was on something, then I guess the 70's was a level playing field?

More so than the EPO era, yes.

When the UCI set the 50% hemocrit level it effectively distorted the playing field. Two equally good riders, one with naturally high blood levels and another with lower levels but a different advantage - the second can boost performance considerably, the first cant.

Prior to the 50% rule there was probably a natural limit anyway, 60% maybe? This would still give the second rider an advantage.

It's more obscure than that. The average (male) person can have a haematocrit level between 42 and 52% and after sustained physical activity (endurance cycling, Iron Man, Marathons), the haematocrit levels can dip to as low as 30%. It takes 120 days for the red blood cell count to return to normal but haematocrit can also be compromised as continuous activity causes the levels to remain suppressed. The average levels of haematocrit amongst pro cyclists during the racing season should actually be below average at times. The other effect is that the body under duress will consume proteins as a carbohydrate substitute, even blood participles. This is why some pro riders used to have blood transfusions of their own blood - which was later banned. Without blood transfusions, the obvious replacement/booster is EPO.
I do not know if the architects of the blood passport take samples immediately after a GT of all the cyclists just to observe individual patterns as accelerated recovery levels of haematocrit have got to be a sign of augmentation.
I think it works like this: If a rider has a natural haematocrit level of 42%, with careful administration, he could probably take EPO for his whole career without being caught whereas a rider with a natural level of 48% is risking it.

Daz555

Not found this posted elsewhere but nice interview from Jens. Hour record, Wiggins breaking it, shut up legs!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p027s265

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

I've said it on another thread and I'll say it again. You can't view doping in the 60s and 70s through the filter of modern day morality. You have to view at it was viewed at the time. And doping wasn't the big deal then that it is today.

It's not even a question of morality.

You play by the rules.

It's like football. You make a professional foul occasionally to break up the play and concende a yellow card.

it's against the rules, but the punishment is yellow card - so the player weighs it up and makes the decision.

It's the same with doping.

Currently, you get caught, you get a 2 year ban and likely will struggle to get as much sponsorship. Plus you need to live with being responsible for the collateral damage to your team too. Some riders decide that, the gains are worth the risk. Others don't. Some are a bit stupid and don't get the risk. Back then the punishment was different (less) so they approached it differently.

Forget morality. You play within the rules the sport sets.

If one doesn't like it, go follow an amateur sport, because professional sport isn't for you.

rick_chasey

Now, back to the hour.

What's with all the secret prep? Half the fun is the build up, if not more.

Apparantly there's some chat that Voigt's TT bike was better suited for road (and thus crosswinds) so there are more gains to be had just from the kit.

k-dog

That bike was definitely a compromise. A proper track pursuit bike would be better - hard to say how much though. A specialist could definitely be more aero than Jens and that's got to be worthy a few k.

Paul 8v

Any new track bike would need to be made available for production by Trek (Which would be quite cool actually) Even the British cycling bikes had to be offered for sale. How much more can be got from the speed concept with it still falling in the rules? I'd be interested to see, I suppose it depends on budgets. Cancellara will smash Jensies time on the standard bike, depends how much they want him to smash it by I suppose. It's rather good publicity for Trek.

Has Dowsett confirmed he wants to ride the hour or is it a rumour? I would ask him but we haven't got any TTs on at the moment so I doubt I'll see him unless he rides the hill climb and if he see's the stick Millar got on here for doing a hill climb that he'll probably stay at home... :-)

Daz555

Paul 8v wrote:

Cancellara will smash Jensies time on the standard bike, depends how much they want him to smash it by I suppose. It's rather good publicity for Trek.

I think Canc's only chance of being hour record holder is to get in ahead of Wiggo. Once Wiggo sets the bar (assuming he's not in CBA mode) then it will be out of sight to all but maybe Martin. Martin and Canc have far far more work to do to become quick on the track compared to Wiggo and Wiggo is a better TTer than Canc regardless.

I'd love to see Canc take on the record before Wiggo's attempt in June - assuming it happens.

rick_chasey

Wouldn't underestimate Cancellara.

He hasn't done any specific TT training since that EPIC Mendrisio ride.

bigmat

Rick Chasey wrote:

Wouldn't underestimate Cancellara.

He hasn't done any specific TT training since that EPIC Mendrisio ride.

Isn't that at least in part due to his (accurate) perception that there are now faster people out there? Also he seems to have slowed down a little in the classics (although his Flanders win shows he's still a class act). Can't help but feel he isn't the force he was 2 or 3 years ago.

I'd say Phinney or Durbridge are others who might have a decent shot - young TTers with a strong track background. Wiggins would seem to be made for it though.

RichN95.

BigMat wrote:

I'd say Phinney or Durbridge are others who might have a decent shot - young TTers with a strong track background. Wiggins would seem to be made for it though.

I reckon Jack Bobridge may be the best bet of the youngsters.

bigmat

RichN95 wrote:

BigMat wrote:

I'd say Phinney or Durbridge are others who might have a decent shot - young TTers with a strong track background. Wiggins would seem to be made for it though.

I reckon Jack Bobridge may be the best bet of the youngsters.

Bobridge / Durbridge... someone bridge. I may have got mixed up on that. Which is the one with the 4k pursuit record again? :oops:

dish_dash

BigMat wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

BigMat wrote:

I'd say Phinney or Durbridge are others who might have a decent shot - young TTers with a strong track background. Wiggins would seem to be made for it though.

I reckon Jack Bobridge may be the best bet of the youngsters.

Bobridge / Durbridge... someone bridge. I may have got mixed up on that. Which is the one with the 4k pursuit record again? :oops:

Jack Bobridge has the record, Luke Durbridge has the massive jaw!

pinno

If Cancellara hangs his road wheels up in say a couple of years time, he'll be able to dedicate some serious time and input to an hour attempt as long as the bar hasn't been set too high. The fact that he isn't as fast as he used to be maybe suggests he has different targets. His Flanders win was A1. Maybe specialising in TT's has compromised other ambitions. When he admits that he is slower than he used to be, it isn't by much and the hour is an hour (D'Oh). It is a long time in the saddle. Not many tour TT's are over an hour.
When he left Boonen for dead on the Muur, I thought that this was his true metier.

Yellow Peril

Anyone think this was a missed trick for Millar?

Paul 8v

Quite possibly, he could probably have a go at Jensies time to be fair

Yellow Peril

Paul 8v wrote:

Quite possibly, he could probably have a go at Jensies time to be fair

To be honest if he wanted to go out on a high he should target a spring attempt. all of the other contenders will be otherwise engaged.

rick_chasey

pinarello001 wrote:

If Cancellara hangs his road wheels up in say a couple of years time, he'll be able to dedicate some serious time and input to an hour attempt as long as the bar hasn't been set too high. The fact that he isn't as fast as he used to be maybe suggests he has different targets. His Flanders win was A1. Maybe specialising in TT's has compromised other ambitions. When he admits that he is slower than he used to be, it isn't by much and the hour is an hour (D'Oh). It is a long time in the saddle. Not many tour TT's are over an hour.
When he left Boonen for dead on the Muur, I thought that this was his true metier.

Probably fair.

That Mendrisio TT is the only TT i've ever watched and been genuinely excited and really felt 'this is some athletic performance'. Is probably why I go on about it so much.

Something about the way he chucks the bike about a bit, and that pedalling style which rocks his (by pro standard) fairly big arse. Bit more visceral than Wiggins, who's I guess the study of an ideal TT style and position (*yawn...*). It's like you can almost see the raw power coursing through the cranks.

RichN95.

Matthias Brandle (of Tour of Britain fame) is going to have a crack a week on Thursday (30th) in Aigle. His TT pedigree is somewhat uninspiring, so we shall see how he goes.

wombly_knees

Would say he's better than the current Voigt. Decent TTist when needed.

pinno

RichN95 wrote:

Matthias Brandle (of Tour of Britain fame) is going to have a crack a week on Thursday (30th) in Aigle. His TT pedigree is somewhat uninspiring, so we shall see how he goes.

Televised?

Daz555

RichN95 wrote:

Matthias Brandle (of Tour of Britain fame) is going to have a crack a week on Thursday (30th) in Aigle. His TT pedigree is somewhat uninspiring, so we shall see how he goes.

Not quite sure why he's picked a 200m velodrome. Sounds harder to me!