Would A Clean Froome Beat A Doped Armstrong?

mfin

ben@31 wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

Have a look at the "record times" up various mountains - most of the fastest times are still by dopers, which tells you that tech, nutrition and training methods have a way to go yet in order to get a normally aspirated cyclist to the same type of performance.

Theres videos on Youtube of Armstrong climbing Mt Ventoux in 2000, one of Armstrong attacking after a crash on Luz Ardiden in 2003 and a separate video of Marco Panatni breaking the record for climbing Alpe d'Huez in 1997. The speed of these is phenomenal, these days with hindsight you know the attacks just don't look natural. Especially compared to the pace they grind up the mountains today.

With hindsight? No, with common sense at the time, it was completely obvious. Look at Contador's early career too.

StillGoing

There are reasonable indications of who is and who was doping in some form from the current crop of the pro-peloton. Riding for Astana would be a good starter for 10.

joe2008

mfin wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

Have a look at the "record times" up various mountains - most of the fastest times are still by dopers, which tells you that tech, nutrition and training methods have a way to go yet in order to get a normally aspirated cyclist to the same type of performance.

Theres videos on Youtube of Armstrong climbing Mt Ventoux in 2000, one of Armstrong attacking after a crash on Luz Ardiden in 2003 and a separate video of Marco Panatni breaking the record for climbing Alpe d'Huez in 1997. The speed of these is phenomenal, these days with hindsight you know the attacks just don't look natural. Especially compared to the pace they grind up the mountains today.

With hindsight? No, with common sense at the time, it was completely obvious. Look at Contador's early career too.

I watched it all, and I didn't think it was 'completely obvious' - no more so than watching a 2 hour marathon, or a 9.58 100m, or a 147 break, or some other demonstration of sporting genius by an elite sportsperson - it was, however, great fun to watch.

Garry H

Watched it all and thought it was a great spectacle as well. However, there was a lot of chin stroking going on by 2000

joe2008

Garry H wrote:

Watched it all and thought it was a great spectacle as well. However, there was a lot of chin stroking going on by 2000

were the highlights on at 1900 back then

sloppyschleckonds

philthy3 wrote:

There are reasonable indications of who is and who was doping in some form from the current crop of the pro-peloton. Riding for Astana would be a good starter for 10.

Lolz

ben@31

joe2008 wrote:

mfin wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

Have a look at the "record times" up various mountains - most of the fastest times are still by dopers, which tells you that tech, nutrition and training methods have a way to go yet in order to get a normally aspirated cyclist to the same type of performance.

Theres videos on Youtube of Armstrong climbing Mt Ventoux in 2000, one of Armstrong attacking after a crash on Luz Ardiden in 2003 and a separate video of Marco Panatni breaking the record for climbing Alpe d'Huez in 1997. The speed of these is phenomenal, these days with hindsight you know the attacks just don't look natural. Especially compared to the pace they grind up the mountains today.

With hindsight? No, with common sense at the time, it was completely obvious. Look at Contador's early career too.

I watched it all, and I didn't think it was 'completely obvious' - no more so than watching a 2 hour marathon, or a 9.58 100m, or a 147 break, or some other demonstration of sporting genius by an elite sportsperson - it was, however, great fun to watch.

Do you not find it a completely different style of riding back then (with effortless out the saddle sprints up the entire mountain), compared to today which seems a much slower pace and with more suffering? It seems back then the incredible out of this world performance was taken for granted or not openly questioned.

147 break? Ive played at my local snooker club once or twice and believe me it's impossible ( my highest break is eight) that guy with the funny glasses and the tuxedo is definitely on the edgar and roids.

joe2008

ben@31 wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

mfin wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

Have a look at the "record times" up various mountains - most of the fastest times are still by dopers, which tells you that tech, nutrition and training methods have a way to go yet in order to get a normally aspirated cyclist to the same type of performance.

Theres videos on Youtube of Armstrong climbing Mt Ventoux in 2000, one of Armstrong attacking after a crash on Luz Ardiden in 2003 and a separate video of Marco Panatni breaking the record for climbing Alpe d'Huez in 1997. The speed of these is phenomenal, these days with hindsight you know the attacks just don't look natural. Especially compared to the pace they grind up the mountains today.

With hindsight? No, with common sense at the time, it was completely obvious. Look at Contador's early career too.

I watched it all, and I didn't think it was 'completely obvious' - no more so than watching a 2 hour marathon, or a 9.58 100m, or a 147 break, or some other demonstration of sporting genius by an elite sportsperson - it was, however, great fun to watch.

Do you not find it a completely different style of riding back then (with effortless out the saddle sprints up the entire mountain), compared to today which seems a much slower pace and with more suffering? It seems back then the incredible out of this world performance was taken for granted or not openly questioned.

147 break? Ive played at my local snooker club once or twice and believe me it's impossible ( my highest break is eight) that guy with the funny glasses and the tuxedo is definitely on the edgar and roids.

It was taken for granted because the very best didn't suffer slowly up mountains... just like Ronnie doesn't struggle to make an 147 break. They are not normal people.

Mark Alexander

This is a no brainier. Armstrong in his prime would have hammered Chris Froome, assuming he was carrying a fridge and drafting Moto man.....

pblakeney

joe2008 wrote:

Garry H wrote:

Watched it all and thought it was a great spectacle as well. However, there was a lot of chin stroking going on by 2000

were the highlights on at 1900 back then

18:30. Channel 4.

davidof

Can you imagine the stage?

Briancon -> Alpe d'Huez by way of the Galibier and Croix de Fer.

Coming out of St Michin de Bidule, 5k from the summit Armstrong would turn around and look straight at Froomey holding his stare for a few seconds, then he'd be gone pulling into Huez 10 minutes ahead on the road. Liggett would be commenting "this is incredible, Armstrong has destroyed Froome, you'll never see a better display of cycling dominance but Paul, do you think Armstrong is doped?" "Absolutely not Phil, you've got to remember that Lance is the most tested cyclist in history and has never failed a test, that's more than we can say for the Kenyan".

TonyJams

Not sure I like all these insinuations about Froome and Sky being dirty. I think it's important to remember that Dr Gert Leinders was only employed because of his expertise in fixing saddle sores, its these sort of marginal gains that Sky look at in detail and they all add up. Riders have been forced out of the tour before due to saddle sores. Likewise Tim Kerrisons swim training, if riders like Quintana got in the pool more often like the Sky boys do then he might be a bit better at climbing in the mountains like Froome.

charlie_potatoes

TonyJams wrote:

Likewise Tim Kerrisons swim training, if riders like Quintana got in the pool more often like the Sky boys do then he might be a bit better at climbing in the mountains like Froome.

Yep absolutely.......... If only the Movistar budget could run to a plunge pool..........

ic.

Froome would have stood no chance over the 3 weeks of a GT.

A one day race, a one off TT - I think he would have the beating of Armstrong, maybe a week long stage race early in the calendar depending route and how it was raced. The recovery advantages of the dope alone would see the Cheating Texan ride off into the distance in the 2nd week and be long gone by the 3rd week.

Take away the dope and leave everything the same, Froome would win comfortably, as would most of the current peloton.

joe2008

IC. wrote:

Take away the dope and leave everything the same, Froome would win comfortably, as would most of the current peloton.

Nonsense, Armstrong was a class cyclist regardless, most of the current peloton would have no chance of beating him if everyone were clean.

charlie_potatoes

joe2008 wrote:

IC. wrote:

Take away the dope and leave everything the same, Froome would win comfortably, as would most of the current peloton.

Nonsense, Armstrong was a class cyclist regardless, most of the current peloton would have no chance of beating him if everyone were clean.

Yeah but only because he has had swimming lessons.

kingstongraham

joe2008 wrote:

IC. wrote:

Take away the dope and leave everything the same, Froome would win comfortably, as would most of the current peloton.

Nonsense, Armstrong was a class cyclist regardless, most of the current peloton would have no chance of beating him if everyone were clean.

You know this how?

joe2008

KingstonGraham wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

IC. wrote:

Take away the dope and leave everything the same, Froome would win comfortably, as would most of the current peloton.

Nonsense, Armstrong was a class cyclist regardless, most of the current peloton would have no chance of beating him if everyone were clean.

You know this how?

He 'won' 7 TdF's against the best riders of that era who were, in most cases, also doped.

So switch it around: a rider from today's peloton (Froome aside), has the dope and the team, would they have won 7 TdF's in a row against the doped stars of that time?

tangled_metal

Do all doped cyclists get the same benefit from whatever they take? Is it possible that the dope had a better, positive effect on LA than all the others?

I only ask because comparing doped with doped only works if the effects are the same for all, surely?

dinyull

To not get flagged for doping you had to keep your Hemocrit level under 50%. Some people have a naturally high hemocrit score (charlie wegelius was 49) so the lower your hemocrit score the more you stood to benefit from doping.

Alex99

Tangled Metal wrote:

Do all doped cyclists get the same benefit from whatever they take? Is it possible that the dope had a better, positive effect on LA than all the others?

I only ask because comparing doped with doped only works if the effects are the same for all, surely?

Don't think everyone gets the same benefit. For example, if a rider had a naturally low hematocrit, then that might give more room for doping gains. It wasn't a level playing field. Doesn't matter how many times LA says it.

Alex99

joe2008 wrote:

IC. wrote:

Take away the dope and leave everything the same, Froome would win comfortably, as would most of the current peloton.

Nonsense, Armstrong was a class cyclist regardless, most of the current peloton would have no chance of beating him if everyone were clean.

He was a good rider for single day events, being more of a sprinter than anything. But, he wasn't a climber.

Bobbinogs

...and yet he raced Pantani up Mont Ventoux and, if memory serves me correctly, apparently gifted the win to Il Pirata. It must have been like a rush to the pharmacy before it closed for the day.

dinyull

So Armstrong was around 6.8w/kg and Froome is around 6w/kg - and Lance raced about 7 or 8kg heavier than Froome despite being 4 or 5 inches shorter haha.

kingstongraham

joe2008 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

IC. wrote:

Take away the dope and leave everything the same, Froome would win comfortably, as would most of the current peloton.

Nonsense, Armstrong was a class cyclist regardless, most of the current peloton would have no chance of beating him if everyone were clean.

You know this how?

He 'won' 7 TdF's against the best riders of that era who were, in most cases, also doped.

So switch it around: a rider from today's peloton (Froome aside), has the dope and the team, would they have won 7 TdF's in a row against the doped stars of that time?

But switching it around isn't a valid comparison. EPO isn't going to improve every cyclist the same amount.

Alex99

KingstonGraham wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

IC. wrote:

Take away the dope and leave everything the same, Froome would win comfortably, as would most of the current peloton.

Nonsense, Armstrong was a class cyclist regardless, most of the current peloton would have no chance of beating him if everyone were clean.

You know this how?

He 'won' 7 TdF's against the best riders of that era who were, in most cases, also doped.

So switch it around: a rider from today's peloton (Froome aside), has the dope and the team, would they have won 7 TdF's in a row against the doped stars of that time?

But switching it around isn't a valid comparison. EPO isn't going to improve every cyclist the same amount.

Lance says that it was a level playing field. Seems quite possible that EPO makes GT champs out of riders that shouldn't normally be, and makes other potential GT champs look average.

ic.

Alex99 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

IC. wrote:

Take away the dope and leave everything the same, Froome would win comfortably, as would most of the current peloton.

Nonsense, Armstrong was a class cyclist regardless, most of the current peloton would have no chance of beating him if everyone were clean.

You know this how?

He 'won' 7 TdF's against the best riders of that era who were, in most cases, also doped.

So switch it around: a rider from today's peloton (Froome aside), has the dope and the team, would they have won 7 TdF's in a row against the doped stars of that time?

But switching it around isn't a valid comparison. EPO isn't going to improve every cyclist the same amount.

Lance says that it was a level playing field. Seems quite possible that EPO makes GT champs out of riders that shouldn't normally be, and makes other potential GT champs look average.

"Lance says...."

I thought we were past believing a single thing that comes out of that guys mouth. If he said water was wet I'd be inclined to go check for myself.

simon_masterson

Alex99 wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

IC. wrote:

Take away the dope and leave everything the same, Froome would win comfortably, as would most of the current peloton.

Nonsense, Armstrong was a class cyclist regardless, most of the current peloton would have no chance of beating him if everyone were clean.

He was a good rider for single day events, being more of a sprinter than anything. But, he wasn't a climber.

This. He was a strong talent, even if he'd never have won seven tours had he not doped. He might have been remembered very differently.

Matthewfalle

Shouldn't the question be:"if Armstrong and Froome were on the same drugs who would win?"

Alex99

IC. wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

IC. wrote:

Take away the dope and leave everything the same, Froome would win comfortably, as would most of the current peloton.

Nonsense, Armstrong was a class cyclist regardless, most of the current peloton would have no chance of beating him if everyone were clean.

You know this how?

He 'won' 7 TdF's against the best riders of that era who were, in most cases, also doped.

So switch it around: a rider from today's peloton (Froome aside), has the dope and the team, would they have won 7 TdF's in a row against the doped stars of that time?

But switching it around isn't a valid comparison. EPO isn't going to improve every cyclist the same amount.

Lance says that it was a level playing field. Seems quite possible that EPO makes GT champs out of riders that shouldn't normally be, and makes other potential GT champs look average.

"Lance says...."

I thought we were past believing a single thing that comes out of that guys mouth. If he said water was wet I'd be inclined to go check for myself.

That's my point. I don't beleive him.