Delusional Bertie

rick_chasey

As are the TT abilities of climbers like Pantani & Virenque.

Regularly top 10 and even top 5 in big TTs pre ban. Pantani made it top 3 in the final TT on the '98 Giro and Tour for example.

RichN95.

BigMat wrote:

If I'd been a bit older, I would have put money on him for 1991.

I am and I did. He was at a lot longer odds than was sensible.

RichN95.

Anyway, back to Bertie.

In today's episode he's claiming he could have won all three Grand Tours in one season if he'd tried: http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racin ... ear-353787

Tomorrow he will say that he would bring lasting peace in the Middle East if he started the 2018 Giro in Israel

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

Anyway, back to Bertie.

In today's episode he's claiming he could have won all three Grand Tours in one season if he'd tried: http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racin ... ear-353787

Tomorrow he will say that he would bring lasting peace in the Middle East if he started the 2018 Giro in Israel

Which year would be likeliest?

'08?

I can see him winning the '08 Tour in fairness.

ocdupalais

I know we're back on Bertie now that nickice has been proven wrong, but while I remember (for another thread, I know - but pertinent seeing as past Tours with loads of TTing have been mentioned: and also because Bertie is essentially whinging about the difficulties in beating Team Sky): but how about the Tour plans a massive (flattish) TTT (at least 68km) followed immediately by a short hard mountain stage (that is proving so hard to police - especially for the likes of Sky if they're in yellow).
Coupled with reduced teams = cat amongst pigeons, no?

nickice

OCDuPalais wrote:

I know we're back on Bertie now that nickice has been proven wrong, but while I remember (for another thread, I know - but pertinent seeing as past Tours with loads of TTing have been mentioned: and also because Bertie is essentially whinging about the difficulties in beating Team Sky): but how about the Tour plans a massive (flattish) TTT (at least 68km) followed immediately by a short hard mountain stage (that is proving so hard to police - especially for the likes of Sky if they're in yellow).
Coupled with reduced teams = cat amongst pigeons, no?

I haven't been proven wrong. A debate is a debate. I have my opinion and you have yours.

nickice

inseine wrote:

I certainly don't think it's crazy to say that a big unit like Indurain profited from EPO to change him into a a GT rider. I'm just not sure you can say his early career excluded his future success. He seems like a self afacing sort of guy who ride for others but showed plenty of talent ( won Vuelta prologue at 21).

I don't have any issue with the idea of a career trajectory and a rider improving over time (though when it's the amount of improvement that someone like Bradley Wiggins had, I do find it a little hard to believe in) even if it's something that someone like Greg Lemond doesn't agree with but to go from being a good rider to winning the tour five times? Not buying it and it seems most people agree that he was doping so I think my point stands.

This whole debate started because someone said that saying he must have doped as everyone else did is not a good argument. I think it actually is when it comes to the EPO era and Indurain's lack of dominance before that. A non-dominant Indurain before EPO is not going to become dominant once all the other riders are on EPO unless he's also on EPO.

bigmat

nickice wrote:

inseine wrote:

I certainly don't think it's crazy to say that a big unit like Indurain profited from EPO to change him into a a GT rider. I'm just not sure you can say his early career excluded his future success. He seems like a self afacing sort of guy who ride for others but showed plenty of talent ( won Vuelta prologue at 21).

I don't have any issue with the idea of a career trajectory and a rider improving over time (though when it's the amount of improvement that someone like Bradley Wiggins had, I do find it a little hard to believe in) even if it's something that someone like Greg Lemond doesn't agree with but to go from being a good rider to winning the tour five times? Not buying it and it seems most people agree that he was doping so I think my point stands.

This whole debate started because someone said that saying he must have doped as everyone else did is not a good argument. I think it actually is when it comes to the EPO era and Indurain's lack of dominance before that. A non-dominant Indurain before EPO is not going to become dominant once all the other riders are on EPO unless he's also on EPO.

But then you look at the end of his dominance, basically when the Freiberg lot upped the ante and he couldn't keep up. Early 90s EPO use seemed a bit more haphazard, and the riders benefitting were of questionnable quality. Maybe Big Mig was a genetic freak who forced the limited competition to dope to even get near him. As soon as it got properly organised (Mr 60% having it large, plus a young and hungry Ullrich) then Mig knew the game was up and retired with immediate effect.

I'll be honest, much as I love the guy I'm fairly sure he was doping, but there is still a small doubt in my mind that he might not have been!

above_the_cows

nickice wrote:

but I don't really believe in him

And there you have it.

kingstongraham

nickice wrote:

I don't have any issue with the idea of a career trajectory and a rider improving over time (though when it's the amount of improvement that someone like Bradley Wiggins had, I do find it a little hard to believe in) even if it's something that someone like Greg Lemond doesn't agree with but to go from being a good rider to winning the tour five times? Not buying it and it seems most people agree that he was doping so I think my point stands.

Improving over time, from 17th, to 10th while supporting someone else to first aged 26 when you are team leader isn't achievable, coming from a multiple track endurance winner to be a Tour winner aged 32 is suspicious, and (I assume) coming from nowhere to multiple wins starting at age 28 is suspicious. Is there a scenario that involves someone being very good at cycling that isn't suspicious?

Richmond Racer 2

KingstonGraham wrote:

nickice wrote:

I don't have any issue with the idea of a career trajectory and a rider improving over time (though when it's the amount of improvement that someone like Bradley Wiggins had, I do find it a little hard to believe in) even if it's something that someone like Greg Lemond doesn't agree with but to go from being a good rider to winning the tour five times? Not buying it and it seems most people agree that he was doping so I think my point stands.

Improving over time, from 17th, to 10th while supporting someone else to first aged 26 when you are team leader isn't achievable, coming from a multiple track endurance winner to be a Tour winner aged 32 is suspicious, and (I assume) coming from nowhere to multiple wins starting at age 28 is suspicious. Is there a scenario that involves someone being very good at cycling that isn't suspicious?

Yes, I'm given to understand that clean Tour winners are born with a birthmark in the shape of the maillot jaune so that everybody can be satisfied

RichN95.

KingstonGraham wrote:

Improving over time, from 17th, to 10th while supporting someone else to first aged 26 when you are team leader isn't achievable, coming from a multiple track endurance winner to be a Tour winner aged 32 is suspicious, and (I assume) coming from nowhere to multiple wins starting at age 28 is suspicious. Is there a scenario that involves someone being very good at cycling that isn't suspicious?

If you take Indurain's career in isolation then there is nothing suspicious about it at all. However, the suspicion comes from what we know was going throughout the sport at the same time and the extent to which it was going on.

Therefore most people come to the conclusion that while they won't definitively call him a doper due to the lack of any direct evidence, they're also unwilling to argue against that opinion. They will also think that he retired 21 years ago, so who really cares anymore.

nickice

KingstonGraham wrote:

nickice wrote:

I don't have any issue with the idea of a career trajectory and a rider improving over time (though when it's the amount of improvement that someone like Bradley Wiggins had, I do find it a little hard to believe in) even if it's something that someone like Greg Lemond doesn't agree with but to go from being a good rider to winning the tour five times? Not buying it and it seems most people agree that he was doping so I think my point stands.

Improving over time, from 17th, to 10th while supporting someone else to first aged 26 when you are team leader isn't achievable, coming from a multiple track endurance winner to be a Tour winner aged 32 is suspicious, and (I assume) coming from nowhere to multiple wins starting at age 28 is suspicious. Is there a scenario that involves someone being very good at cycling that isn't suspicious?

Yes, yes and yes. For the final time- he didn't dominate before EPO so how could he stay clean when EPO arrived without taking it?

blazing_saddles

nickice wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

nickice wrote:

I don't have any issue with the idea of a career trajectory and a rider improving over time (though when it's the amount of improvement that someone like Bradley Wiggins had, I do find it a little hard to believe in) even if it's something that someone like Greg Lemond doesn't agree with but to go from being a good rider to winning the tour five times? Not buying it and it seems most people agree that he was doping so I think my point stands.

Improving over time, from 17th, to 10th while supporting someone else to first aged 26 when you are team leader isn't achievable, coming from a multiple track endurance winner to be a Tour winner aged 32 is suspicious, and (I assume) coming from nowhere to multiple wins starting at age 28 is suspicious. Is there a scenario that involves someone being very good at cycling that isn't suspicious?

Yes, yes and yes. For the final time- he didn't dominate before EPO so how could he stay clean when EPO arrived without taking it?

When exactly do you think EPO arrived in the peloton and what do you class as domination?

He won the not insignificant Volta y Catalunya back in 1988, aged 23 and Paris-Nice at 24
Before that, he won multiple stages at L'Avenir, the first aged 20, just a week after turning pro.
He won the overall, aged 22.
Even before that, at 18 he was the youngest winner of the national amateur road championship.

Most folks would recognise these results as an indication of potential, at least.

nickice

Blazing Saddles wrote:

nickice wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

nickice wrote:

I don't have any issue with the idea of a career trajectory and a rider improving over time (though when it's the amount of improvement that someone like Bradley Wiggins had, I do find it a little hard to believe in) even if it's something that someone like Greg Lemond doesn't agree with but to go from being a good rider to winning the tour five times? Not buying it and it seems most people agree that he was doping so I think my point stands.

Improving over time, from 17th, to 10th while supporting someone else to first aged 26 when you are team leader isn't achievable, coming from a multiple track endurance winner to be a Tour winner aged 32 is suspicious, and (I assume) coming from nowhere to multiple wins starting at age 28 is suspicious. Is there a scenario that involves someone being very good at cycling that isn't suspicious?

Yes, yes and yes. For the final time- he didn't dominate before EPO so how could he stay clean when EPO arrived without taking it?

When exactly do you think EPO arrived in the peloton and what do you class as domination?

He won the not insignificant Volta y Catalunya back in 1988, aged 23 and Paris-Nice at 24
Before that, he won multiple stages at L'Avenir, the first aged 20, just a week after turning pro.
He won the overall, aged 22.
Even before that, at 18 he was the youngest winner of the national amateur road championship.

Most folks would recognise these results as an indication of potential, at least.

Late eighties or early nineties. I've never been able to find a definitive answer. Regarding what I mean by domination, I'd say winning multiple tours (Froome has dominated the tour for example). If you look at the winners of Paris-Nice or the Volta y Catalunya over the last thirty years, how many were realistically going to challenge for the tour (not many, though I know some did) and how many have won the tour multiple times? The point being, winning those races is good but not indicative of future dominance (Albasini has won Catalunya and Geraint Thomas has won Paris-Nice). Looking back, you might have tipped Indurain to win some big races and maybe even a GT but would you have predicted five tour wins based on his early years?

Greg Lemond has been known to bang on about being good from when you start and, though I don't entirely agree with him, there could be something in that when you look at riders like Lemond and Fignon.

m.r.m.

Isn't it feasible, that without EPO Indurain would have been a much more Cancellara type rider instead of dominating GT's? So, still great, but a different type.

andyp

M.R.M. wrote:

Isn't it feasible, that without EPO Indurain would have been a much more Cancellara type rider instead of dominating GT's? So, still great, but a different type.

Perfectly feasible.

Please show me another rider weighing somewhere between 78-83 kgs who won the Tour. There was an era so skewed that the likes of Cancellara, Boonen and George f-ing Hincapie were talked up as potential Tour winners. Indurain is the only rider of that build to win the Tour in the post WW2 era.

ocdupalais

Indurain always remained classy - even when he'd blown (see Vuelta 1996). I think he was a better climber than Lemond or Hinault who both chugged, battered and bruised their way over climbs. No drugs give you that style.
Dope or no dope, in terms of outright power, he must be the most powerful Tour winner of all time?

rick_chasey

OCDuPalais wrote:

Indurain always remained classy - even when he'd blown (see Vuelta 1996). I think he was a better climber than Lemond or Hinault who both chugged, battered and bruised their way over climbs. No drugs give you that style.
Dope or no dope, in terms of outright power, he must be the most powerful Tour winner of all time?

Lance, no?

rick_chasey

Maybe Ullrich '97.

bigmat

Ullrich maybe. But I reckon Indurain. Apparently his hour record average power was something ridiculous like 510W - aero as a brick but... the power!

Lance was far smaller, and a lot more aero. Wouldn't have thought he would have been anywhere near power wise.

rick_chasey

BigMat wrote:

Ullrich maybe. But I reckon Indurain. Apparently his hour record average power was something ridiculous like 510W - aero as a brick but... the power!

Lance was far smaller, and a lot more aero. Wouldn't have thought he would have been anywhere near power wise.

Well I asked Lance on twitter, so we'll see.

bigmat

Rick Chasey wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Ullrich maybe. But I reckon Indurain. Apparently his hour record average power was something ridiculous like 510W - aero as a brick but... the power!

Lance was far smaller, and a lot more aero. Wouldn't have thought he would have been anywhere near power wise.

Well I asked Lance on twitter, so we'll see.

What was the question? He'll probably (correctly) turn it round to power to weight (if he responds at all).

rick_chasey

BigMat wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Ullrich maybe. But I reckon Indurain. Apparently his hour record average power was something ridiculous like 510W - aero as a brick but... the power!

Lance was far smaller, and a lot more aero. Wouldn't have thought he would have been anywhere near power wise.

Well I asked Lance on twitter, so we'll see.

What was the question? He'll probably (correctly) turn it round to power to weight (if he responds at all).

He won't respond.

"What power were you knocking out in your Tour winning TTs? More or less than 500w?"

(in a seperate tweet)

"Btw, nothing to do with doping. Just curious".

ocdupalais

BigMat wrote:

Ullrich maybe. But I reckon Indurain. Apparently his hour record average power was something ridiculous like 510W - aero as a brick but... the power!

Lance was far smaller, and a lot more aero. Wouldn't have thought he would have been anywhere near power wise.

Or Ullrich 2003....?
But had forgotten about Indurain's less than optimum aero-ness - was thinking more about the power he must have been generating to climb the way he did. Even at his lightest he must have been about 25kg heavier than the likes of Pantani, Ugromov, etc.

ocdupalais

Rick Chasey wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Ullrich maybe. But I reckon Indurain. Apparently his hour record average power was something ridiculous like 510W - aero as a brick but... the power!

Lance was far smaller, and a lot more aero. Wouldn't have thought he would have been anywhere near power wise.

Well I asked Lance on twitter, so we'll see.

What was the question? He'll probably (correctly) turn it round to power to weight (if he responds at all).

He won't respond.

"What power were you knocking out in your Tour winning TTs? More or less than 500w?"

(in a seperate tweet)

"Btw, nothing to do with doping. Just curious".

A mate was working with a well known cycling writer and TV journo who had some inside info from the Armstrong camp around the time he was at peak trainng for 2004 Tour. The rumour was that he was putting out 6.8kW/kg for the Madone test*. I think this was before guesstimated power to weight ratios were being used as "proof" of doping, hence why they were less protective of that info.



*if this were true, why he didn't smash the record out of sight then, I don't quite understand.

rick_chasey

That would put him at 510W.

RichN95.

Delete

rick_chasey

I thought he was 75kg?

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

I thought he was 75kg?

I've deleted my post now as someone had said the same thing. Maybe he was 75kg. Maybe I'm thinking of Wiggins.