I think Cadel was the first one I would have bet my house on tbh and he was about 4 minutes slower
I admire your spunk young man, I'd be wary of claiming anybody after Lemond!
Wasn't there some interview with Mig where he was asked about doping and being told silence would speak volumes and when asked replied with a deafening silence? Or am I out of my mind on PED's and just imagining it all.
Big guys just can't climb like that. Which is a pity as I'm (still) a big Ulrich fan... hey ho.
I am struggling to understand how Contador holds the climbing record and yet he gets dropped - any chance you could explain your logic here?
Pretty sure on Cuddles , Wiggo and Cav and I would say Nibali and some of the others tbh Spartacus, Shut up legs etc
Look at Cuddles he never got faster they all just got slower but in Edukator world perhaps he just had slower acting drugs 😉
[url= http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/froomes-tour-de-france-confidence-grows-after-beating-contador ]Fromme drops Cantador (not for the first time)[/url]
When Riis, Pantani and Ulrich set their records they dropped the peloton as soon as the climb started. Theses days the lead riders sit in the peloton pedaling on eggs then attack when the average climb rate won't be a record.
Or perhaps they attack when they know they've got the actual energy to sustain it?
I'm very happy to believe Cuddles has been clean through his career. I suspect it goes part of the way to explaining why he can be a difficult character. He's spent his adult life doing what he thought he'd love knowing he was being beaten by cheats.
I'm also prepared to believe Sastre was clean. AFAIK the only 'evidence' against him was that he rode a bike quickly in an era when everyone else quick was on it.
I think you have to go with the fact that there is little or no "evidence" that would suggest much of the pro-peleton is doping anymore, perhaps even innocent till proven guilty? edit: or rather that those who have been caught lately no longer seem to have the power & pace they had before they were caught..
Having said that I would be very surprised if it had managed to clean its act up in just a few years. Still, one can only keep ones fingers crossed & hope for the best... 😕
No evidence. The Spanish court refused to release the names of 200 Fuentes blood-doping customers yesterday. There's plenty of evidence but no-one is allowed to see it.
right so a no longer doped Contador is getting dropped - How exactly does that prove everyone else is cheating? Does it not suggest he is no longer cheating?
Ps By dropped you mean being slightly ahead in a sprint finish [stage 5] so he did not really drop him now did he?
Still not getting your logic tbh but dropped is an OTT description of a sprint finish and it is more accurate to say Bertie failed to drop Froome tbh
The blood seized is what 8 years old now so may not be indicative of what is happening now
I am really struggling to see the point of what you say but it is not well thought out
Personally I don't have much faith in any cyclists, including Team Sky. The dramatic rise from being distinctly average GC stage racers / climbers to being world class for both Wiggins and Froome is pretty suspicious - Froome went from being a nobody to beating Cancellara in a time trial and being able to drop the world's best climbers. Wiggins went from being a pretty ordinary climber to suddenly being able to climb with the best and finishing 3rd in the TDF amongst the Schleck Brothers, Contador and Armstrong. Team Sky now ride with a dominance very similar to that of US Postal, with domestiques out climbing rival team's GC contenders. Contador was struggling to hold Porte's wheel the other day.
Despite their zero tolerance hiring promise, they've already had to let 6 or 7 staff go, including Dr Geert Leinders who organised systematic doping at Rabobank. Wiggins now seems to have forgotten his quote from before the Leinders story broke:
[i]"I think they have to take a strong look at who they invite to the race in the next few years; if there is one per cent suspicion or doubt that a team is involved in doping, or (are) working with certain doctors who are under suspicion of doping, then they shouldn’t be invited to the Tour de France, it’s as simple as that. They shouldn’t even be given a racing licence until they can prove that they are not involved in wrongdoing."[/i]
If history has taught us anything, remarkable transformations and performances are usually followed by a scandal in cycling. Personally the only person in cycling I trust is Vaughters - he's realistic and answers questions from the fans, including the cynics.
Oh and for the record, I think Wiggins will struggle against Nibali in the mountains at the Giro (lost 1min 40 to him the other day), so by the time the TDF comes around Froome will be leading.
No evidence. The Spanish court refused to release the names of 200 Fuentes blood-doping customers yesterday. There's plenty of evidence but no-one is allowed to see it.
Shocking I know. That evidence REALLY needs to come out!
No evidence. The Spanish court refused to release the names of 200 Fuentes blood-doping customers yesterday. There's plenty of evidence but no-one is allowed to see it.Shocking I know. That evidence REALLY needs to come out!
If it was just cyclists, then it would be released. Most of the cyclists have been named IIRC, it's the footballers and tennis players that are being protected, especially considering it's Spain's Olympic bid this year.
Wiggins went from being a pretty ordinary climber
Wiggins went from being a record breaking Olympic cyclist with a near peerles record at endurance [ sprinting events] with occasional road rides till he diedciated himself to the road.
It was not like he was an avergae rider just that he did not specialise in the road
As for this average riders and SKY made them awesome
its is obvious this is not a roadie forum and i cannot be bothered beating those down one by one....have a look at the GC of these domestiques then compared to GC contenders one days effort does not make a tour GC 🙄with domestiques out climbing rival team's GC contenders
Froome was a reasonable to good young rider who has matured well it is not unheard of it but it will raise suspicions due to previous athletes.he is not as bad as some say but yes he has got better but improving endurance with age is not unheard of without drugs and it alone is not proof of anything
And yes we should see the blood from the case mentioned
Team Sky now ride with a dominance very similar to that of US Postal, with domestiques out climbing rival team's GC contenders. Contador was struggling to hold Porte's wheel the other day.
Comparisons to Contador are misleading. We know he was doping and assume now he's not, so would expect to see his performance drop off. Without the drugs maybe he would have been a domestique himself.
When racing SKY are similar in the way they control the peloton but that's about where it ends. There's no reason they need drugs to do this (assuming most teams are clean) just good tactics and a strong team, something which they have the budget for.
You don't see Wiggins making repeated attacks on climbs the way Lance used to, or climb at the front day after day without looking tired.
The other way SKY and Postal resemble each other is the minute detail and dedication to training. Both teams have taken these things further than any of the competition. Again this helps with the results and is nothing to do with drugs.
JoeyDeacon; generally I think it's fair enough to be suspicious after the number of let downs from the pro peloton but I think a couple of the points raised are a little unfair.
Team Sky now ride with a dominance very similar to that of US Postal, with domestiques out climbing rival team's GC contenders.
Sky are a big bucks team, there domestiques would be other teams GC contenders, Porte could walk in to most teams and be a protected rider for a grand tour.
Oh and for the record, I think Wiggins will struggle against Nibali in the mountains at the Giro (lost 1min 40 to him the other day)
Is that when he was standing around waiting for a new bike from the team car? On the previous day nibali couldn't shake him off and Wiggins wouldn't attack as sky had the eventual stage winner up the road. So overall i don't think we can read too much in to that.
Wiggins went from being a record breaking Olympic cyclist with a near peerles record at endurance [ sprinting events] with occasional road rides till he diedciated himself to the road.
Wiggins went from being a world class 4 minute rider, who couldn't climb, to a world class 3 week rider who could keep up with the best doping riders pretty much overnight. Look at his GC results before 2009.
It's not far off Usain Bolt suddenly contending to win the London Marathon.
Is that when he was standing around waiting for a new bike from the team car? On the previous day nibali couldn't shake him off and Wiggins wouldn't attack as sky had the eventual stage winner up the road. So overall i don't think we can read too much in to that.
Granted he did lose around 30 seconds due to bike, but lost another minute on the climb, and not just to Nibali either. I don't think Wiggins will be as good this year - he spent a lot of time partying at the end of last season, (and to be fair he'd achieved some amazing things) - and has never had 2 good seasons running on the road. I think he's lost a bit of hunger this year, but will back next year. May well be wrong though, we'll see!
Wiggins will not win the Giro or the TdF. Froome will not win the TdF, he will crack under the pressure from others and his own activities.
Why would someone give up doping when they've got a system that works? Cantador got caught because he autotransfused blood from pre-season doping. Now he knows to avoid that. He denied and lied throughout the whole saga, and you're trying to tell me he's a reformed character, Junkyard. Business as usual.
If we learn anything from the Armstrong saga it should be that testing doesn't work and athletes dope up to the eyeballs and don't test positive. Gendarmes, tax inspectors, wives, girlfriends, customs officers, journalists and betrayed "friends" have resulted in far more athletes being outed or confessing than the labs, British Cycling and the UCI put together.
Oh shit, I find myself *almost* agreeing with Edukator. Oh no...
I find it quite heart warming that there's a whole bunch of you ready to believe it's all better now (even bet their houses on it, apparently).
Which scenario do you think is most likely?
1. The UCI are shit hot and their blood passpot scheme is the biz and (despite not flagging Armstrongs come back results for expert scrutiny!) so dopers will all be caught so no one dopes anymore. Basically, cycling is now clean.
2. The blood passport scheme means that the dopers have to rein it in and be a lot smarter and take more precautions so as not trigger the *Feds* (i.e. Bandwidth doping) and as a consequence genuine talents have the chance of actually winning something.
3. The blood passport is a smokescreen so we can all hide behind it and claim that cycling really is clean now whilst the dopers are still at it (albeit reined in for the obvious reason that we all know what an epo-fuelled charge looks like these days) and everybody is happy (i.e. Business as usual)
Well scenario 3 would be very sponsor friendly... hmmm.
Wiggins went from being a world class 4 minute rider, who couldn't climb, to a world class 3 week rider who could keep up with the best doping riders pretty much overnight. Look at his GC results before 2009.It's not far off Usain Bolt suddenly contending to win the London Marathon.
No that would be Chris Hoy winning the Tour
He road the giro as part of his Olympic training in 2008 for example and was lead out for Cav - you really think Usain could run a marathon - suddenly everyone is a road expert 🙄
It was also more accurate to say nearly keep up and even now he does not have a change of pace and is obviously not a natural climber and TT his way up at high cadence so he is hard to attack..
Your right when wiggo concentrated on the track he was an average road cyclists and a world class track cyclist. When he changed to focus on the road he became a world class road cyclist and an [ I assume] average track cyclist. he lost a lot of mass as a result of his change in training - which given LA will be viewed as the work of drugs rather than hard work /training. He explained in a numerous interviews the difference in training regimes and how he was doing loads of miles for both but at different intensities but you know that right ? It is not that remarkable given he is a remarkable cyclist - still world record holder for 4000 km and only cyclist to win the TdF and the Olympic Time Trial so yes he must be a cheat.
He denied and lied throughout the whole saga, and you're trying to tell me he's a reformed character, Junkyard.
well he is not winning nor the fastest so I shall let the results speak for themselves.
I shall of course be persuaded by the overwhelming body off evidence you have to go with your innuendo and smears that everyone else is cheating FFS even proxy measures such as the averages are down and watts per kg so all you can do is this.
2 is the most likely scenario but some athletes are definitely clean and I believe them. Some I would never believe now and in the past I would not have believed any of them as being clean. It is better it is not perfect. Despite this it is daft to just assume the best must be cheating. To use usain again it is like saying he is a cheat because Ben Johnson was...that is what your evidence is at present.
A Swiss guy has been monitoring cycling for year. He's got a web site I cna't find at the moment. He plots climbing rates all the way up climbs based on video for the major tour climbs. His conclusion on the last tour was that the top 15 on the 2012 TDF had performances that indicated sophisticated doping. One example I remember is that an injured Voeckler performed as well as Virenque at his best in the 2012 TDF. The Lille protocol (named after the Festina trial) gave athletes 10-15% more power.
It is not that remarkable given he is a remarkable cyclist - still world record holder for 4000 km and only cyclist to win the TdF and the Olympic Time Trial so yes he must be a cheat
The alternative is that he is more powerful than the other best cyclists in the world even though the others we know were using doping protocols that gave them an extra 50W
The alternative has no evidence though which is a rather important fact and we do not know that the riders wiggo beat this year were all doping you just keep saying they were and present no evidence for it.
Re wattages
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18921784
It is the BBC so you will like it as source 😉
Today they can do the peak of the drug cheats just for shorter times and needing more recovery that is where PEDS generally gave the benefits namely recoveryor stamina if you prefer. If a top athlete rode only one stage of the Tdf Say Nibali or Contador they could rip the legs of folk on that stage [ and get huge peak wattages] but not recover for the next day
I prefer 60 minutes:
Voeckler n'est pas seul à affoler les statistiques. Wiggins et Froome ont également impressionné, développant 430 watts de moyenne dans le col de Peyresourde. Le duo a fait encore plus fort vers Peyragudes (2,95?km à 7,93% de moyenne). Il a atteint 470 watts pendant 7'03''. Si Froome n'avait pas attendu son leader, il aurait pu titiller les 500 watts que seuls jusqu'ici Armstrong, Contador et Pantani ont dépassé.
As for the Beeb they produced a programme in the early nineties in which they exposed how athletes training with colds were killing themselves. It was of course EPO. Then the Beeb followed Armstrong's lie that his improved power to weight ratio was due to weight loss. The Beeb swallows just anbout about any nonsense athletes dream up and regurgitaes it for the public..
ok we have reached the point where you quote in a language i dont speak and berate the BBC - that article quoted scientists and everything BTW.
nos da
Welsh for goodnight - see pointless
Why would someone give up doping when they've got a system that works?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/22363860
Hmmm
Bora da, I lived in Aberystwyth for 7 years. I assume people use auto translators these days.
Even if you are too lazy to translate it you can see Wiggins/Froome, 470W 7'03". The last bit says Froome would have equalled the 500W of Armstrong, Cantador and Pantani if he hadn't slowed down to wait for Wiggins.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03/biological-passport-effective-fight-or.html?m=1
Posting from phone, but I hope this will show an alternative opinion..
I'm no Wiggins fan, and had been deeply suspicious of Armstrong for years, but I'm not convinced that things are still the same.
I reckon that the sport is cleaner than it has been for years. How long this will last remains to ne seen.
Urrgghh just typed a really long reply and accidentally closed the window. To summarise..
No failed tests - but to be fair this isn't necessarily indicative of being clean.
Wiggins, Thomas, Rogers, Siutsou etc all ranked very highly in UCI suspicious list based on performances and blood data.
Overall performances are pretty dominating (both individual and as a team), and are very reminiscent of USPS's train
Regularly beating doping riders, often comprehensively
Hiring ex dopers and doping doctors - either Sky are very naive or they turned a blind eye to their staff's past.
Sudden improvements to their rider's performances upon joining, which seem to drop off as soon as they leave Sky
BTW I don't mean this to be an anti Sky post - other teams are just as bad if not worse - I'm just pointing out that they're not as squeaky clean as they claim to be. Maybe they are clean, and their spectacular performances are legit. I just find them hard to believe, in a sport that's historically been dominated by widespread doping.
Either way, if you agree with me or not, there's a nice piece by Robert Millar [url= http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/robert-millar/giro-ditalia-2013-la-guerra-gelato ]here[/url] about the Giro.
As for quoting scientists, you yourself have spent a lot of time and effort on here demonstrating that the sold-out scientists claiming climatic change is just a natural cycle rather than man made are not making objective use of the evidence. Scientists are rarely impartial or objective. Everyone in France had non stop tour coverage from which to calculate climbing rates and many did. They all came to the same conclusion; Voeckler, Froome and Wiggins were climbing faster than is physiologically possible unless... .
Try Googling "Voeckler doping" with your Google settings changed to French. You'll find that every serious media source in France carried stories about Voeckler's improbable performances. French media doubting a French cyclist. The articles only mentioned Froome and Wiggins to say they'd done even better and ultimately won.
Robert Millar tested positive for testosterone. (cyclimsme-dopage.com)
jesus wept Edukator is there a conspiracy you dont want to include in this thread? as for scientists not being impartial they work with data have you actually got any ? that is rhetorical BTW
What about moon landing fakery what does that have to say on this ...we know the bbc are corrupt and scientist cannot be trusted what next??
No failed tests - but to be fair this isn't necessarily indicative of being clean.- YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE AND IT CERTSAINLY DOES NOT MEAN THEY CHEAT. WHAT ELSE CAN THEY DO BUT NOT FAIL TESTS?
Wiggins, Thomas, Rogers, Siutsou etc all ranked very highly in UCI suspicious list based on performances and blood data. VERY HIGHLY IS OVERSTATING IT BUT WIGGO WAS SUSPICIOUS IIRC ALSO THIS WAS 2010 AND ,ILLER WAS A 4 AND WIGGINS A 5 CONTADOR WAS 5 ARMSTRONG 4 - USADA CLAIMED HE DOPED THEN SO THE LIST MAY BE ERRATIC
Overall performances are pretty dominating (both individual and as a team), and are very reminiscent of USPS's train AGAIN SO WHAT PROOF OF NOTHING EXCEPT BOTH TEAMS WON
Regularly beating doping riders, often comprehensively- WHO ARE THESE DOPING RIDERS THE CLAIM KEEP BEEING MADE THAT EVERYONE THEY BEAT IS DOPING IT IS, TOO BE AS POLITE AS I CAN, UTTERLY FABRICATED YET YOU AND OTHERS KEEP REAPEATING IT
Hiring ex dopers and doping doctors - either Sky are very naive or they turned a blind eye to their staff's past. POOR DECISION FOR SURE I OFFERN NO DEFENCE BUT IT IS NOT PROOF THEY CHEATED BUT THEY DID HIRE CHEATS - I ASSUME EVERY TEAM HAS TBH BUT YES VERY POOR
Sudden improvements to their rider's performances upon joining, which seem to drop off as soon as they leave Sky - YES LOOK AT THAT CAV FELLOW HE WAS NOWHERE THEN AWESOME AND NOW BACK TO SHITNAME THE RIDERS PLEASE TO WHICH YOU REFER PLEASE- SHOULD KEEP YOU GOOGLING FOR A WHILE I IMAGINE
Not shouting just easier than quoting
Junky, step away from the keyboard. Leave the [s]blinkered[/s] omniscient one alone. He is so wise, you can never know as many FACTS as him.
FFS, it's like the bad old days in here.
Did any of you read the article about the sportive rider who took EPO? He said it wasn't so much about extra power but the ability to keep working at maximum power for a long time, day after day.
So looking at individual climbs is probably less useful - what is useful is how often a particular rider goes on a huge attack in the mountains.
I seem to remember last year's tour being a rather cagey affair with people banking on gaining seconds at a few key points. Almost as if, I dunno.. maybe they knew they only had enough energy for a couple of big efforts...
To be fair to Edukator he was telling us LA was a cheat for more years than I care to remember whilst I believed in his cleaness. I do prefer to think good about people unless proven otherwise so that was very disappointing. Ed is well placed to provide accurate assessments but I'd stll prefer to believe the alternative views.
What do any of us really know.... Bugger all really, but I have to believe our Brits are clean including Froome.
The other factor that has not been discussed is motivation, effort and fitness. You need all three to do your best so we can't compare every performance as if each rider is achieving 100% of those three aspects.
FFS, it's like the [s]bad[/s] good old days in here.
FTFY
1. I put the No Failed Tests bit in as that's the usual defence from Sky fans - I'm not saying no failed tests = doping, I'm just stating that it doesn't necessarily mean they're clean.
2. You (or someone) asked for evidence - I provided some which implies that certain riders may not be as clean as they'd have us believe. Totally agree it's not conclusive, however the riders I quoted were all considered in the top 20% of suspicious by the governing body.
3. USPS train's performances were very suspicious - the way they blew away dopers such as Vino, Ullrich, Valverde etc. Sky are now doing a similar thing to the newer generation of GC riders.
4. Known dopers include Basso, Kloden, Vino, Basso etc - as per most years there were a lot of dopers riding last year's TDF, all of whom got dominated. In smaller stage races Contador has been comprehensively beaten by Froome a couple of times. A clean rider beating the almost certainly doping and arguably most talented stage racer of his generation at his own game doesn't really add up.
5. n/a
6. Look at Rogers this year - amazing in the mountains last year, rubbish now.
Appreciate we don't agree on this - all I'm saying is to automatically assume Sky are clean is very naive, especially given the history of cycling. A lot of Lance's fans were using the "no proof" line for years, despite the highly suspicious performances.
The only person talking sense who's still involved in professional cycling is Vaughters. Check cyclingnews forum for user jv1973 for his opinions / answers to cycling fans.
I seem to remember last year's tour being a rather cagey affair with people banking on gaining seconds at a few key points. Almost as if, I dunno.. maybe they knew they only had enough energy for a couple of big efforts...
Exactly my feeling too - less exciting surges for victory on major climbs.
Bring back the dope! 😉
One more thing to consider.
A doping rider isn't necessarily always getting his doping spot on. It could be that at some point he almost gets rumbled or runs out of syringes or something and that cocks up the programme.
Doping isn't just popping pills, after all - it's a carefully managed process just like training is. If you overdo or under-do it at a critical time, you could be left well down on your possible best, as with normal training.
FWIW, re Sky, seems to me they'd be acutely aware that the British public would far rather them lose clean than win doped. So there really is little point in them doping. Wiggo said as much too IIRC.
Junky, step away from the keyboard. Leave the blinkered omniscient one alone. He is so wise, you can never know as many FACTS as him.FFS, it's like the bad old days in here.
CTRL C
CTRl V 😉
what molly said- short burts many of us could exceed 6 watts per kg [seconds for me to be fair] it is pointless to look at one short bit
I thought they were all cheats from that era as well as no way was he beating a cheat of the quality of Pantani - who never failed a test [ over 50% for haemacrits only]. Anyone who followed it closely knew it was obvious tbh. Now I dont know but I do beleive many are clean - what % who knows
It is poosible the top riders all cheat but the only evidence here seems to be they did in the past
Compare Lance's cool over-the-shoulder glance with the faces on last year's Tour. They were all visibly ****ing knackered.
Anyone who followed it closely knew it was obvious tbh.
So why isn't it obvious now when Froome matches Pantani?
I just get fed up with the line we get fed from the riders after every doping scandal.. "We're the new clean generation etc" and every single time up to now it's been proven otherwise.
The only solution is as Vaughters said, an external and completely impartial body to handle the testing and punishments - cycling has proven it can't govern itself.
...if there's a level playing field and it's entertaining, why do you care? I don't care if Daniel Craig was up to his eyes on coke or teetotal when he filmed the last Bond film, I just wanted to see an entertaining film. Why do you treat sport differently?
Personally, I care because it is a sport that I participate in, and the same rules apply to everyone, from pros to weekend warriors. Racing is all about trying to win within the boundaries of the rules. Without those boundaries, competition becomes meaningless. The "level playing field" scenario that people keep referring just opens up an unregulated mess where riders will take increasing risks as they explore the limits of performance enhancing drugs. I don't want a sport where I need to take drugs to compete with my peers, and if you fail to keep fighting pro cheating, that culture will trickle right down through the sport:
Pretty much every one of my cycling heroes has been directly or indirectly implicated in doping over the past 25 years. I think we are at a point where that culture [b]could[/b] change, but I've yet to be convinced it is really happening, so I still can't take pro cycling completely seriously.
Personally the only person in cycling I trust is Vaughters
Hmm...the man who established a team with a high profile anti-drugs position, but who didn't admit his own doping career until last year?
