Armstrong charged with doping.

What about the Sky team? Dope or no dope?

I suspect quite a lot of clean top riders now – and I doubt any of the sky team are doping – certainly not in the systematic way of a decade ago

I have to agree with TJ, there are and i think always will be some riders riding doped, But i think there are far more riders riding clean. I don’t think there is the complicity from sponsors, teams and riders as there was even 10 years ago.

But most riders will be taking supplements, chemicals, pills, etc etc, just ones that aren’t on the banned list but are shown/believed to offer a benefit.

and I doubt any of the sky team are doping – certainly not in the systematic way of a decade ago

So how do they ride up hills faster than the riders a decade ago who were on protocols proven to given a 10-15% power boost?

And yet the average speed of the winner, as well as the number of finishers, has remained pretty constant since the early eighties.

Bernard Hinault’s winning speed in 1981 was 4kph faster than the typical average before that, with some exceptions of course. Since then, the average has been hovering around the 39-40kph, including Cadel’s average of 39.8 from last year.

I know average speed isn’t an ideal indicator, but surely doping must have some effect, or else why do it?

Overly simplistic? Probably

Edukator – by having optimised everything else? By using legal supplements and vitamins and highly organised training?
I wouldn’t bet my house on it tho

So how do they ride up hills faster than the riders a decade ago who were on protocols proven to given a 10-15% power boost?

Edukator, I don’t think they do. I’ll go and see if I can dig out the figures.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/07/power-outputs-from-tour-de-france.html

Long, but instructive…

Have a look a climb rates, Mikey74, that shows what the riders are really capable of when they take the brakes off and go for a stage win up the final climb of a stage. From memory you won’t find any 80s riders in the fastest climbers and stand outs include Mr 60% Riis, Ulrich, Pantani, Armstrong and fastest climber of the lot, Cantador.

Here’s some data to contradict your link, Crikey.

Short but even more instructive. 😉

You need to click on each riders graphics but Armstrong was producing over 10% more power than Lemond 20 years earlier.

Interesting stuff – crikey link has this

But, to continue a debate we’ve been having recently, these numbers reflect, in my opinion, an overall lowering of the performance level in the Tour compared to the last 2 decades. And this is a positive sign that doping control measures are having an effect. Even yesterday on the Col du Tormalet, the climbing time was 56:30 for the Yellow Jersey, compared to that huge day in 2003, when Armstrong and Ullrich did it in 44:30. And yes, the race situation was different, but 12 minutes? That’s too big to be accounted for by strategy alone, even weather conditions (yesterday may well have been more favourable anyway).

Edukator – your article is a few years older data up to 2005 only . but even so it does show a fall from the peak

And yet the average speed of the winner, as well as the number of finishers, has remained pretty constant since the early eighties…

…I know average speed isn’t an ideal indicator, but surely doping must have some effect, or else why do it?

They’ve changed the stages a lot since then, made them shorter and added an extra rest day to discourage the “need” to dope so that will have helped. Added to which, bikes are far more advanced now, lighter, stiffer, more aero, more ergonomic; the kit is better (more aero/ergonomic again) and training is much more scientific (GPS, power etc). Each item may only be a fraction of a % but taken together it’s the classic aggregation of marginal gains over bikes from the 80’s and 90’s.

Any punter can go into a bike shop now and (so long as the credit card has enough limit) buy an off-the-peg bike way better (lighter, stronger, stiffer, electronic gears etc) than anything Lance ever used.

Until Cantador raised it again, TJ.

As I said, it was an overly simplistic theory, but headed in the right direction. I think the key point you make there is the “training is more scientific” one: It’s like a legal form of cheating 😉

I’ve got bikes from the whole period Crazy-legs. A 653 like Indurain used to win his first Tour. A Columbus Max like Armstrong used for his worlds win. Look KGs like Lemond and many 90s riders used and a KG 196 like Jalabert. A TCR composite like Ulrich and Jalabert used. The weight makes a mathematical difference that was accounted for in the power figures I linked but otherwise they are all plenty stiff and strong. A French track rider tested Merckx’s Columbus SL (badged Reynolds) and pronouned it a faboulous bike that was extremely stiff.

Fantastic collection of bikes,some real gems there Edukator, love to see pics of them

Fantastic collection of bikes,some real gems there Edukator, love to see pics of them

+1, can this thread now be about Edukator’s bikes?

But they’re just bikes, still used and mostly rather scratched and grubby. Google will provide images of the originals with the riders on them. My son finished second in the departmental championships a couple of weeks back on #284 of the Look ONCE 97 Tour Edition. It still rides Like new which is a lot more pleasant than newer monocoque bikes like the TCR, an extra kilo to haul around though.

Son green near camera