On July 20 2018 02:29 L_Master wrote: I appreciate that Elmonti. I can understand the frustration, and as you can tell I have no problems with discussion about doping or anything of that nature. I'm just not a big fan of throwing around insults. I think we can talk about Thomas ride being questionable without calling him a pistard. It tends to get people riled up and not promote good discussion. If you want to talk about Sky, Thomas, or anybody else being up to questionable things I'm always okay with that sort of conversation.
On that note, I again am not that suspicious of what Thomas did. Similar things have happened in other sports, and there is precedence there. A 4km pursuit is rather similar to the 1500/mile in athletics. There have been great 1500m runners that have gotten a bit older, changed their focus, and become strong 10000m or half marathon runners. In fact, it's usually around the age of 30 that the full aerobic development and strength usually starts to arise for "faster" more anaerobic guys. In that sense Thomas hitting 30 and developing that is the typical career arc of a track and field endurance oriented 1500m specialist.
If anything, I even see that as more possible in cycling because you can have great short power physiology, add some weight for more raw watts, then eventually drop that weight and lose some of that explosive power while transitioning your training over to sustaining a higher %VO2 and fatigue resistance. Dan Martin for instance, has the physiology to ride a 4km as good as Thomas if he threw on some weight and added a little raw power. So too Valverde. If Valverde has the ability to put out high power on the TT bike in an ideal position, he would absolutely smash the 4km with gaining a little muscle for raw power, and in form he climbs great.
I guess the difference between you and I is guilty until proven innocent versus benefit of the doubt. I firmly believe that what Thomas did, what Kwaitko can do, etc. What they have done is indeed impressive though, and given the current status of sport that inherently means skepticism is warranted, I just view it from a "hmm, a clean rider could do this, but at the same time it's on the edge of plausibility". The difference is, to you Sky is guilty and definitely doping. Guilty until exonerated. For me, it's the opposite. Of course Sky is suspicious as fuck, and if you asked me if they are cheating with a gun to my head, I'd say yes. However...to condemn I have to have proof. Either leaked information about positives, a failed test, or some performance that is truly unbelievable.
If you ask me what's suspicious about Froome, it's his incredible consistency. I can't think of one single climb Froome has done where I though watching "Pfft. No way this is legit". He's always just a little bit better than everybody else climbing, and then of course sinks time into them in TT.
In that same vein, if you ask me where I'm most suspicious about Sky, it's not in their riders doping the same way they did in 2000s era with massively increased physiology. I think what there might be is something drug wise that helps you get very lean and maintain power, and also potentially use of drugs for recovery. Which is also why I'm not that suspicious of Thomas and Kwaitkowski in the way you are. If they had shit that was that magical, their top guys should just be on a comically different level than everyone else...but they aren't. Froome is only a marginally better climber than guys like Quintana, Porte, Landa, etc. He's just always performing at his best. That, more than anything is where my suspicion lies
.
Okey, if we talk about this i will be as polite and calm as I can be, promised xD (Also I'm not a native english speaker)
1- The kind/type of "power" you can deliver is mostly based also on your type of muscle fibers, and you can't change that theough training. Thats why Contador, Nibali, Froome, Dumoulin, etc. wont ever sprint decently amongst sprinters no matter how much muscle they build, and that's why Sagan, Greipel, Kittel won't be top climbers no matter the weight they loose. Then you have "gifted" people in between like Valverde (sprints very well and climbs very well, but not like the specialists... he was in O.Puerto btw). Of course this can be changed a little through training (as you say, gaining w/kg loosing weight, or gaining muscle to put some more W in short climbs or flat)...ooor it can be changed a LOT with doping: Lance Armstrong was a great classics rider before his whole transformation, having won World Championship in 93, Klasikoa, Fleche Wallone,... but couldn't hold in the high mountains ... we knew what happened later. Usually this hardcore transitions mean something and are very suspicious.
2- Thats exactly what happened. Froome tested positive in Septembre in the Vuelta a España... then we know about it thanks to a journalist leak information on December, no less than 3 months later... obviously they were trying to resolve this "privately" (just as Contador's case). Then WADA and UCI dropped the case due to not being able to fight with Sky in the court (9k of papers, they spent a fortune over 250k CHF in courte, etc.). Giro Organization payed 2million € to have this guy race in the Giro... do you really think Sky plays under the same rules as the other teams?
3- You say Froome is consistent and just a little better than anyone else, sinking time in the ITT. I would say that if i hadn't seen cycling before 2016, lets see: Consistency: This is a guy who got DQ in the Giro 2010 for climbing the Mortirolo grabbed to a motorbike, the guy got dropped in the Tour of Poland 2011 by SAGAN, this guy was gonna be let go by his team just a few months before Vuelta 2011, Brailsford was trying to sell him to USPostal given that they asked for Cummings ("no to Cummings.... but might you be interested in this guy?"), then he becomes the best GT rider of the Vuelta 2011. He finished like 20 secs behind Cobo...having worked for Wiggins for half of the race....i recommend you to check this out, its worth the 5 min: twitter.com. Then the little better thing: Tour 2013, stage 8: he puts 1+ min into the favourites. Stage 11, in a 33km totally flat stage he goes second 12" behind Tony Martin. Stage 15, he puts 1:30+ in the Mount Ventoux. Tour 2014 he crashes. Tour 2015, first mountain stage he puts from 1 to 3 minutes into the rest of favourites. He and his team destroyed the rest in a fashion we never saw since Lance... Cristopher Froome is the greatest laboratory product the cycling has ever seen. And there are tons of records to support this.
4- I agree with you about the getting lean and maintain power and recovery stuff. We never saw people THAT lean (scary) before without loosing power.....or did we? you can see what David Millar said about the corticosteroid Wiggins was receiving: www.telegraph.co.uk. Loose weight without loosing power. Also, that recovery stuff is what makes people like Kiatowski (powerful in short times) being able to perform like this. Normally climbers can recovery much better, but with some "help" he can do 3 hard stages in a row being in the top20 climbers when he does his job. You will never see Sagan or GvA do this. Also I recommend you to read about the TUE stuff if you haven't before. Its key in todays sport. We need to give our riders Corticosteroids, so we need them to suffer a disease which is treated with them....then it looks like Froome (and half of the damn peloton, can't blame him alone on this one) has asthma... which is treated.... by corticosteroids. So in case we get caught, we have an official medical permission for that kind of drug. The thing is Salbutamol doesnt do much orally, so you have to take it VI or IM to produce that big muscular effect. Problem is high concentration, just like the positive of Froome, DOUBLING the allowed limit. Do you know how many "shots" of ventolin do you need to reach his concentration ? 20 shots.....Medical prescription of Ventolin says the limit of doses are 8 in the whole day. Yep. Sooo we say its Froome's body that works in a different way, and they start with the riding with one-kidney bullshit while riding a damn 3 week race (I'm sorry, but I just couldn't contain myself with that one ). The thing is WADA tells that you HAVE to prove that throught a controlled pharpacokynetic study (CPKS).... but it turns out Froome and Sky don't have to prove anything. Check this: twitter.com Then we won. Our riders are using corticosteroids vi to enhance their performance, AND they cannot touch us. Unlike the other teams, we can go full doping system and no one can do anything. No UCI, no WADA, no one.
5- Regarding the climbing records: the day before yesterday they rode La Madeleine 1 minute faster than 2009 (Contador and Schleck brothers, "pretty" good climbers) for example. Headwind or tailwind alone can mess those records up, let alone previous stages, riders conditions, etc.. But I do agree with you that luckily those 7 w/kg for 40' (Armstrong, Pantani) and those 80kg cruising up the mountains (Indurain) days are long gone. But that just means they are not going for the hardcore 90s stuff (EPO, CERA, ...), but for the scary skinny - no power loose stuff.
On July 20 2018 02:29 L_Master wrote: I appreciate that Elmonti. I can understand the frustration, and as you can tell I have no problems with discussion about doping or anything of that nature. I'm just not a big fan of throwing around insults. I think we can talk about Thomas ride being questionable without calling him a pistard. It tends to get people riled up and not promote good discussion. If you want to talk about Sky, Thomas, or anybody else being up to questionable things I'm always okay with that sort of conversation.
On that note, I again am not that suspicious of what Thomas did. Similar things have happened in other sports, and there is precedence there. A 4km pursuit is rather similar to the 1500/mile in athletics. There have been great 1500m runners that have gotten a bit older, changed their focus, and become strong 10000m or half marathon runners. In fact, it's usually around the age of 30 that the full aerobic development and strength usually starts to arise for "faster" more anaerobic guys. In that sense Thomas hitting 30 and developing that is the typical career arc of a track and field endurance oriented 1500m specialist.
If anything, I even see that as more possible in cycling because you can have great short power physiology, add some weight for more raw watts, then eventually drop that weight and lose some of that explosive power while transitioning your training over to sustaining a higher %VO2 and fatigue resistance. Dan Martin for instance, has the physiology to ride a 4km as good as Thomas if he threw on some weight and added a little raw power. So too Valverde. If Valverde has the ability to put out high power on the TT bike in an ideal position, he would absolutely smash the 4km with gaining a little muscle for raw power, and in form he climbs great.
I guess the difference between you and I is guilty until proven innocent versus benefit of the doubt. I firmly believe that what Thomas did, what Kwaitko can do, etc. What they have done is indeed impressive though, and given the current status of sport that inherently means skepticism is warranted, I just view it from a "hmm, a clean rider could do this, but at the same time it's on the edge of plausibility". The difference is, to you Sky is guilty and definitely doping. Guilty until exonerated. For me, it's the opposite. Of course Sky is suspicious as fuck, and if you asked me if they are cheating with a gun to my head, I'd say yes. However...to condemn I have to have proof. Either leaked information about positives, a failed test, or some performance that is truly unbelievable.
If you ask me what's suspicious about Froome, it's his incredible consistency. I can't think of one single climb Froome has done where I though watching "Pfft. No way this is legit". He's always just a little bit better than everybody else climbing, and then of course sinks time into them in TT.
In that same vein, if you ask me where I'm most suspicious about Sky, it's not in their riders doping the same way they did in 2000s era with massively increased physiology. I think what there might be is something drug wise that helps you get very lean and maintain power, and also potentially use of drugs for recovery. Which is also why I'm not that suspicious of Thomas and Kwaitkowski in the way you are. If they had shit that was that magical, their top guys should just be on a comically different level than everyone else...but they aren't. Froome is only a marginally better climber than guys like Quintana, Porte, Landa, etc. He's just always performing at his best. That, more than anything is where my suspicion lies.
I see your point and I admire you. Because since 1998 EVERY YEAR, every damn year, they say : This time it's gonna be a clean run. Every damn year.
And 2, 3 or even 5 years later, we learn that the previous winner was cheating. I mean, how can you give them the benefit of the doubt, since it's the same stuff every time. I get your point, but I am tired of trusting them, thus I don't follow the TDF like I did in the past. It's like i'm waiting for scandals to happen..
On July 20 2018 02:29 L_Master wrote: I appreciate that Elmonti. I can understand the frustration, and as you can tell I have no problems with discussion about doping or anything of that nature. I'm just not a big fan of throwing around insults. I think we can talk about Thomas ride being questionable without calling him a pistard. It tends to get people riled up and not promote good discussion. If you want to talk about Sky, Thomas, or anybody else being up to questionable things I'm always okay with that sort of conversation.
On that note, I again am not that suspicious of what Thomas did. Similar things have happened in other sports, and there is precedence there. A 4km pursuit is rather similar to the 1500/mile in athletics. There have been great 1500m runners that have gotten a bit older, changed their focus, and become strong 10000m or half marathon runners. In fact, it's usually around the age of 30 that the full aerobic development and strength usually starts to arise for "faster" more anaerobic guys. In that sense Thomas hitting 30 and developing that is the typical career arc of a track and field endurance oriented 1500m specialist.
If anything, I even see that as more possible in cycling because you can have great short power physiology, add some weight for more raw watts, then eventually drop that weight and lose some of that explosive power while transitioning your training over to sustaining a higher %VO2 and fatigue resistance. Dan Martin for instance, has the physiology to ride a 4km as good as Thomas if he threw on some weight and added a little raw power. So too Valverde. If Valverde has the ability to put out high power on the TT bike in an ideal position, he would absolutely smash the 4km with gaining a little muscle for raw power, and in form he climbs great.
I guess the difference between you and I is guilty until proven innocent versus benefit of the doubt. I firmly believe that what Thomas did, what Kwaitko can do, etc. What they have done is indeed impressive though, and given the current status of sport that inherently means skepticism is warranted, I just view it from a "hmm, a clean rider could do this, but at the same time it's on the edge of plausibility". The difference is, to you Sky is guilty and definitely doping. Guilty until exonerated. For me, it's the opposite. Of course Sky is suspicious as fuck, and if you asked me if they are cheating with a gun to my head, I'd say yes. However...to condemn I have to have proof. Either leaked information about positives, a failed test, or some performance that is truly unbelievable.
If you ask me what's suspicious about Froome, it's his incredible consistency. I can't think of one single climb Froome has done where I though watching "Pfft. No way this is legit". He's always just a little bit better than everybody else climbing, and then of course sinks time into them in TT.
In that same vein, if you ask me where I'm most suspicious about Sky, it's not in their riders doping the same way they did in 2000s era with massively increased physiology. I think what there might be is something drug wise that helps you get very lean and maintain power, and also potentially use of drugs for recovery. Which is also why I'm not that suspicious of Thomas and Kwaitkowski in the way you are. If they had shit that was that magical, their top guys should just be on a comically different level than everyone else...but they aren't. Froome is only a marginally better climber than guys like Quintana, Porte, Landa, etc. He's just always performing at his best. That, more than anything is where my suspicion lies.
I see your point and I admire you. Because since 1998 EVERY YEAR, every damn year, they say : This time it's gonna be a clean run. Every damn year.
And 2, 3 or even 5 years later, we learn that the previous winner was cheating. I mean, how can you give them the benefit of the doubt, since it's the same stuff every time. I get your point, but I am tired of trusting them, thus I don't follow the TDF like I did in the past. It's like i'm waiting for scandals to happen..
Because it's the equitable thing to do. Making a much more serious analogy to crime, I would rather we let 10 murders go free by "benefit of the doubt" than wrongly convict and ruin the life of even one.
Also, anyone that says it's "going to be clean" is just naive. There will ALWAYS be cheaters in sport, or anything with that kind of money and prestige involved. I don't see any way that can ever be stopped sort of super excellent technology in the future that detects everything that enters the body or such.
In the interim, what's important is that we continue to reduce the magnitude of the cheating so that honest athletes can compete. We aren't quite there as far as I can tell, but it's closer. Clean guys can definitely win stages and maybe even some one week tours.
Contrast that to the peleton of 15 years ago where Froome literally wouldn't even be at the level of a weak domestique. That's the best drug progress I can imagine. If we can get a little better, perhaps we can reduce it to where clean riders have a legitimate shot to win the tour if they have a great performance.
1- The kind/type of "power" you can deliver is mostly based also on your type of muscle fibers, and you can't change that theough training. Thats why Contador, Nibali, Froome, Dumoulin, etc. wont ever sprint decently amongst sprinters no matter how much muscle they build, and that's why Sagan, Greipel, Kittel won't be top climbers no matter the weight they loose. Then you have "gifted" people in between like Valverde (sprints very well and climbs very well, but not like the specialists... he was in O.Puerto btw). Of course this can be changed a little through training (as you say, gaining w/kg loosing weight, or gaining muscle to put some more W in short climbs or flat)...ooor it can be changed a LOT with doping: Lance Armstrong was a great classics rider before his whole transformation, having won World Championship in 93, Klasikoa, Fleche Wallone,... but couldn't hold in the high mountains ... we knew what happened later. Usually this hardcore transitions mean something and are very suspicious.
There is truth to what you write, but it's not just muscle fibers; and some of it can be changed due to training. We know that a large portion of muscle fibers and other aspects of physiology can convert and change, sometimes dramatically, with training.
Moreover, what's important to realize is that cycling "sprinters" are not sprinters at all. The muscle fibers are Marcel Kittel are MUCH closer to the muscle fiber composition of Froome than they are to that of a true sprinter such a Bolt or Chris Hoy. Those are true, fast twitch dominant sprinters. Guys like Kittel, Griepel, and especially Sagan or GVA are endurance guys that can kick. Their physiology doesn't hold them back from producing massive aerobic power.
Realize power comes from two places. Aerobic metabolism, aka FTP, and anaerobic metabolism, aka FRC/AWC. Sprint power is just someone with a higher burn rate of FRC. Guys like Sagan and Valverde have huge FRC's. Valverde's is huge on a w/kg basis, and Sagan's is good there and ridiculous on a pure power basis.
Generally, guys with a high FRC are biased to have a slightly lower threshold. FRC is finite and linear. If you have a massive 30kJ FRC this means that for one minute you can do 500w anaerobically. For five minutes you can do 100w anaerobically. For thirty minutes you can do 17w anaerobically, etc. This only recovers when you dip below threshold. So to compare two hypothetical riders. Rider A has threshold of 400w and FRC of 18kJ. Rider B has threshold of 370w and FRC of 30kJ. Their outputs are as follows:
Most riders that are anaerobic powerhouses like Valverde tend to have slightly lower thresholds predominately because they can't hold as high of a %V02 max at threshold as the super diesel engine guy. The super diesel's can often hold 90% of VO2 for their FTP. Valverde can probably only hold 85%.
This CAN be trained, specifically if the rider gives up some focus on aerobic side and works hard on pushing up fractional utilization of VO2 (basically aerobic work).
2- Thats exactly what happened. Froome tested positive in Septembre in the Vuelta a España... then we know about it thanks to a journalist leak information on December, no less than 3 months later... obviously they were trying to resolve this "privately" (just as Contador's case). Then WADA and UCI dropped the case due to not being able to fight with Sky in the court (9k of papers, they spent a fortune over 250k CHF in courte, etc.). Giro Organization payed 2million € to have this guy race in the Giro... do you really think Sky plays under the same rules as the other teams?
It's sport. In this case I feel confident saying not only do we suspect Sky plays by different rules, we basically know they do.
And I believe Froome was guilty as the Vuelta. I think he woke up, realized he wasn't feeling good/having breathing problems. Panicked when the usual dose didn't work, and went for something stronger. Someday maybe the full facts will be out but I think he cheated on that day of the Vuelta, admittedly in a panic. Stripping his Vuelta and a 6-12 month ban would be appropriate for that sort of case.
I do not think it's evidence or proof of systematic performance enhancing doping. Froome and Sky are WAY to smart to get busted blatantly cheating in an in competition test. They panicked and fucked it up a bit.
3- You say Froome is consistent and just a little better than anyone else, sinking time in the ITT. I would say that if i hadn't seen cycling before 2016, lets see: Consistency: This is a guy who got DQ in the Giro 2010 for climbing the Mortirolo grabbed to a motorbike, the guy got dropped in the Tour of Poland 2011 by SAGAN, this guy was gonna be let go by his team just a few months before Vuelta 2011, Brailsford was trying to sell him to USPostal given that they asked for Cummings ("no to Cummings.... but might you be interested in this guy?"), then he becomes the best GT rider of the Vuelta 2011. He finished like 20 secs behind Cobo...having worked for Wiggins for half of the race....i recommend you to check this out, its worth the 5 min: twitter.com.
He was a young developing rider, and many of the things you're describing are easy to write off as bad days. That said, there is no question in my mind that the rapid rise of Froome from struggling domestique to top rider in short span is suspicious. It will always be. But I also know tons of clean athletes from recreational up to pro level who were stuck in mediocrity for a long while, made a change to their training or circumstances and got DRAMATICALLY better in a short time frame.
This does happen. Many times it's due to doping. Other times it absolutely isn't.
Then the little better thing: Tour 2013, stage 8: he puts 1+ min into the favourites. Stage 11, in a 33km totally flat stage he goes second 12" behind Tony Martin. Stage 15, he puts 1:30+ in the Mount Ventoux. Tour 2014 he crashes. Tour 2015, first mountain stage he puts from 1 to 3 minutes into the rest of favourites. He and his team destroyed the rest in a fashion we never saw since Lance...
That mountain stage (2015) we talked about when it happened. Literally everybody just sucked that day. It was a flat, easy ass stage. Hesink sitting in rode 6w/kg up the first half, until it broke up with the attacks and he lost some time. 1:34. In the end he did about 5.8 w/kg. Froome likely did 6.1 or so to win the stage by 1:34. A strong performance, but it came on the back of a rest day followed by a comically easy stroll to the climb. The NP leading up to the climb was less than 180w for Hesink. They were fresh, and literally everybody except Froome, Porte, and Quintana just sucked that day. Froome won dominant ally because every else had a shit day. Robert Hesink was 4th on that stage. 4th. Ahead of guys like Pinot, Valverde, Yates, Thomas, Contador, and Nibabli.
Bringing up stage 15 is clearly not looking at the data. Froome and his team didn't "destroy the field in a fashion not seen since Lance". Everyone else folded like a card table. Robert Hesink put two minutes into Contador. 4 minutes into Nibali. A minute into Valverde. This is Gesink we are talking about here. A mediocre breakway specialist climber. Froome was dominant that day because literally everyone sucked. Only 5 guys could handle better than 5.5 w/kg on a day that was pure noodling till the final climb.
If anything that day was interesting because everyone was so uniquely terrible on that day.
---------
Ventoux was Froome's most dominant performance in his career. He looked great. He's never come close to looking that good at any other point. I think we can safely chalk that one up to the best ride of his life. And it's not even that ridiculous when you consider Ventoux is a far longer, harder climb than just about any other the Tour does. Putting in 1:30 on Ventoux is a little different than putting in 1:30 on Alp D'Huez, and even more different from putting in 1:30 on some 10km 7% finishing climb.
Also, he only won by 29 seconds, not 1:30, so it wasn't even that dominant.
----------
All of this leads to my point, Froome has generally not been dominant. He isn't doing ridiculous things on his bike that no one can hope to match. On his best days he wins convincingly, but not overwhelming, and he has only had a few of those in his entire career. Outside of that, he generally puts in modest victories with impeccable consistency, which as I said is perhaps the oddest thing about Froome.
4- I agree with you about the getting lean and maintain power and recovery stuff. We never saw people THAT lean (scary) before without loosing power.....or did we? you can see what David Millar said about the corticosteroid Wiggins was receiving: www.telegraph.co.uk. Loose weight without loosing power. Also, that recovery stuff is what makes people like Kiatowski (powerful in short times) being able to perform like this. Normally climbers can recovery much better, but with some "help" he can do 3 hard stages in a row being in the top20 climbers when he does his job. You will never see Sagan or GvA do this.
Really? I watch Avermaet beat Gesink and many other capable climbers over a taxing mountain stage just a few days ago.
Also, Sagan sixth on Mt. Baldy 2015 Amgen ToC. Did 6w/kg for 25'. Multiple HC climbs and a total of 87 miles and 12k feet of climbing, with a summit finish on Baldy, a 7km climb at over 9%. Only a handful of seconds behind guys like Sergio Henao of Sky.
Bottom line, in my opinion you really underestimate how strong all world tour riders, especially top level talent is at climbing, especially in diesel mode and especially when digging in for a single day. Where they lose out is ability to repeat that over and over, and the ability to deal with accelerations. Most climbs are ridden at tempo on the run in to a hard summit finish. Usually this means 5-5.5 w/kg. for 2-4 climbs of 30-60'.
Avermaet for instance likely has a threshold around 420-450w. I've seen him on strava doing 10' repeats at 500w. Avermaet weighs 73kg. So he is sitting on an FTP of around 5.7w/kg-6w/kg. This means that in order to do what Kwaitkowski did Avermeat would need to do a 5 hour ride with two to three hours at 90% of FTP +/- 5%, then finish it off with 15' at perhaps 97-105% of FTP.
I don't know how much you ride bikes, but I will tell you that is a hard; though far from insane, day.
Also I recommend you to read about the TUE stuff if you haven't before. We need to give our riders Corticosteroids, so we need them to suffer a disease which is treated with them....then it looks like Froome (and half of the damn peloton, can't blame him alone on this one) has asthma... which is treated.... by corticosteroids. The thing is Salbutamol doesnt do much orally, so you have to take it VI to produce muscle effect. Problem is high concentration, just like the positive of Froome, DOUBLING the allowed limit. Do you know how many "shots" of ventolin do you need to reach his concentration ? 20 shots.....Medical prescription of Ventolin says the limit of doses are 8 in the whole day. Yep.
Yea, this shit is silly. I'd like to see it eliminated.
From an equity and rules standpoint though everybody has access to it, and most are. It's obnoxious, but does not provide an unfair advantage.
Sooo we say its Froome's body that works in a different way, and they start with the riding with one-kidney bullshit while riding a damn 3 week race (I'm sorry, but I just couldn't contain myself with that one ). The thing is WADA tells that you HAVE to prove that throught a controlled pharpacokynetic study (CPKS).... but it turns out Froome and Sky don't have to prove anything. Check this: twitter.com Then we won. Our riders are using corticosteroids vi to enhance their performance, AND they cannot touch us. No UCI, no WADA, no one.
Sky plays by different rules, and as I said earlier I'm reasonably convinced Froome was guilty of cheating on the day of the Vuelta. We are close in agreement here.
5- Regarding the climbing records: the day before yesterday they rode La Madeleine 1 minute faster than 2009 (Contador and Schleck brothers, quite good climbers) for example. But I do agree with you that luckily those 7 w/kg for 40' (Armstrong, Pantani) and those 80kg cruising up the mountains (Indurain) days are long gone. But that just means they are not going for the hardcore 90s stuff (EPO, CERA, ...), but for the scary skinny - no power loose stuff.
That doesn't necessarily tell how they raced up the climb, it's possible there was much more looking around. Especially when you consider that yesterday's stage was quite easy (only a few short climbs ridden at anything above 5 w/kg) and they had cohesion and chasing for most of it with Dumoulin up the road I find that not too shocking. More so when you consider that 2009 is definitely NOT 2004. I forget what had come into place, but the blazing times being set in men's T&F basically dried up around 04/05 as well. By 2009 people were not ripping out the insane performances of the EPO era of the 90s and early 2000s.
Cristopher Froome is the greatest laboratory product the cycling has ever seen. And there are tons of records to support this.
LOL?! A guy with a low 6w/kg FTP that couldn't hack it as a cycling domestique in the 2000s era is a greater "laboratory cyclist" than Big Mig's 550w FTP dragging 80kg up mountains, or Marco Pantani soaring up hills at 7.5 w/kg blasts to win stages by minutes?
There is also this great video, and probably the point Lance decided it was time for something more:
A solid 5+ km/hr pass at well over 55--60km/hr (Lance was spinning 100rpm is his 53/11). Looks awesome, but total LOL at the same time looking back given what we know. Indurain was probably doing 100w more.
Also, just for a comparison just look at the difference in speed between today and Armstrong back in time. It's almost comical.
So Nibali broke his thoracic vertebra and and still managed to close that gap so well after. Even with the leader up thare fooling around playing games for the stage win, this is kinda insane.
But well... with him abandoning, just another rider who at least looked like he could tickle Sky is gone.
Cristopher Froome is the greatest laboratory product the cycling has ever seen. And there are tons of records to support this.
LOL?! A guy with a low 6w/kg FTP that couldn't hack it as a cycling domestique in the 2000s era is a greater "laboratory cyclist" than Big Mig's 550w FTP dragging 80kg up mountains, or Marco Pantani soaring up hills at 7.5 w/kg blasts to win stages by minutes?
Well I see for the most part we agree in facts but just take different conclusions. Fair enough.
Just one thing regarding the "laboratory product": when I say that i'm not refering to "the most juiced up" rider ever, by any means. We all agree that was the Lance/Pantani/Ullrich era, and after that the Indurain/Rominger/Ciapucci (scary 64% Ugrumov, omg). By that I mean they created a monster (dominating as they want and crushing GC opponents both in mountain and ITT) from the scratch. Thats the BIG difference. Lance was a superb classics rider (WC 93, FW, etc.) and Indurain had already won 2 paris-Nice, the Tour de l'avenir (with 23 yo he had won 5 stages in this "sub23 Tour de France"), 2 stages at the tour, etc. They were both great young riders with a lot of projection. Doping (Conconi and Padilla) made Indurain reach that monster level by becoming even better in ITT and much better at climbing. Doping (Ferrari and cia) made Lance reach that monster level by transforming him into a GT smash machine, dominating both ITT and climbing. Even Pantani was since he was a young boy with hair in his head a superb climber, doping made him a much much better one. Good lord, even Wiggins was a great pistard prior to his transformation in the Tour 2009, climbing with Armstrong, Nibali and the Schlecks.
But what had Froome done when he became the best rider at the Vuelta 2011?... 1 stage at the Tour of Japan, 1 stage in a Race in Southafrica and 2nd in the British ITT. He was a mediocre to decent timetrialist, and absolutely nothing more. Thats why I see him as a total Product. He was not "enhanced", he was created from the scratch. Thats why I will ever consider him the biggest fraud.
DP: sad news for Nibali, he seemed to be okay when he closed the gap after the crash. This stage has been a slaughter...
Cycling should go all the NFL road (we all got loaded and nobody cares), to be sincere It has lost much of my attention from Indurain era, watching Sky is disgusting, lets wait for the next week, in one climbing stage Froome will lose 30 secs to 1 min, showing him as an human being, and then the next stage he will take 1:30 or more mins, it is just a pattern in what they do btw, Valverde should go to Sky, He will be a monster right there, and could win a TdF with 39 years.
On July 21 2018 03:59 palexhur wrote: Cycling should go all the NFL road (we all got loaded and nobody cares), to be sincere It has lost much of my attention from Indurain era
Honestly, I've considered that and in many ways I don't think it's a bad idea. Except for one major concern, which is that if the pro peleton gets that doped up, then so too must the next level to be good enough to join those ranks, which then means rising amateurs are doping, which then forces juniors to dope...and then we have a real medical problem. If doping could be done with near absolute safety I would be okay with it.
There is also a small concern of turning sport into a laboratory arms race, but that's an issue of budget, and teams with big budgets have always been favored.
That said, cycling now is 1000x better than it was 15 years ago. It's a much healthier, fair, balanced sport. HUGE strides have been made over the last 10 years and the playing field is much more equitable.
, watching Sky is disgusting, lets wait for the next week, in one climbing stage Froome will lose 30 secs to 1 min, showing him as an human being, and then the next stage he will take 1:30 or more mins,
Not really sure what you're saying.
Froome almost never takes more than a minute, except for time trials. It's happened at most 3 or 4 times in all of Froomes Tours. I don't know why you find this "disgusting". People have good days and bad days. Froome, like every rider, deals with this same concern.
Moreover, Froome can't have a bad day and win the tour at this point barring a collapse from G AND Dumoulin. Froome will lose 15s-45s against Dumulin and might gain at best 30s against G. If he loses a minute that puts him 2:40 behind G, and 1:00 behind Dumoulin. Making up 2' on G (TT accounted for) and 1:30+ on Dumoulin is unlikely to happen...especially given his form today.
it is just a pattern in what they do btw,
Wut.
It's a pattern with any rider. A rider clearly strong than the others will usually gain 15s-45s on most days, with a really bad day being a loss of perhaps 30s-60s. All riders more or less follow this pattern of oscillation relative to where their actual "average" fitness is at.
Valverde should go to Sky, He will be a monster right there, and could win a TdF with 39 years.
Uh huh. Maybe with Sky's advantages he could have won if he was there 2-3 years ago and Froome wasn't, but let's face it, Valverde is waning. Great season still but couldn't win at Fleche Wallone for the first time and can't come close to hanging on here in this Tour.
Thomas from what I heard said that he still sees Froome as the captain of Sky and tries to keep yellow for a few more stages. I'm pretty sure that means (if it's between the two) he'll let Froome go away at one stage (prolly the one before the TT) so he gets yellow and wins the tour.
On July 21 2018 07:14 HolydaKing wrote: Thomas from what I heard said that he still sees Froome as the captain of Sky and tries to keep yellow for a few more stages. I'm pretty sure that means (if it's between the two) he'll let Froome go away at one stage (prolly the one before the TT) so he gets yellow and wins the tour.
Well... I believe him winning the tour depends basically on how even Dumoulin and Froome are. As during the last stage in the Alps, Thomas won't chase attacks by Froome himself. But if Dumoulin or whoever else decides to follow, he will just follow them. So if Froome is able to distance everyone else he gets the yellow. If he fails to do so, Thomas can just sit tightly on the heels of whoever goes after him and claim that he never actively tried to ruin Froomes escape attempts.
On July 21 2018 07:14 HolydaKing wrote: Thomas from what I heard said that he still sees Froome as the captain of Sky and tries to keep yellow for a few more stages. I'm pretty sure that means (if it's between the two) he'll let Froome go away at one stage (prolly the one before the TT) so he gets yellow and wins the tour.
If he actually does this I would be amazed. I suspect at this point Froome and G and racing each other, even if they both won't publically admit or acknowledge it. I don't think they will blatantly attack each other, but I don't see either one not going full gas and letting up on a climb to gift the lead, nor do I think one will do domestique duties for each other.
On July 21 2018 07:14 HolydaKing wrote: Thomas from what I heard said that he still sees Froome as the captain of Sky and tries to keep yellow for a few more stages. I'm pretty sure that means (if it's between the two) he'll let Froome go away at one stage (prolly the one before the TT) so he gets yellow and wins the tour.
Well... I believe him winning the tour depends basically on how even Dumoulin and Froome are. As during the last stage in the Alps, Thomas won't chase attacks by Froome himself. But if Dumoulin or whoever else decides to follow, he will just follow them. So if Froome is able to distance everyone else he gets the yellow. If he fails to do so, Thomas can just sit tightly on the heels of whoever goes after him and claim that he never actively tried to ruin Froomes escape attempts.
Yea, basically this. G probably won't pull guys back to Froome. He might well attack them though and try to get to Froome if Froome goes away.
Cristopher Froome is the greatest laboratory product the cycling has ever seen. And there are tons of records to support this.
LOL?! A guy with a low 6w/kg FTP that couldn't hack it as a cycling domestique in the 2000s era is a greater "laboratory cyclist" than Big Mig's 550w FTP dragging 80kg up mountains, or Marco Pantani soaring up hills at 7.5 w/kg blasts to win stages by minutes?
Well I see for the most part we agree in facts but just take different conclusions. Fair enough.
Just one thing regarding the "laboratory product": when I say that i'm not refering to "the most juiced up" rider ever, by any means. We all agree that was the Lance/Pantani/Ullrich era, and after that the Indurain/Rominger/Ciapucci (scary 64% Ugrumov, omg). By that I mean they created a monster (dominating as they want and crushing GC opponents both in mountain and ITT) from the scratch. Thats the BIG difference. Lance was a superb classics rider (WC 93, FW, etc.) and Indurain had already won 2 paris-Nice, the Tour de l'avenir (with 23 yo he had won 5 stages in this "sub23 Tour de France"), 2 stages at the tour, etc. They were both great young riders with a lot of projection. Doping (Conconi and Padilla) made Indurain reach that monster level by becoming even better in ITT and much better at climbing. Doping (Ferrari and cia) made Lance reach that monster level by transforming him into a GT smash machine, dominating both ITT and climbing. Even Pantani was since he was a young boy with hair in his head a superb climber, doping made him a much much better one. Good lord, even Wiggins was a great pistard prior to his transformation in the Tour 2009, climbing with Armstrong, Nibali and the Schlecks.
But what had Froome done when he became the best rider at the Vuelta 2011?... 1 stage at the Tour of Japan, 1 stage in a Race in Southafrica and 2nd in the British ITT. He was a mediocre to decent timetrialist, and absolutely nothing more. Thats why I see him as a total Product. He was not "enhanced", he was created from the scratch. Thats why I will ever consider him the biggest fraud.
DP: sad news for Nibali, he seemed to be okay when he closed the gap after the crash. This stage has been a slaughter...
So in your view Roglic and Dumoulin (let's use these 2 as an example) are completly normal brave guys yet the others with similar or worse track records (sky team) are all doped? This is why I called double standards.
I don't believe Dumoulin and Roglic are doped but I don't see you accusing them or raising suspicions on them….yet Thomas was a proven rider on the track and took several years on the road to transition to what he was doing last year and this year. (And in my eyes, the organization giving roughly 10 flat stages to start the Tour is helping Thomas more than anyone, he can now ride 2 weeks and avoid his usual downfall in the third week as effectively the first one was almost a bónus.)
Roglic was good in his own sport and now this out of the blue. So why is one to blame and the other isnt? Dumoulin is young and because of that his transition was legit? So was Froome when he started. Brailsford said the first time he saw Froome, he saw a guy with a ton of power in his legs but without technique or even proper equipment….maybe that is a lie, or maybe that helps explaining his poor results before joining sky.
This is the problem I see with most discussions like this. I'm not going to try to convince you or anything. For one because i'm not sure sky are not doping and also because I dont particularly like them to be defending them. I just hate it when I see the double standard posts. And please note I really like Roglic…..so this is not a biased position in favour of sky, its just some food for thought.
On July 24 2018 19:27 HolydaKing wrote: So uhh, what happened here? How did they get dazzled? Never seen something like this.
Pepper spray. It is not clear, if it was used by the protesters or by the police trying to get them away from the road. They also ditched hay bales on the road.
Now the commentator said the police used teargas on farmers that blocked the road on purpose or something like that. Which apparently was too recent so peloton cought it as well.