|
Armstrong Back!!!!!!!
|
| ruben |
Posted on 10-09-2008 19:11
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7721
Joined: 23-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
CrueTrue wrote:
Unibet's odds for Tour de France 2009:
Alberto Contador, 3.25:1
Lance Armstrong, 5:1
Cadel Evans, 8:1
Andy Schleck, 8,5:1
Carlos Sastre, 9:1
 Gesink 18:1 |
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 10-09-2008 19:21
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
tomzk111 wrote:
People who are saying Lance will be too old are obviously forgetting- Rebellin for example is 37 and still damn good at what he does, and Poulidor came 3rd in 1976- at the age of 40! Both these examples are of riders who clearly aren't/weren't of Armstrong's "abiltiies", yet still got results when as old or older than Lance will be in 2009. 
For you guys who reckon Contador is doped, its worth noting that Astana use the same external anti-doping programme as CSC and Columbia. Surely Lance wouldn't be stupid enough to dope knowing the stringent measures that his potential team have in place....
I say bring on the 2009 tour! Potentially an Armstrong- Contador- Andy Schleck (Basso wont be allowed to ride) duel that would leave the likes of Evans, Sastre, Kohl etc fighting for scraps! 
That's a very dangerous comment to make on this forum (and any other non-American / romantic forum). For the first part of your post, Rebellin is not Armstrong. They are not the same type or rider, and they are not riding the same kind of races. The problem with Armstrong and his age could be his stamina. Is he able to keep going for three weeks? I'm not saying he is't - I don't know - but I'm saying that you can't compare those cares.
And secondly, there's of course the thought that CSC and Astana are clean teams. We've had the discussion before, but before I go on, I'd like to know why exactly you think that those teams are clean? |
| |
|
|
| tomzk111 |
Posted on 10-09-2008 19:37
|
Free Agent
Posts: 113
Joined: 03-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
CrueTrue wrote:
tomzk111 wrote:
People who are saying Lance will be too old are obviously forgetting- Rebellin for example is 37 and still damn good at what he does, and Poulidor came 3rd in 1976- at the age of 40! Both these examples are of riders who clearly aren't/weren't of Armstrong's "abiltiies", yet still got results when as old or older than Lance will be in 2009.
For you guys who reckon Contador is doped, its worth noting that Astana use the same external anti-doping programme as CSC and Columbia. Surely Lance wouldn't be stupid enough to dope knowing the stringent measures that his potential team have in place....
I say bring on the 2009 tour! Potentially an Armstrong- Contador- Andy Schleck (Basso wont be allowed to ride) duel that would leave the likes of Evans, Sastre, Kohl etc fighting for scraps!
That's a very dangerous comment to make on this forum (and any other non-American / romantic forum). For the first part of your post, Rebellin is not Armstrong. They are not the same type or rider, and they are not riding the same kind of races. The problem with Armstrong and his age could be his stamina. Is he able to keep going for three weeks? I'm not saying he is't - I don't know - but I'm saying that you can't compare those cares.
And secondly, there's of course the thought that CSC and Astana are clean teams. We've had the discussion before, but before I go on, I'd like to know why exactly you think that those teams are clean?
I wasn't looking to cause any problems :$ lol On the age side i was just trying to say how it shouldn't write him out of contention, and of course its impossible to say that any team is "clean", but i'd put more money on teams with independent companies running that teams drugs tests- at the teams cost- than I would on teams that don't have this. Further to that point, as the team is paying for the tests to prove they are clean- why would the team then spend more money having structured doping programmes and products (obviously individual rider cases are different)
Like I said, I was only offering a point of view- I didn't want to annoy anyone |
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 10-09-2008 19:43
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
King Lolzy wrote:
Yo Crommy...either your eyes are crappy or you're f...ing out of your mind!!
World rec is held by Usain 'Lightning' Bolt
Man...didn't you watch the olympics??B)
Sorry, wasn't concentrating when I wrote it
|
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 10-09-2008 19:44
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Don't worry, you're not annoying anyone at all. What I mean is that the Armstrong-is-doped discussion can get rather heated up from time to time 
Thing is that there's a lot of circumstantial evidence against not only Lance Armstrong, but also the entire Astana team. With CSC, pretty much every rider who has left the team has later been convicted of doping. Also, it seems weird that the best teams in the world of cycling are also the cleanest. Is that because no one dopes then?
Yes, the teams are paying for anti-doping programs. Why? To make the "business" look better even if it's not. And it obviously works, seeing you and a lot of other people (myself included on a few cases) starting to believe in "clean cycling".
Anyway, other people know much more about this than I do |
| |
|
|
| drugsdontwork |
Posted on 10-09-2008 19:49
|
Free Agent
Posts: 123
Joined: 20-09-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
How have the power output of the cyclists we're talking about been calculated? What's the formula?
I'm intrigued.
Nobody is normal
|
| |
|
|
| Phanekim |
Posted on 10-09-2008 20:08
|
Neo-Pro
Posts: 361
Joined: 05-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Crommy wrote:
Wattage wise:
Contador represents an 11.5% increase on LeMond's best ever.
At about the same time, Carl Lewis held the world 100m record of 9.92. The new world record held by Asafa Powell is 9.69
The world record 100m time has jumped by 2.3%.
So yes, an increase in understandable. An increase greater than that in the 100m is expected. But not 5 times as much
EDIT: For the same change, the World Record in the 100m would now be 8.78
I do not like this comparison because you are assuming that increases are linear. You can make argument that the 9.92 WR was closer to maximum human performance while the 390 wattage by lemond was not as close to maximum performance, thus you don't get the plateau/leveling off effect.
This is perfectly plausible because the 100m race is a sprint, thus its easier to get a perfect race whereas in a long...time trial, its much more likely that no one rode "the perfect race", therefore there is much more room for improvement.
I am not the expert here, i'll leave that up to you...i'll just propose a counterargument. |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 24-11-2024 07:48
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 10-09-2008 20:48
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
And that was a good counter-argument. Well played
|
| |
|
|
| YtimK |
Posted on 10-09-2008 20:51
|
Neo-Pro
Posts: 252
Joined: 07-01-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Phanekim wrote:
Crommy wrote:
Wattage wise:
Contador represents an 11.5% increase on LeMond's best ever.
At about the same time, Carl Lewis held the world 100m record of 9.92. The new world record held by Asafa Powell is 9.69
The world record 100m time has jumped by 2.3%.
So yes, an increase in understandable. An increase greater than that in the 100m is expected. But not 5 times as much
EDIT: For the same change, the World Record in the 100m would now be 8.78
I do not like this comparison because you are assuming that increases are linear. You can make argument that the 9.92 WR was closer to maximum human performance while the 390 wattage by lemond was not as close to maximum performance, thus you don't get the plateau/leveling off effect.
This is perfectly plausible because the 100m race is a sprint, thus its easier to get a perfect race whereas in a long...time trial, its much more likely that no one rode "the perfect race", therefore there is much more room for improvement.
I am not the expert here, i'll leave that up to you...i'll just propose a counterargument. exactly what I was thinking. Wanted to write the same but failed in writing it in an acceptable english language. Thanks buddy |
| |
|
|
| mb2612 |
Posted on 10-09-2008 22:25
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5759
Joined: 18-05-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
The big difference is the type of running, the marathon world record in the last 20 years has changed by 1.5% so clearly something else is a t work here.
 [url=www.pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=33182] Team Santander Media Thread[/url]
Please assume I am joking unless otherwise stated |
| |
|
|
| drugsdontwork |
Posted on 10-09-2008 22:55
|
Free Agent
Posts: 123
Joined: 20-09-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
This comparison of records is very subjective. For example:-
Between 1983 and 2003 the womens Marathon record fell approx 6.8%
Between 1967 and 1968 the mens long jump record increased approx 6.6%. Whereas between 1968 and 1991 it only increased roughly 0.6%!!!!!
Conclusion - There's lies, damn lies and then there's statistics!
Nobody is normal
|
| |
|
|
| MacC |
Posted on 11-09-2008 13:56
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1594
Joined: 15-07-2008
PCM$: 700.00
|
https://www.theoni...icipate_in |
| |
|
|
| Waghlon |
Posted on 11-09-2008 14:56
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7694
Joined: 18-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Also: https://www.theonion.com/content/news/...sh_tour_de
Edited by Waghlon on 11-09-2008 14:57
THE THOMAS VOECKLER PROPHET OF PCM DAILY
 |
| |
|
|
| rodda |
Posted on 11-09-2008 15:17
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2276
Joined: 17-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ruben wrote:
CrueTrue wrote:
Unibet's odds for Tour de France 2009:
Alberto Contador, 3.25:1
Lance Armstrong, 5:1
Cadel Evans, 8:1
Andy Schleck, 8,5:1
Carlos Sastre, 9:1
Gesink 18:1
how can they give armstrong odds like that after one MTB race
they must just be trying to make a quick dollar off of the american punters who hadnt realised that lance had retired yet
|
| |
|
|
| shadow80 |
Posted on 11-09-2008 16:18
|
Junior Rider
Posts: 29
Joined: 07-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Phanekim wrote:
issoisso wrote:
shadow80 wrote:
I like the idea of Armstrong back, but think about it, if Contador can pump out 435 watts and Basso can pump out 470, guess what that means, Basso has a superhuman 6.7 watts/kilogram whereas Contador is putting out a pretty human 6.3 watts/kilogram. It's generally accepted nowadays that to put out more than 6.5 watts/kg is a good sign of a doper because that seems to be the upper limit of the human body without drugs on a bike.
I predict that Basso will end up having wattage closer to 435-445 watts rather than the 470 watts he had while doping. I have a easier time believing that Contador isn't doping than I do have believing that Basso wasn't doping (he WAS caught after all) with those numbers.
So you're saying that it's perfectly normal that Contador's 435 watts destroy legend Bernard Hinault's career-best 381 watts and LeMond's career-best 390?
uh-huh....sure...makes perfect sense that the legends of the past are vastly inferior to the current riders but drugs have nothing to do with it...
shadow80 wrote:
And if you think that Contador is pedestrian for a stage-racer, then I think you need to take a serious check on who you thought were great stage racers in the past. Oh, that's right, they were dopers. They never cracked, they never had close calls or were vulnerable. Contador has had close calls and he has had vulnerabilities, just didn't lose with them.
They never craked, never had close calls or were vulnerable? are you HIGH???
If that's true, then every mountain stage in the past ended in a sprint, since nobody ever cracked or had close calls or was vulnerable.....
Nothing against you personally, but seriously, that's just the worst argument I can remember anyone using in any discussion ever. That is literally an extremely false thing to say and the concept is, excuse the word, ridiculous
EDIT: if you seriously belive in that, name me a legend or two and I'll be more than happy to post every time they cracked in a tour stage. I'm serious.
Isso, with all the advances in sports science...you mean to tell me its not unconcievable that contador has more power than lemond? I"m not saying the sport is completely clean...but it does seem to be getting cleaner.
Ok, allow me to respond to Isso first here. About the differences in wattage between Hinault and Lemond and etc. Several problems, one, the power meters at that time were strictly in the laboratory rather than out on the road where you'd get a more accurate idea of a person's true performance when they're bugging their eyes out of their head trying to beat the hell out of another person who's stealing their freaking food. So I'm pretty skeptical of the numbers that you're posting for Lemond and Hinault.
Indurain rarely if ever cracked or showed weakness during his Tour reign, Bjarne Riis posted ungodly numbers while never having bad days during his first and second placings. Jan Ullrich always had a decent day and never lost so much time that he fell out of the top 5. Pantani never cracked. Those were great stage racers but they just didn't have weaknesses or sans jours.
If you want to go further back, oh, absolutely, it was a rule to see the Tour favorite have at least one hell day where he gets knackered out of his brains just to hold on. I'm saying that the great stage racers are great because they could hold on and win races when they were at their worst and Alberto Contador has shown that same capacity.
Second, yeah, absolutely, sport science has made tremendous strides in the past 20 years so there'd be some significant improvements in performance.
Finally, people here are complaining about a 6% increase or something in performance and yet they're overlooking one big factor in that improvement: the BIKES! Seriously, try riding a time trial on a 1983 bike, frame, parts, no aerobars and oh, surprise, surprise, you're gonna suck the fumes from every single car passing you. Throw in a 2008 frame, top of the line parts, the best aerodynamics possible and bingo, you've got the most freaking efficient machine in the universe under your crotch and yeah, you're gonna smash the time you set in the time trial on a 1983 bike by probably 2 to 5 minutes over 40k.
Also, anyone who's a biker, ask the old school riders how people time trialed back in the day (30 years earlier). They used very low cadences and basically grinded their way through with only three or four gears at their disposal. Nowadays, they use 90-100 rpms with a wide range of gears and a person might use 5 to 6 different gear settings during a time trial, more on hilly courses.
About the world record with sprinters relative to the world record in other disciplines like running marathons, women and mens? With sprinters, you're talking about sheer power on legs and the time differences between sprinters are so small that a .1 improvement is massive. Then you have marathons which are so dependent upon a person's aerobic system so the challenge of improving times over 26 miles will be much more difficult to do because the aerobic system has to improve to do that. It's not like you can lop off 5 minutes when the human body already is going its maximum for that distance. The limiter is propulsion versus weight and there's only so much weight a marathon runner can lose before he loses performance. With sprinters, you can add bulk, add power, add more weight and the short term power output will outweigh the weight penalties. |
| |
|
|
| fefj |
Posted on 11-09-2008 16:29
|
Domestique
Posts: 661
Joined: 15-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
shadow80 wrote:
Ok, allow me to respond to Isso first here. About the differences in wattage between Hinault and Lemond and etc. Several problems, one, the power meters at that time were strictly in the laboratory rather than out on the road where you'd get a more accurate idea of a person's true performance when they're bugging their eyes out of their head trying to beat the hell out of another person who's stealing their freaking food. So I'm pretty skeptical of the numbers that you're posting for Lemond and Hinault.
Indurain rarely if ever cracked or showed weakness during his Tour reign, Bjarne Riis posted ungodly numbers while never having bad days during his first and second placings. Jan Ullrich always had a decent day and never lost so much time that he fell out of the top 5. Pantani never cracked. Those were great stage racers but they just didn't have weaknesses or sans jours.
If i say the stage to Les Deux Alpes in 1998 ? That was DEFINATELY an off day! And i know he didn't eat enough. About Pantani, he cracked multiple times, to may to name here |
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 11-09-2008 16:55
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
shadow80 : you don't get what isso aims at with his wattages. His figures are not powers measured in laboratories, but relative powers, including an heavier bike, measured in the last mountains of long mountain stages during Grand Tours (which are supposedly climbed as fast as possible, at the threshold in other words).
Thus it becomes possible to compare LeMond/Fignon/Hinault's performances to Ullrich/Armstrong/Riis/Indurain's ones.
There's a 15% increase there, and a 10% increase to Contador. That's more or less what you would also get if you'd give EPO to a cyclist (yes, there are studies about the effects of those products). |
| |
|
|
| drugsdontwork |
Posted on 11-09-2008 17:10
|
Free Agent
Posts: 123
Joined: 20-09-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
If they don't measure them, then how do they calculate those wattages?
I'm not trying to trip anyone up I'm just curious.
Nobody is normal
|
| |
|
|
| schleck93 |
Posted on 11-09-2008 17:19
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3715
Joined: 04-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Actually it's funny that the watteges has improved that much since Lemond, but the UCI hour record, has only improved 231 meters since 1972 (from Merckx 49.431km to Sosenkas 49.700km).
BenBarnes wrote:
Thor wears a live rattlesnake as a condom.
|
| |
|
|
| t-baum |
Posted on 11-09-2008 17:20
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2153
Joined: 07-09-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
schleck93 wrote:
Actually it's funny that the watteges has improved that much since Lemond, but the UCI hour record, has only improved 231 meters since 1972 (from Merckx 49.431km to Sosenkas 49.700km).
You better not be saying what i think your saying...
Macquet wrote:
"We all know that wasn't the real footage of the Worlds anyway. That was just the staged footage to perpetuate the coverup that it was actually Vinokourov that won the race." |
| |
|
