|
Sky Doping/Hate Thread
|
| BritPCMFan |
Posted on 11-08-2013 15:36
|
Stagiare
Posts: 245
Joined: 03-06-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
I kinda sometimes thing the Vuelta 2011 is hyped a bit though. I mean... that was kinda a really bad GT. Cobo won lol. One of his 8 pro victories. So I think you can kinda say that the field was poor and those that werent.. poor were certainly not in good shape. |
| |
|
|
| Spilak23 |
Posted on 11-08-2013 15:40
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 22-08-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Blame Zomegnan 
|
| |
|
|
| Pellizotti2 |
Posted on 11-08-2013 15:44
|
World Champion
Posts: 10121
Joined: 01-05-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
BritPCMFan wrote:
I kinda sometimes thing the Vuelta 2011 is hyped a bit though. I mean... that was kinda a really bad GT. Cobo won lol. One of his 8 pro victories. So I think you can kinda say that the field was poor and those that werent.. poor were certainly not in good shape.
Cobo wasn't far off Contador's time from 2008 on the Angliru
|
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 11-08-2013 16:12
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
BritPCMFan wrote:
I kinda sometimes thing the Vuelta 2011 is hyped a bit though. I mean... that was kinda a really bad GT. Cobo won lol. One of his 8 pro victories. So I think you can kinda say that the field was poor and those that werent.. poor were certainly not in good shape.
Would you like to revise that opinion?
| Anglirú Times | | 2008 | Contador | 28:10 | | | 2011 | Cobo | 28:18 | | 2008 | Valverde | 28:52 | | 2008 | Rodriguez | 29:08 | | 2008 | Leipheimer | 29:15 | | 2008 | Sastre | 29:42 | | 2008 | Gesink | 30:04 | | 2008 | Mosquera | 30:28 |
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| jph27 |
Posted on 11-08-2013 16:14
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7339
Joined: 20-03-2010
PCM$: 900.00
|
BritPCMFan wrote:
I kinda sometimes thing the Vuelta 2011 is hyped a bit though. I mean... that was kinda a really bad GT. Cobo won lol. One of his 8 pro victories. So I think you can kinda say that the field was poor and those that werent.. poor were certainly not in good shape.
Walking pharmaceutical experiment Juan Jose Cobo won, exactly. |
| |
|
|
| Stromeon |
Posted on 11-08-2013 18:10
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3507
Joined: 06-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Aquarius wrote:
Bjarne Riis : went from average helper to world beater in three seasons
I must be honest and say I've read about a couple of surprising studies lately, which said it had, at best, a placebo effect.
Now, most studies generally said 8 to 13 % improvement (depends on the people, the doses, etc.). That's more or less the difference between what's believed to be humanly possible and what has been achieved by riders whose EPO usage is not a secret any more.
Given the difference in strength (ability) between pros, that'd be enough to turn a rider finishing a bit ahead of the grupetto into a podium contender.
edit : Zabel'd again. Must definitely work my sprints...
Looks like you need to sign Renshaw
|
| |
|
|
| Dippofix |
Posted on 11-08-2013 22:46
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3905
Joined: 29-01-2013
PCM$: 300.00
|
Don't forget though, Sayar didn't actually dope, it's a conspiracy against him because the french wan't a french winner of one of the most prestigous races in the world, the tour of turkey! (That is really his "excuse"
|
| |
|
|
| Ybodonk |
Posted on 13-08-2013 10:04
|
Domestique
Posts: 510
Joined: 24-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
CountArach wrote:
nacho63 wrote:
My question is how much can doping improve you? I know drugs will react differently to different riders but can EPO or a lot of it turn just a random cyclist into a world beater?
This is a great post on the effect of EPO:
https://www.sports...e-who.html
So in amateurs:
We don't wish to go into all the blood analysis and DEXA work done - they measured all kinds of things, but this is a post about performance. And the main finding was that EPO use improved time to exhaustion by an enormous 54% within 4 weeks! Peak Power Output improved by 13% in the first four weeks of the trial. The graph below shows the results:
In pros it is slightly different because you are coming off a very, very high power output already clean:
Another potential problem with the study is the extrapolation of the data to the elite. These subjects were fit, but clearly not elite. It's likely that in the elite, the improvement would be smaller. For example, you could hardly take an Alberto Contador, who might have a Peak Power Output of 500W and bump it up to 565 (13% increase, see graph above) in 4 weeks! Having said that, if you could take this figure and get it to 515W, that would be a very significant increase at the elite level. Similarly, if you could help an elite cyclist improve his average power output by only 5%, that would represent a major step forward. Whether or not EPO would do this is debatable, but given this study, it would seem that 5% is a pretty conservative guess for how much EPO would improve performance...
And:
So while the results still don't fully answer the question of "how much does EPO improve performance?", they do go a long way to showing us that the effect is potentially massive. Even a quarter of this improvement - 15%, would be the difference between a yellow jersey and the autobus during the Tour de France.
Of course most pro riders don't use EPO any more because the test is widely available but there could well be a next-gen EPO on the market (someone else will probably know more about this than I do) that has a similar effect but is not yet detectable.
Nice quotes and reading God im such a sucker for performance inhancing drugs. Where to find this new substance, was it called Erythropoietin ? Ye ye im obv not trolling.
But i wouldnt mind my oxygen and redblood cells transporting quicker |
| |
|
|
| Ybodonk |
Posted on 13-08-2013 10:08
|
Domestique
Posts: 510
Joined: 24-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
lluuiiggii wrote:
Dee-Jay wrote:
I can understand you guys hating Sky for how their strategy can stifle races, but how can you criticise Froome for doping when there is zero evidence?
What makes it even crazier is that some of these critics are fans of riders with more evidence against them (cancellara, Contador etc).
You didn't come shooting rage in all directions, so I'll go for a serious answer rather than a facepalm or something like that: yes, I agree it's a bit hypocritical that some people say "Froome is a f*cking doper" and then go on to cheer for obvious dopers like Cancellara and Contador. Something like this was discussed a few pages back:
https://pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread....ost_763702
https://pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread....ost_764983
The problem in this case, as I see it, is that people mix their feelings for the riders between what sort of rider he is, personality, etc, with whether he's doping or not. More specifically, the problem is that they do it in different proportions depending on the rider (f.e. Contador's a fun guy to watch, so the fact he's a doper doesn't matter much - Froome's not so fun to see, so crucify him, he's a doper!). And in this point, the fact that Froome has been pretty dominant over everyone and thus made races boring (plus his irrational defenders, which can be seen in this thread), makes people dislike Froome and thus attack him on the doping side, even though he's obviously not the only one doping.
However, I'll have to disagree with the fact that there's 0 evidence. In the strict term of the word, there might be 0 evidence (those you could present on a court, f.e.), but there are so many suspicious links/facts which match pretty well together to give a sensible explanation that it's hard to believe Froome wouldn't be doping. Especially considering that history of cycling has proven these accusations right so many times, in cases where there was considerably less "evidence".
Love the part I have outlined with bold I absolutely agree.
Thats why the majority should chill a bit more like me.
Accept the fact that your heroes still are doped, enjoy the racing and experiences we are lucky to get. Doping is a part of elite sports everywhere, thats just how it is, and have been for the past atlaest 25 years. |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 24-11-2024 00:51
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 13-08-2013 10:26
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Fact that it is part of the sport does not mean we should be okay with it.
|
| |
|
|
| Ybodonk |
Posted on 13-08-2013 10:43
|
Domestique
Posts: 510
Joined: 24-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Fact that it is part of the sport does not mean we should be okay with it.
Its a cynical world. Im not cheering for doping, im just saying why getting pissed, being naive , having major discussions etc. This is just how elite sports works atm. Everyone accussing lets say Sky, and cheering for the rest of top 20,, is just hypocrism and doublemoral.
Nobody likes "cheaters" nor dominant forces. They all have blood on their hands. New generation might evolve the cleanness a bit, however guys like McQuaid, doping doctors and other middle mens etc should just dissapear. Corrupt, power-horny irish-man.
Atm doping is such a strong force, money making machine that we cant do much about. The supply and demand in the regards of doping is an invincible force |
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 13-08-2013 11:02
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Yeah, fair points. Still i try to cheer for riders whose i believe are trying to ride clean (not as usual man would ride, but not on heavy PED).
Also i prefer riders that are not fooling me every day with their passionate talks about how clean they are (like Armstrong or Froome). I have some lowish sympathies for people who dope because they cant otherwise to stay at the job and they know they do something bad, so they keep their mouth shut at least.
But i hate dominators who are claiming that they are clean.
If Sagan will ever be convicted as doper (by positive or overwhelming evidence), i will stop following cycling completely. Seriously
Edited by Avin Wargunnson on 13-08-2013 11:02
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 04-09-2013 22:09
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
I'm not too sure about the topic where I should put this, your cycling or news in September were other possibilities.
Anyway, one of Sky's training secret would be the inverted or reversed periodization. That leads me to some questioning and reflections.
To make a long story short, since science has made its way into cycling (let's say the 50's, but more certainly since the 80's for my point), we've seen many variants of one single model of training. First "base miles" training, or endurance, whatever you call it, plus the technical training (pedalling faster than usual, etc.), then tempo and strength training, and cherry on the cake : threshold and max power output training.
Why in that order ? It's relatively simple and logical. Without the base miles you're too weak to cope with tempo, without tempo and strength you won't manage to sustain work around the max power output. Another aspect is that it's believed (and proven ?) that doing intensity first then endurance would make the benefits of intensity work vanish, whereas the other way round, endurance is barely affected.
Reversed periodization ? What's that ? Well, it's coming from other sports, and made its way to Sky through a former swimming coach (Tom Kerrisson).
If I understood it correctly, the core idea is to train mostly at race pace. At the beginning of training only for a short while, then the closest to the objectives (which match desired form peaks), the most you increase the work load, always at race pace.
The benefit is, of course, to feel comfortable at race pace, and to prevent an excessive fatigue from getting accumulated since long before the objectives.
A couple of months ago, somebody launched a debate about why we love cycling or what we like in cycling. One of my answers was that it's far from being a one-dimensional sport like, say, swimming, or track & field events.
I perfectly understand what's "race pace" for swimming or running, or even for (cycling) track events. You know what distance you're preparing for, you know how fast you need to swim/run/cycle to have a high possibility of winning the most important race of the season.
In road cycling you need (almost) all the different qualities you could think of. No point in being the best climber ever if you've been dropped after 30 km on the flat, no point in being good only on the flat as you'll rarely avoid climbing a bridge or something worst. So, figuring what race pace is a bit confusing. Is that 6,0 - 6,2 W/kg during 45 minutes ? That's what it takes to win or podium in a GT nowadays.
The, how or when do they get other stuff in (base miles, strength, tempo, etc.) if what they do every time they're on the bike is riding at ~6 W/kg ? Their training session can't be too long since they must be quickly exhausted (even if split in, say, 5 minutes intervals a whole training session at that power would barely last two hours).
Feel free to enlighten me here, because there's definitely something I don't understand with their method. |
| |
|
|
| Miguel98 |
Posted on 04-09-2013 22:18
|
World Champion
Posts: 10497
Joined: 23-06-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
So what you exactly say is that if they are riding at about 6W/kg after just 5 minutes in that they would be "dead"? And if so, does that justify Froom and now, Horner stuff? |
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 04-09-2013 22:24
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
No, their leaders could do that for 45 minutes or so, but I can't believe that their daily training is just go out, warm up, start riding at 6 W/kg during as long as you can (hardly more than 45 minutes then), and spin legs on the way back home.
I acknowledge that they could do more than 45 minutes at that pace if they did several times more than 5 minutes (the interest of doing intervals is that the total duration at one pace is longer than what you could do if you did it continuously). Example, if somebody's max duration at a given pace is 45 minutes, he should be able to do more than 9x5 minutes at that pace if he got 3 minutes of rest between each 5 minutes interval. Maybe he would manage 12 or 15 intervals. |
| |
|
|
| FroomeDog99 |
Posted on 04-09-2013 22:28
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4573
Joined: 07-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
How ironic is it that when I look at this page I see an ad for EPO  |
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 04-09-2013 22:35
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7681
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
In some articles I've read in the British cycling press that give pretty anecdotal evidence, there seems to be some fairly varied training but not that much that seems to be far from the norm. I haven't read much specific about it (and I don't know if there is at all). One of the things they seem to say is that their leaders race less and just focus on quality training rather than having their fitness dictated by how a race is ridden by others (which I suppose makes some sense but you have to question whether they can put in the same effort without the motivation of racing competitively). |
| |
|
|
| MrTeamSky |
Posted on 17-09-2013 21:48
|
Stagiare
Posts: 200
Joined: 07-09-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
Sutty68 - SKY = Hard work = Hard Training = Results
Agree with you. I saw the end of year recap of 2012 on TV and they really work them hard. And it all pays of
|
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 17-09-2013 21:53
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7681
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
MrTeamSky wrote:
Sutty68 - SKY = Hard work = Hard Training = Results
Agree with you. I saw the end of year recap of 2012 on TV and they really work them hard. And it all pays of
Yeah, no other teams work hard. Only SKY riders are willing to put in the hours to get the results. Contador's always at the beach. |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 17-09-2013 22:06
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
It took Sky to have the genius idea of working hard. Nobody in 110 years of pro cycling had ever though of that novel concept.
Well, nobody except Gewiss. And Festina. And ONCE. And US Postal. They all had the 'we just work harder + new super secret scientific methods' justification. Remind me again how all those turned out?
Mind you, in ONCE's case it actually was true. Most of the "innovations" that Sky fans claim were invented by Sky were actually invented by ONCE. Even older things like team radios and team buses were ONCE. And the newer stuff too. They had electronic gear changes in 1994.
Not warming down, though, that became common practice everywhere after the Czechs came up with it in the early 1960s.
I don't believe anyone can be that blatantly stupid as to believe Sky. It's willful ignorance, that's all it can possibly be. And to quote MLK, there's nothing more dangerous than willful ignorance. People trying desperately to believe what deep down they they know is patently impossible
Edited by issoisso on 17-09-2013 22:07
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
