fosforgasXIII wrote:
You still believe there're teams that do their job honestly? Continental teams like Topsport Vlaanderen or AccentJobs maybe, but definitely not on WT-level.
This isn't 2008, you know? There are honest teams at WorldTour level
(And AccentJobs is one of the last teams I'd think of as clean)
Care to elaborate on that? I'd be interested to read whose teams you or Aquarius believe to be playing fair atm.
Smal wrote:
I find Quintana extremely hard to believe
I'm sorry if I am confusing your nickname, but weren't you the one defending Froome's transformation last year?
I may well have defended Froome but I was mostly defending Wiggins. Perhaps naively, I don't know. Wiggins is definitely nowhere near as suspicious as Quintana though.
I do like how nobody believes Froome or Wiggins, but when someone who isn't British looks even more/equally as suspicious they're lauded as a hero and nobody says a thing.
You're frustrated with mud slinging so you sling mud...best to avoid that speculative slippery slope yourself and stay well clear imho
fosforgasXIII wrote:
You still believe there're teams that do their job honestly? Continental teams like Topsport Vlaanderen or AccentJobs maybe, but definitely not on WT-level.
This isn't 2008, you know? There are honest teams at WorldTour level
(And AccentJobs is one of the last teams I'd think of as clean)
Care to elaborate on that? I'd be interested to read whose teams you or Aquarius believe to be playing fair atm.
Argos, Garmin and - up to a point - FDJ
issoisso wrote:
fosforgasXIII wrote:
Issoisso believes that team rides 100% clean.
Hell no.
ember wrote:
issoisso wrote:
Rubens Bertogliati has the highest VO2Max on record for a cyclist. Remind me again where his Tour de France trophies are.
Out of curiosity, how high was his VO2max at the highest?
Can't remember the exact number, but it was a point higher than Vaughters (another guy who wasn't exactly the best cyclist ever), so somewhere around 94-95
Edited by issoisso on 06-04-2013 17:27
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
I don't really get what your point is. It's a fact that VO2 max will have some sort of effect on how good a bike rider can become. It's not everything like select examples show, but it's a factor.
Smowz wrote:
It was a wet and wild Basque tour, but a brilliant one for Colombian riders.
Quintana, Henao and Betencur all had fantastic races, they could all be factors in the Ardennes, I fancy Henao has shown slightly more acceleration over this week but we shall see.
Quintana has a wonderful skill set. Great climber, good acceleration, very strong against the clock and also a wonderful descender.
The last couple of winners of this race, since Contador's double have been practically collecting cycling pensions. I enjoy seeing the fresh faces and we have had some good racing again.
Now that's what we should be talking about
Enjoyed the race and looking forward to see whether some great form will carry through to the Ardennes.
Chapeau to Caja Rural and Amets Txurruka though for taking out the two jerseys by the looks it, going by what I can understand of the race's website in Spanish. Assumedly, a nice bit of publicity and money for both Caja Rural and Txurruka. Certainly made the most of the situation in this race to leave Euskaltel-Euskadi looking a bit silly.
Bit surprising that Weening managed to finish 6th in the General Classification considering some of the competition lined up against Orica-Greenedge, who hardly have a bunch of renowned mountain goats to support him. With two stage wins and a Top 10 GC place I'll take that, and I'm sure they will too.'
Edited by Malkael on 06-04-2013 17:54
issoisso wrote:
Rubens Bertogliati has the highest VO2Max on record for a cyclist. Remind me again where his Tour de France trophies are.
Out of curiosity, how high was his VO2max at the highest?
Can't remember the exact number, but it was a point higher than Vaughters (another guy who wasn't exactly the best cyclist ever), so somewhere around 94-95
One thing to know though, is that VO2 max measurements are protocol-dependant.
Basically the most quickly the test is conducted, the highest the VO2 max figure.
So, comparisons, if the method used is not known are not really valuable outside one specific team.
For example QuickStep's test lasts 1 hour or so, which is very exhausting for riders (usually it's 20-30 minutes), and when they reach their VO2 max, at the very end, they're already cooked, so their figures are artificially low.
Smal wrote:
I don't really get what your point is. It's a fact that VO2 max will have some sort of effect on how good a bike rider can become. It's not everything like select examples show, but it's a factor.
Imagine a x,y chart, with either power, power per weight unit or VO2 as the y axis, and a time logarithm (Neperian one) as the x axis.
For all riders (juniors, pros, tourists, females), if you consider the max power or VO2 they can sustain over defined periods of time, it draws an almost straight line that shows how much performances decrease over time.
The equation would be y= -a.x + b
For a 5 minutes effort it indicates the VO2 max, and draws a point very close to b.
a is the endurance factor, the smaller it is, the lesser the decrease of performances over time.
High VO2max but poor endurance translates badly on the road. Working endurance is sometimes done at the expense of VO2max too.
So, of course VO2 max is a factor, but that barely says anything about a guy's ability to win three weeks stage races.
Smal wrote:
I don't really get what your point is. It's a fact that VO2 max will have some sort of effect on how good a bike rider can become. It's not everything like select examples show, but it's a factor.
Imagine a x,y chart, with either power, power per weight unit or VO2 as the y axis, and a time logarithm (Neperian one) as the x axis.
For all riders (juniors, pros, tourists, females), if you consider the max power or VO2 they can sustain over defined periods of time, it draws an almost straight line that shows how much performances decrease over time.
The equation would be y= -a.x + b
For a 5 minutes effort it indicates the VO2 max, and draws a point very close to b.
a is the endurance factor, the smaller it is, the lesser the decrease of performances over time.
High VO2max but poor endurance translates badly on the road. Working endurance is sometimes done at the expense of VO2max too.
So, of course VO2 max is a factor, but that barely says anything about a guy's ability to win three weeks stage races.
VO2 Max is one single method of determining performance capability. THAT'S ALL it does. More of a bragging tool then anything. Someone with a VO2 max of 85 could win the Tour over a guy with a 95 as long as he is training to the absolute best of his ability (NO DOPE), and if the guy with a 95 slacks off and doesn't maximize his potential, he will be mediocre based off genetics.
Smal wrote:
I don't really get what your point is. It's a fact that VO2 max will have some sort of effect on how good a bike rider can become. It's not everything like select examples show, but it's a factor.
Imagine a x,y chart, with either power, power per weight unit or VO2 as the y axis, and a time logarithm (Neperian one) as the x axis.
For all riders (juniors, pros, tourists, females), if you consider the max power or VO2 they can sustain over defined periods of time, it draws an almost straight line that shows how much performances decrease over time.
The equation would be y= -a.x + b
For a 5 minutes effort it indicates the VO2 max, and draws a point very close to b.
a is the endurance factor, the smaller it is, the lesser the decrease of performances over time.
High VO2max but poor endurance translates badly on the road. Working endurance is sometimes done at the expense of VO2max too.
So, of course VO2 max is a factor, but that barely says anything about a guy's ability to win three weeks stage races.
VO2 Max is one single method of determining performance capability. THAT'S ALL it does. More of a bragging tool then anything. Someone with a VO2 max of 85 could win the Tour over a guy with a 95 as long as he is training to the absolute best of his ability (NO DOPE), and if the guy with a 95 slacks off and doesn't maximize his potential, he will be mediocre based off genetics.
Why do you say that? With dope he has more chance.
Smal wrote:
I don't really get what your point is. It's a fact that VO2 max will have some sort of effect on how good a bike rider can become. It's not everything like select examples show, but it's a factor.
Imagine a x,y chart, with either power, power per weight unit or VO2 as the y axis, and a time logarithm (Neperian one) as the x axis.
For all riders (juniors, pros, tourists, females), if you consider the max power or VO2 they can sustain over defined periods of time, it draws an almost straight line that shows how much performances decrease over time.
The equation would be y= -a.x + b
For a 5 minutes effort it indicates the VO2 max, and draws a point very close to b.
a is the endurance factor, the smaller it is, the lesser the decrease of performances over time.
High VO2max but poor endurance translates badly on the road. Working endurance is sometimes done at the expense of VO2max too.
So, of course VO2 max is a factor, but that barely says anything about a guy's ability to win three weeks stage races.
VO2 Max is one single method of determining performance capability. THAT'S ALL it does. More of a bragging tool then anything. Someone with a VO2 max of 85 could win the Tour over a guy with a 95 as long as he is training to the absolute best of his ability (NO DOPE), and if the guy with a 95 slacks off and doesn't maximize his potential, he will be mediocre based off genetics.
While you are bang on the money with the importance of training, Aquarius' point is that VO2Max doesn't translate to road cycling success because it's measured over a short period of time.
Hinault had "only" 84, but he was arguably the best of all time because he could sustain almost that level for 6 hours if need be, while guys with much higher levels could only sustain it for half an hour.
That is why most teams have moved on and no longer test VO2Max, but VO2 after a sustained effort by "steps" that totals at about an hour or so.
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
The guy won an uphill ITT in tour l'avenir (where he also win GC) absolutely destroying the rest (Talansky, Slagter, Kelderman). He was by far the biggest climbing/GC talent of his time. And he proved that immediately last year in his first year as professional
This hilly ITT is just more confirmation. Unlike the Sky guys that all magically transform from complety nobodies until supreme climbers after they are 25...
But really seriously. What is more suspicious to a normal person
Exhibit A: Guy showing climbing and GC talent from a very young age in road cycling, climbing very well in his first year as professional and winning a major 1-week stage race in his second year
Exhibit B: Rider who won everything on track with low competition. Never rode well in GC's on the road, only ITT, never climbed better than the bus. Suddenly turns into a GT superstar in 2/3 years time and wins the biggest stage race there is
Exhibit C: Average talented rider who grew up in Kenia. Never looked like much more than average, suddenly exploding from nowhere to 2nd place Vuelta and year after 2nd in Tour, now one of the best stage-racers in the world. Out of NOWHERE, at age 27...
Exhibit D: Reasonably talented ITT-er who in his first year as pro (already 25 at that time) finished top 10 in Giro after a lucky breakaway. Then becoming an average, slightly dissappointing domestique for the best stage-racer at the time (Contador). Then he goes to Sky and turns into some kind of machine capable of beating his former leader with ease.
It's funny how people defend Sky but think Quintana is suspicious
So happy none of those Sky-Robots took the GC. I thought Contador would be the only one who could be able to prevent Porte winning, but he was a little bit disappointing today...
ruben wrote:
But really seriously. What is more suspicious to a normal person
Exhibit A: Guy showing climbing and GC talent from a very young age in road cycling, climbing very well in his first year as professional and winning a major 1-week stage race in his second year
Exhibit B: Rider who won everything on track with low competition. Never rode well in GC's on the road, only ITT, never climbed better than the bus. Suddenly turns into a GT superstar in 2/3 years time and wins the biggest stage race there is
Exhibit C: Average talented rider who grew up in Kenia. Never looked like much more than average, suddenly exploding from nowhere to 2nd place Vuelta and year after 2nd in Tour, now one of the best stage-racers in the world. Out of NOWHERE, at age 27...
Exhibit D: Reasonably talented ITT-er who in his first year as pro (already 25 at that time) finished top 10 in Giro after a lucky breakaway. Then becoming an average, slightly dissappointing domestique for the best stage-racer at the time (Contador). Then he goes to Sky and turns into some kind of machine capable of beating his former leader with ease.
Yeah. Clearly Quintana is the most suspicious...
And what about Rogers and Nordhaug? Those guys disappeared from the map, completely.
ruben wrote:
But really seriously. What is more suspicious to a normal person
Exhibit A: Guy showing climbing and GC talent from a very young age in road cycling, climbing very well in his first year as professional and winning a major 1-week stage race in his second year
Exhibit B: Rider who won everything on track with low competition. Never rode well in GC's on the road, only ITT, never climbed better than the bus. Suddenly turns into a GT superstar in 2/3 years time and wins the biggest stage race there is
Exhibit C: Average talented rider who grew up in Kenia. Never looked like much more than average, suddenly exploding from nowhere to 2nd place Vuelta and year after 2nd in Tour, now one of the best stage-racers in the world. Out of NOWHERE, at age 27...
Exhibit D: Reasonably talented ITT-er who in his first year as pro (already 25 at that time) finished top 10 in Giro after a lucky breakaway. Then becoming an average, slightly dissappointing domestique for the best stage-racer at the time (Contador). Then he goes to Sky and turns into some kind of machine capable of beating his former leader with ease.
Yeah. Clearly Quintana is the most suspicious...
That may be one of the funniest things I've ever read - (not a compliment)
Firstly - How do you know Quintana was an early talent and all the other riders weren't? Do you know Quintana - did you watch him as a youngster or any of the other riders you claimed doped?
Secondly - If using your frame of mind I could say - Quintana wins L'avenir and then starts somehow winning races at a very young age beating a grand tour winner and talent stage racers. (Looked at past winners of l'avenir - they don't go straight onto winning races)
Quintana in an ITT beats a rider who has come fourth at World ITT (Porte while not at Sky may I add) and only loses 17 seconds to world ITT champion.
Look - I don't believe that Quintana is doping and I don't believe Sky are either but when structuring an argument you can't take one aspect into account for one rider and exclude that very aspect when using another rider.
I'm sure you can justify Quintana's performance but you can also justify Sky's performances.
For reference of how this TT had very little flat, notice how Betancur and Weening finished 8th and 9th
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
