|
Sky Doping/Hate Thread
|
| Gaffeff |
Posted on 12-07-2012 21:29
|
Neo-Pro
Posts: 284
Joined: 23-09-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Can I be the first to start next years thread early:
The team winning the tour de france are doping.
Why: Because they're winning!
But can't they just be good, no because they're winning.
We've had some crap results in the last 20 years, so I understand and except a fair degree of cynism (I was a ciaipucci fan). If they dope I believe they will lose it all eventually.
But lets give them the benifit of the doubt to start with.
They currently have a world champion sprinter as a bottle carrier, and 4 riders capable of top 20-ish finishes in the tour. It's called spending money to win the title. |
| |
|
|
| Jupi |
Posted on 12-07-2012 21:30
|
Amateur
Posts: 14
Joined: 13-06-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Aquarius wrote:
Same number for all the others who finished with Froome, only if they've started with him too. 
Any idea about Rolland numbers ?
Oh, and please keep posting. 
Yes, of course I meant those guys who started with him (Nibali VdB Pinot Wiggins).
I didn't time Rolland, so I have to work from memory. IIRC his group had 3:35 advantage (the TV ticker is unreliable though so it's very like that it's not accurate) and he finished 55 seconds ahead. Based off that he had a VAM of 1386 m/hour which translates to 5.3 W/kg.
I'd like to note though that it seems calculations regarding performances of the Armstrong era i found on the web are not normalised to 78 kilos so the 438 watts of Froome i calculated would be less in that system. Armstrong was pulling lot more watts/kg so I'd rather stick to those.
Having said that, looking at watts/kg from last year, Froome should have been able to climb with Frank Andy or Sammy, so in my opinion the argument that the weak field makes him look good doesnt hold water. |
| |
|
|
| franki28 |
Posted on 12-07-2012 21:37
|
Stagiare
Posts: 236
Joined: 27-02-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Gaffeff wrote:
Can I be the first to start next years thread early:
The team winning the tour de france are doping.
Why: Because they're winning!
But can't they just be good, no because they're winning.
We've had some crap results in the last 20 years, so I understand and except a fair degree of cynism (I was a ciaipucci fan). If they dope I believe they will lose it all eventually.
But lets give them the benifit of the doubt to start with.
They currently have a world champion sprinter as a bottle carrier, and 4 riders capable of top 20-ish finishes in the tour. It's called spending money to win the title.
You're right. Every winner is a doper. Why? Because he's doping ^^ That's cycling my friends. If it's possible to win a GT without doping, please tell me how
I encourage britain to support their team, but man... I just can't see what's clean about Froome. However, the rest of team Sky looks OK(like everyone else) |
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 12-07-2012 21:39
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
My main source of data was cyclismag, but sadly it closed down in January 2011. Their calculations (done by Frédéric Portoleau and Frédéric Grappe) were based on the 78 kg pattern, so your figures make sense to me.
They're to be related to the ones in the article I translated yesterday. Antoine Vayer was almost right in predicting numbers above 430.
Armstrong averaged more than 440 W on those climbs in 2004-2005, which, I reckon, is the highest average by a rider on a Grand Tour.
To his defence, riders behaved somewhat differently back then. From the bottom of the very last climb they rode at a very high tempo up to the summit, and the weakest cracked one after the other. Those were perfect conditions for a maximal wattage. |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 12-07-2012 21:58
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Gaffeff wrote:
Can I be the first to start next years thread early:
The team winning the tour de france are doping.
Why: Because they're winning!
But can't they just be good, no because they're winning.
Congratulations. You're the 100th british guy to come in this thread and make that same exact sarcastic affirmation because he hasn't actually read the thread and thus doesn't know there' plenty of evidence that shows this team stinks.
You win a cookie!
Gaffeff wrote:
We've had some crap results in the last 20 years, so I understand and except
"Accept". Dude, english is your first language, there's no excuse for that
Gaffeff wrote:
a fair degree of cynism (I was a ciaipucci fan)
You were a fan of the guy and you can't even come close to spelling his name correctly? Jesus dude, are you trolling?
Gaffeff wrote:
If they dope I believe they will lose it all eventually.
Doubt it. A hell of a lot of people never lost anything. Induráin still has all his wins for example.
Gaffeff wrote:
But lets give them the benifit of the doubt to start with.
That's what we did, especially when they promised they'd never hire a doctor from inside cycling or riders with a doping past, and promised full transparency and constantly published blood profiles.
Then they hired a guy involved in doping scandals as their doctor, a ton of proven or heavily suspected dopers as riders, didn not publish anything, refused to let kimmage in the team to verify they were clean, and several riders all underwent amazing transformations from also-rans to superstars instantly.
At that point we stopped trusting them.
Gaffeff wrote:
They currently have a world champion sprinter as a bottle carrier, and 4 riders capable of top 20-ish finishes in the tour. It's called spending money to win the title.
Well, at least you're not denying they're spending money like a lot of Sky fans do.
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
|
| |
|
|
| Jimmyson |
Posted on 12-07-2012 22:00
|
Amateur
Posts: 3
Joined: 30-06-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
We've had some crap results in the last 20 years, so I understand and except a fair degree of cynism (I was a ciaipucci fan). If they dope I believe they will lose it all eventually.
But lets give them the benifit of the doubt to start with.
You mean chiappucci  |
| |
|
|
| Jupi |
Posted on 12-07-2012 22:27
|
Amateur
Posts: 14
Joined: 13-06-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Aquarius wrote:
My main source of data was cyclismag, but sadly it closed down in January 2011. Their calculations (done by Frédéric Portoleau and Frédéric Grappe) were based on the 78 kg pattern, so your figures make sense to me.
They're to be related to the ones in the article I translated yesterday. Antoine Vayer was almost right in predicting numbers above 430.
Armstrong averaged more than 440 W on those climbs in 2004-2005, which, I reckon, is the highest average by a rider on a Grand Tour.
To his defence, riders behaved somewhat differently back then. From the bottom of the very last climb they rode at a very high tempo up to the summit, and the weakest cracked one after the other. Those were perfect conditions for a maximal wattage.
I looked around a bit more and now I'm convinced that wattage calculations found on various sites multiply watts/kg with the rider's actual weight, which of course isn't very helpful when trying to compare performances. The 463 watts of Froome up La Planche is actually 503 if normalised for 78 kg. My w/kg calculation is in line with the Science of Sport article, which derives the 6.4-6.5 w/kg for the lead group from Brajko's SRM data, or with Ferrari's own calculation. When it comes to multiplying it with 78 however, I consitently get 10% higher values. |
| |
|
|
| ianrussell |
Posted on 12-07-2012 22:47
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3440
Joined: 09-10-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Jani Braj SRM data for stage 11 here https://www.trainingpeaks.com/av/5IGQQ...ZFEQZA2YIE
Would like to see Science of Sport analyse it but as far as I can tell (I have zero expertise so take this with a handful of salt ) narrowing down the data for that last climb he is somewhere around 5.5W/kg and finished in 8th a minute down on Wiggin's and Nibali.
From Twitter Inrng quotes:
"One for the sports scientists, Janez Brajkovic was 8th on today's stage with an estimated 5.3W/kg on the final climb".
A bit lower than what I can see on the data but either way I am taking an educated guess that that puts the GC leaders performing below the 6W/kg mark. A mark that Science of Sport analysis suggests would be a believable benchmark on the final climb for the top riders to perform at on such a stage.
I look forward to their analysis of the data and state once again such numbers prove nothing but are an interesting point of reference nonetheless. |
| |
|
|
| vward |
Posted on 12-07-2012 23:41
|
Amateur
Posts: 1
Joined: 31-10-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Wiggins and Froome are doping ? Really ? big deal !
By the way, could you tell me how many tour de France winners and guys on podium (even on top 10) have ever been clean ? From Coppi to Contador, Anquetil, Merckx, Fignon, Indurain, Riis, Ullrich, Pantani, we all know that they were all doped. Even the weakests, who finished far behind the champions, used PED. History of cycling is an history of doping, from the first days until nowadays... it's pretty funny to see so much people discussing Sky's doping like if they will discover the "unknown truth"... why would you think that things have changed ? In 1999, after the Festina's case, everybody said "there's no more doping, the tests are really more efficient, mentality changed in the peloton..." think about that and look at the TDF top 10 of the years after 1999, it's kind of funny.
You really think Sky use PED and not the other teams ? Are you joking ? And Pinot, who wasn't prepared for the TDF, who just learn few weeks ago he'll have to do the Tour to replace Jeannesson, and who's today the strongest of the leaders on the most difficult stage of the Tour, you really think he's clean ?
And Rolland and Voeckler, who suffered from bad injuries few days ago, and suddenly wins 2 stages in a row, you really think they're clean ? Have you seen these 2 stages, how strong they were ? And how strong were the Euraicar guys last year ?
Unfortunately, the good question in cycling is not "Is X or y doping ? " but "Is there any clean guy 'round here ?"
(I'm not a british Sky's fan, just a french guy who try to be objective) |
| |
|
|
| drugsdontwork |
Posted on 12-07-2012 23:49
|
Free Agent
Posts: 123
Joined: 20-09-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Isso, you need to watch cricket it's a lot more relaxing.
*deep breaths and relax*
Nobody is normal
|
| |
|
|
| lluuiiggii |
Posted on 12-07-2012 23:53
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8542
Joined: 30-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
pcm2009fan wrote:
Jupi wrote:
Of course, the numbers apply to all the others who finished with Froome, so it's not like they are any cleaner.
This, really. If Sky are on Aicar and it is proven that they are riding above expected thresholds, then all the other contenders (each one of which has matched Sky - whether Rogers, Froome or Wiggo - on at least one stage) are on something similar.
No, not at all. You're taking as all riders were on the same level (clean), and as doping had nearly similar effects on all riders. A rider can be much better than the other (let's say.. Evans vs Froome in 2008?), but when on some stuff the lower-ranked rider might be able to perform in equal level (or perhaps better, or perhaps still worse). And based on my first example I guess you know which comparation I would do for this
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 23-11-2024 20:00
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| pcm2009fan |
Posted on 12-07-2012 23:57
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1105
Joined: 30-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
What I'm meaning though is that if Sky's performance level is at a level above which any cyclist on the peleton can perform at cleanly (I don't know the truth or the medical intricacies involved here but several statistics posted seem to suggest so), then surely the other riders must be taking something, to match this infeasible pace on the mountains? |
| |
|
|
| CLURPR |
Posted on 12-07-2012 23:59
|
Domestique
Posts: 452
Joined: 19-01-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Even I am becoming slightly suspicious of Froome after todays result but I have no qualms about Wiggins doping as he seemed to be on the limit today. Still I will defend both of them until there is some concrete facts and evidence that proves their doping. |
| |
|
|
| Dropstaaf |
Posted on 13-07-2012 00:04
|
Free Agent
Posts: 143
Joined: 30-06-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
pcm2009fan wrote:
What I'm meaning though is that if Sky's performance level is at a level above which any cyclist on the peleton can perform at cleanly (I don't know the truth or the medical intricacies involved here but several statistics posted seem to suggest so), then surely the other riders must be taking something, to match this infeasible pace on the mountains?
Assuming they (Froome&Wiggins) are doping
What if they (Froome&Wiggins) are riding on the mountains slower than what they are capable of with those drugs, just to decrease the accusations coming from the audience, to make themselves less questionable?
I'm not saying they use doping, it's just to give another view on what might be possible
|
| |
|
|
| kumazan |
Posted on 13-07-2012 00:07
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6662
Joined: 02-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Dropstaaf wrote:
What if they (Froome&Wiggins) are riding on the mountains slower than what they are capable of with those drugs, just to decrease the accusations coming from the audience, to make themselves less questionable?
No. Let's not make ridiculous conspiracy theories. Froome did go slower, but only to avoid dropping Wiggins. They're surely riding at their limits, what I, and others, question is - is that their clean limit?
|
| |
|
|
| Dropstaaf |
Posted on 13-07-2012 00:16
|
Free Agent
Posts: 143
Joined: 30-06-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
kumazan wrote:
Dropstaaf wrote:
What if they (Froome&Wiggins) are riding on the mountains slower than what they are capable of with those drugs, just to decrease the accusations coming from the audience, to make themselves less questionable?
No. Let's not make ridiculous conspiracy theories. Froome did go slower, but only to avoid dropping Wiggins. They're surely riding at their limits, what I, and others, question is - is that their clean limit?
I can hardly imagine that! Seeing Froome coming from nowhere to a 2nd place in la Vuelta (1st if he didn't have to work for Wiggins) and being the best climber in le Tour, + the 2nd best time trialist (after Wiggins). It's just very hard to believe that.
About wiggins: well, he's pretty strong and we knew that. But taking almost a minute vs Cancellara in the TT seems impossible. Especially knowing that Cancellara wasn't in a bad form, and knowing it was Cancellara's last chance of a stage victory in this year's Tour.
Also Wiggins looks very 'fresh' after every stage he finishes. Just having like a walk in the park after he'd beaten Cancellara by a minute. Everyone else would have been broken...
|
| |
|
|
| marble |
Posted on 13-07-2012 00:36
|
Neo-Pro
Posts: 389
Joined: 28-07-2007
PCM$: 400.00
|
Dropstaaf wrote:
kumazan wrote:
Dropstaaf wrote:
What if they (Froome&Wiggins) are riding on the mountains slower than what they are capable of with those drugs, just to decrease the accusations coming from the audience, to make themselves less questionable?
No. Let's not make ridiculous conspiracy theories. Froome did go slower, but only to avoid dropping Wiggins. They're surely riding at their limits, what I, and others, question is - is that their clean limit?
I can hardly imagine that! Seeing Froome coming from nowhere to a 2nd place in la Vuelta (1st if he didn't have to work for Wiggins) and being the best climber in le Tour, + the 2nd best time trialist (after Wiggins). It's just very hard to believe that.
About wiggins: well, he's pretty strong and we knew that. But taking almost a minute vs Cancellara in the TT seems impossible. Especially knowing that Cancellara wasn't in a bad form, and knowing it was Cancellara's last chance of a stage victory in this year's Tour.
Also Wiggins looks very 'fresh' after every stage he finishes. Just having like a walk in the park after he'd beaten Cancellara by a minute. Everyone else would have been broken...
Cancellara isn't as good as he once was at time trialing. I think Wiggins would've had a hard time beating Tony Martin in top form. We will never know though, as Martin was unfortunate and crashed. Last year's final TT we saw Cancellara ranking 7th, beaten by over a minute and a half by Evans and Martin. |
| |
|
|
| Dropstaaf |
Posted on 13-07-2012 00:45
|
Free Agent
Posts: 143
Joined: 30-06-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
marble wrote:
Dropstaaf wrote:
kumazan wrote:
Dropstaaf wrote:
What if they (Froome&Wiggins) are riding on the mountains slower than what they are capable of with those drugs, just to decrease the accusations coming from the audience, to make themselves less questionable?
No. Let's not make ridiculous conspiracy theories. Froome did go slower, but only to avoid dropping Wiggins. They're surely riding at their limits, what I, and others, question is - is that their clean limit?
I can hardly imagine that! Seeing Froome coming from nowhere to a 2nd place in la Vuelta (1st if he didn't have to work for Wiggins) and being the best climber in le Tour, + the 2nd best time trialist (after Wiggins). It's just very hard to believe that.
About wiggins: well, he's pretty strong and we knew that. But taking almost a minute vs Cancellara in the TT seems impossible. Especially knowing that Cancellara wasn't in a bad form, and knowing it was Cancellara's last chance of a stage victory in this year's Tour.
Also Wiggins looks very 'fresh' after every stage he finishes. Just having like a walk in the park after he'd beaten Cancellara by a minute. Everyone else would have been broken...
Cancellara isn't as good as he once was at time trialing. I think Wiggins would've had a hard time beating Tony Martin in top form. We will never know though, as Martin was unfortunate and crashed. Last year's final TT we saw Cancellara ranking 7th, beaten by over a minute and a half by Evans and Martin.
True, but I'm still amazed by how fit he looks even after a tough mountain stage, as so after the TT.
I do think Froome's more suspicious imo than Wiggins is, especially in the mountains...
PS: I sincerely hope they aren't doped, and that it's just an amazing achievement, though I'm not convinced about their innocence...
 |
| |
|
|
| lluuiiggii |
Posted on 13-07-2012 01:16
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8542
Joined: 30-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
marble wrote:
Cancellara isn't as good as he once was at time trialing. I think Wiggins would've had a hard time beating Tony Martin in top form. We will never know though, as Martin was unfortunate and crashed. Last year's final TT we saw Cancellara ranking 7th, beaten by over a minute and a half by Evans and Martin.
He still won the prologue, with some ease (without Martin of course). And concerning the TT on last year's Tour, Cancellara complained of breathing problems in the final TT. It's true that he isn't time-trialing as good as in 2008 for example but he's still amazing on that. Yet he gets taken a minute in a TT from Wiggins and more surprisingly 22 secs from Froome.
|
| |
|
|
| supradyn |
Posted on 13-07-2012 01:51
|
Under 23
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-08-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
franki28 wrote: If it's possible to win a GT without doping, please tell me how
Go to the shop and buy PCM then start in normal. It's not possible to win GT on hard.
franki28 wrote:
I encourage britain to support their team, but man... I just can't see what's clean about Froome. However, the rest of team Sky looks OK(like everyone else)
Porte looks worse for me. |
| |
|
