ringo182 wrote:
Sky and it's riders had nothing to do with any of the past scandels so nowe why are these past scandels being used as proof that sky are doping?[/used]
We don't have proofs and are not going to have them, at best we may have evidences.
If you had bothered reading this thread, you'd have read about Dr. Leinders. Nothing to do with doping. Like their bloody suspicious riders, their riders formerly involved and staff members formerly involved in doping. Nothing to do.
ringo182 wrote:
The fact is that Froome has always had potential which is why Sky signed him.
Fact is everyone has a potential. You and me too. Ours is just not big. As for Froome having a huge potential, they could speculate on it, but they couldn't know it. So it's not fact. It's speculation that turned out to be true.
The fact is that sky are devising revolutionary training methods. The result is a rider like Froome developing quickly.
Until proven otherwise, it's propaganda rather than fact.
The fact is that no one has any evidence to the contrary and are holding their past experience of spanish, french, italian etc riders against sky.
The fact is you seem unable to read, understand or accept evidence going against your opinion.
Edited by Aquarius on 13-07-2012 11:59
Aquarius wrote:
Watts per kg already include the output. They're effective Watts, not produced ones. The difference will be more or less the same that what is measured by SRM and what is indirectly measured by F. Portoleau and his likes.
The human limit would be around 410 W average. For the very finest human being (with all the right genes), in ideal conditions of freshness, training, etc. but clean.
Before EPO times, nobody even came close to that number, despite the "soft" doping going around. The most talented riders, such as LeMond, Fignon, etc. managed 390 W at their peak, on one occasion (not on average).
The only riders who've crushed this limit have sooner or later been involved in doping scandals. Froome (and others) seem to be crushing it, though the Tour is not over yet, so a definitive average cannot be calculated.
430 W is considered miraculous, 450 is beyond words. Yesterday Froome was slightly under 440 W it seems (so was Pinot, btw).
Sure training helps, it makes people more consistent around their limits. It helps them pushing their limits, a little. That the best climbers would perform consistently around 390 W would be acceptable. Strangely enough, the best ones whose integrity is not really questioned are still around that figure.
But how definite are those numbers? I mean the limits as well as those measured for the riders. Is it imaginable to convict someone of doping because of his Watt output someday "in the future"?
And as I see it, although you said the best ones with an unquestioned integrity were below that figure, a few other riders(not only froome & pinot) should have crossed that magical line yesterday, right?
It's an average. It's of course possible to produce more Watts than that once, but it involves explosive efforts, or really excessive fatigue. That's why the 410 W limit applies to the average of final climbs that last 40+ minutes, in significant long mountain stages.
And of course it applies to the 70+8 kg pattern, it's by no way absolute powers.
It's unlikely that this will ever lead to sanctions. More likely the riders over-performing are or will be more targeted or more closely checked during controls (antidoping or passport ones).
Aquarius wrote:
It's an average. It's of course possible to produce more Watts than that once, but it involves explosive efforts, or really excessive fatigue. That's why the 410 W limit applies to the average of final climbs that last 40+ minutes, in significant long mountain stages.
And of course it applies to the 70+8 kg pattern, it's by no way absolute powers.
It's unlikely that this will ever lead to sanctions. More likely the riders over-performing are or will be more targeted or more closely checked during controls (antidoping or passport ones).
Aquarius wrote:
Watts per kg already include the output. They're effective Watts, not produced ones. The difference will be more or less the same that what is measured by SRM and what is indirectly measured by F. Portoleau and his likes.
The human limit would be around 410 W average. For the very finest human being (with all the right genes), in ideal conditions of freshness, training, etc. but clean.
Before EPO times, nobody even came close to that number, despite the "soft" doping going around. The most talented riders, such as LeMond, Fignon, etc. managed 390 W at their peak, on one occasion (not on average).
The only riders who've crushed this limit have sooner or later been involved in doping scandals. Froome (and others) seem to be crushing it, though the Tour is not over yet, so a definitive average cannot be calculated.
430 W is considered miraculous, 450 is beyond words. Yesterday Froome was slightly under 440 W it seems (so was Pinot, btw).
Sure training helps, it makes people more consistent around their limits. It helps them pushing their limits, a little. That the best climbers would perform consistently around 390 W would be acceptable. Strangely enough, the best ones whose integrity is not really questioned are still around that figure.
But the equipment is better now (don't know if thats really true since i'm quite young and don't have experience with the bikes, wheels etc. that Fignon and those guys used) shouldn't that lead to the climbers now getting better times up climbs thus getting better watts? I'm not talking about getting ridicoulus high watts like in the EPO era but an slight increase.
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.
It wasn't sarcasm. I'm genuinely predicting the future, do you think I'm wrong? Was there one for BMC/Cadel Evans last year, I'd really like to know if there was a contador one for the year before?
You win a cookie!
Thanks
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
Yes, I made a mistake but btw it should be "English" with a capital letter!
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?
No I'm not trolling, I just can't spell. I'm not a threat to you.
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.
Is there any proof Indurain doped? I believe he probably did, but is there any proof? Also as an aside, if 100% of the peloton doped at the time, wouldn't he still be the best rider and the worthy winner?
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.
Okay, Fair enough, you don't have any trust in them, I choose to until I have proof that anything is going on.
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.
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.
It wasn't sarcasm. I'm genuinely predicting the future, do you think I'm wrong? Was there one for BMC/Cadel Evans last year, I'd really like to know if there was a contador one for the year before?
You win a cookie!
Thanks
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
Yes, I made a mistake but btw it should be "English" with a capital letter!
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?
No I'm not trolling, I just can't spell. I'm not a threat to you.
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.
Is there any proof Indurain doped? I believe he probably did, but is there any proof? Also as an aside, if 100% of the peloton doped at the time, wouldn't he still be the best rider and the worthy winner?
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.
Okay, Fair enough, you don't have any trust in them, I choose to until I have proof that anything is going on.
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.
See that's the worst part... A doper IS NOT a worthy winner, no matter what anyone else did!!! It's the same thought, as saying: "Well let them all dope, so its fair". Stupid much?
themajortard wrote:
But the equipment is better now (don't know if thats really true since i'm quite young and don't have experience with the bikes, wheels etc. that Fignon and those guys used) shouldn't that lead to the climbers now getting better times up climbs thus getting better watts? I'm not talking about getting ridicoulus high watts like in the EPO era but an slight increase.
Bikes and equipment weighed about 9 kg back then, and weigh about 8 now (6,8 kg for the bike, 300 g for the helmet, 300 g for the clothes, 400 g for the shoes, a little for water, etc.);
That weight is taken into account in indirect calculations. So, of course, that makes riders slightly faster uphill for a same produced power, but it doesn't make them more powerful (except for Cancellara's bike ).
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
EBH droping everyone apart 20-30 riders and his 5 teammates, lol
You can't acuse Eddy Bos he's not British...
It is quite normal that luxury helpers like EBH, Voigt could mention many others drops many top riders. You need to remember the GC contenders have been riding for full everyday. While riders like EBH have just taken it easy the last 50k yesterday.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
EBH droping everyone apart 20-30 riders and his 5 teammates, lol
You can't acuse Eddy Bos he's not British...
It is quite normal that luxury helpers like EBH, Voigt could mention many others drops many top riders. You need to remember the GC contenders have been riding for full everyday. While riders like EBH have just taken it easy the last 50k yesterday.
True, actually Eddie is the least susspicious Sky rider for me, together with Cav.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
EBH droping everyone apart 20-30 riders and his 5 teammates, lol
You can't acuse Eddy Bos he's not British...
It is quite normal that luxury helpers like EBH, Voigt could mention many others drops many top riders. You need to remember the GC contenders have been riding for full everyday. While riders like EBH have just taken it easy the last 50k yesterday.
True, actually Eddie is the least susspicious Sky rider for me, together with Cav.
And Eisel and Knees. I have no problem with those 4, they seem to be riding coherently with their supposed abilities. Even Cav seems less impressive, probably due to the Olympics.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
EBH droping everyone apart 20-30 riders and his 5 teammates, lol
You can't acuse Eddy Bos he's not British...
It is quite normal that luxury helpers like EBH, Voigt could mention many others drops many top riders. You need to remember the GC contenders have been riding for full everyday. While riders like EBH have just taken it easy the last 50k yesterday.
True, actually Eddie is the least susspicious Sky rider for me, together with Cav.
And Eisel and Knees. I have no problem with those 4, they seem to be riding coherently with their supposed abilities. Even Cav seems less impressive, probably due to the Olympics.
Gaffeff wrote:
Fair enough, I assumed (incorrectly it would seem) that doping gives an extra x% equally. Didn't realise it varied.
Not just that, you're also assuming that everyone was/is in the same program. That's just not possible, some programs are too expensive for some, and there're always people willing to take risks to their health that others won't.
Aquarius wrote:
Bikes and equipment weighed about 9 kg back then, and weigh about 8 now (6,8 kg for the bike, 300 g for the helmet, 300 g for the clothes, 400 g for the shoes, a little for water, etc.);
That weight is taken into account in indirect calculations. So, of course, that makes riders slightly faster uphill for a same produced power, but it doesn't make them more powerful (except for Cancellara's bike ).
Thanks for explaining! Hah, I almost forgot about the period when he was accused of having some "help" inside his bike. Good times
You said a few posts up that it's possible to produce more than 410 watts once in a while but if you produce a lot higher than that everytime you're probably on the juice? Just wondering as I hope Pinot is clean as I like him, but I have my doubts after yesterday... It seems that he's having a bad day today though maybe thats a sign that he just had his best day ever.
... A doper IS NOT a worthy winner, no matter what anyone else did!!! It's the same thought, as saying: "Well let them all dope, so its fair". Stupid much?
