September 02, 2014 Login  


It would be a pretty tight race without (spoiler)
Last Post 07/12/2013 03:33 PM by Cosmic Kid. 66 Replies.
Printer Friendly
Sort:
PrevPrev NextNext
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 3 of 5 << < 12345 > >>
Author Messages
cabron fiber

Posts:17

--
07/11/2013 12:58 PM
+1 jrt and cerv
Oldfart

Posts:461

--
07/11/2013 01:08 PM
Seems to be a presumption by some folks that a totally clean peloton would see tighter racing when in fact I think it would be the opposite. If all riders doped to say the 49% hematocrit, it would be more even. In cycling there has often been an outlier that had the ability to win multiple grand tours. In between those individuals you see the less capable riders win.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:1059

--
07/11/2013 01:10 PM
I have zero problem with people being cynical and casting a jaundiced eye towards Froome's race so far. I'd be lying if I said I didn't raise my eyebrows a touch after yesterday's TT.

That said, there is a HUGE difference between being naturally suspicious (especially given the sport's past) and out right calling the guy a doper.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
CERV

Posts:151

--
07/11/2013 02:21 PM
+1 CK

I like to think I'm able to entertain the possibility that he could be clean, while at the same time not being naive enough to believe 100% he is. It is possible for a fan to entertain both possibilities simultaneously, and I think many on here are in that camp.
if I had to pick numbers, given these last few performances, especially the 6.6+watts/kg for 40min TT, I would say I'm 80% leaning towards doper, 20% he could be clean.
I still think Froome and Sky could do a whole lot more to convince the public he is riding clean than they currently are. The onus is on them, not the fans.
Some think it's going to 'kill' the sport, but I actually think the opposite about fans questioning the athletes all the time. I think it's the only high level sport in the world where there's no longer an accepted 'don't ask, don't tell' mentality between fans and athletes. In that regard, cycling is way ahead of football (american or european version) , hockey, basketball, baseball, or even olympic track in it's journey to becoming a credible sport.
As much as I am willing to accept, and watch, and be entertained by doped up performances on the pro level, I still have a little niggling hope in the back of my mind that the sport and activity I enjoy the most might someday end up being something i would want to encourage my kids or my friends kids coming up through junior racing to pursue at a high level is they ever showed interest/talent.
cabron fiber

Posts:17

--
07/11/2013 03:14 PM
"And let's not act like Froome just fell from the Sky (see what I did there?) he finished 11th in the white jersey comp in his first TdF as age 21/22"

Isn't that just more circumstantial evidence against Froome? 11th for the white jersey!
I believe Merckx was 1st overall in his first tour, Hinault: 1st overall, van Impe: 12th overall, Roche 13th overall, Fignon: 1st overall, Lemond:third overall, Delgado 15th overall.
Entheo

Posts:317

--
07/11/2013 03:37 PM
Posted By Andy Eunson on 07/11/2013 01:08 PM
Seems to be a presumption by some folks that a totally clean peloton would see tighter racing when in fact I think it would be the opposite. If all riders doped to say the 49% hematocrit, it would be more even. In cycling there has often been an outlier that had the ability to win multiple grand tours. In between those individuals you see the less capable riders win.


that is a good point. what i'm seeing this season is a diversity of winning, from ciolek to dan martin, for example. and look how the sprint finishes are well spread out. froome is an outlier, but perhaps naturally so. i have to think that the bio passport baselines have diminished the use of EPO, if not homologous transfusions taken on board at key points in a grand tour. contador is certainly looking far more human. i'm going to suspend disbelief until there's reasonable proof, circumstantial evidence or a sound argument as to why froome shouldn't be clean.
79pmooney

Posts:1095

--
07/11/2013 04:20 PM
Andy, the racing may be closer with the 50% hematocrit cutoff, but it puts different athletes on the podium. Those with naturally low hematocrits who are reasonably fast get to see huge boosts with (say) 35% boosts in oxygen capacity, bit those already on the limit (or those over who need exemptions) get no additional benefit.

Entheo and Keith, one reason Contador may not be looking so good this year is 1) as you said, Keith, Froome has had a phenomenal season for avoiding setbacks and 2) I read that Contador has backed off on motor pace training to better avoid bad crashes in deference to his marriage. Froome has spent far more time at race speed and it shows. Those power number differences sound to me like "Yeah, that's what you get with those difference in training".

Ben
ElleSeven

Posts:48

--
07/11/2013 05:59 PM
This thread is reminding me of the public and media chatter that followed a commercial plane crash in my area a few days ago. Speculation was immediately amok. Just as in this thread, none of that speculation was patently stupid or even implausible. By the same token, it had nothing to do with real information. There were credible-sounding, seriously intoned suggestions about how Korean pilots talk to each other in the cabin; there were hypotheses about wind-sheer; there was hand-wringing disparagement concerning SFO's off-line glide path ILS. Not one of these remarks or theories was based directly on verifiable fact, let alone serious knowledge of aeronautics or Asian culture or meteorology.

What's up with that? Whatever actually did happen will eventually be revealed through a long process of painstaking forensics and engineering expertise. What do the public get from tossing in their opinions, however intelligent, prior to an informed investigation?

We're maundering on here about numbers and correlations and a hotchpotch of quasi-scientific notions the nuances of which, likewise, we have no access to. To name just one concern, I have never yet been able, despite being a scientist and mathematician myself, to reconcile speculative power calculations based on some external index (speed, distance, mass, slope, etc.) with actual data recorded on my power meter. These calculations have been sort of close enough on occasion to warrant a kind of conversational hypothesizing, but never accurate enough for useful predictions. Try it yourselves. In fact I'm going to try again this afternoon.
abrickinthewall

Posts:13

--
07/11/2013 07:34 PM
Ellie7 - "we are maundering on here...." without good information. The very definition of this forum.
JS

Posts:61

--
07/11/2013 08:26 PM
Well here is a fact for ya. Chris Froome just kicked the $4it out of a bunch of known dopers (3+ minutes in 2 stages). So Either we're witnessing the Greatest non-doped Tour De France performance in 50 years or the more plausible explanation, Froome is a doper like the last 20 Tour De France winners. ElleSeven, you can use all big words you want, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck well...........
cabron fiber

Posts:17

--
07/11/2013 09:13 PM
"We're maundering on here about numbers and correlations and a hotchpotch of quasi-scientific notions the nuances of which, likewise, we have no access to."

A big problem here is that, as CERV said, the onus is on Sky to convince the public that Froome is riding clean. They haven't done it.
When they started, they said they were going to be clean, with a strict policy on who they would hire, etc. Brailsford's explanation for why he hired Geert Leinders? "He looked me in the eye and told me he was (clean)." That's how, in 2010, the "principal" of the world's biggest team, with millions in sponsorship $ involved, vetted his team doctor? C'mon! It's been the same thing with Froome: if Sky is so scientifically advanced, can't they provide some evidence for why Froome is exceptional?
ElleSeven

Posts:48

--
07/11/2013 09:15 PM
An animation of a duck? A duck Marionette? An actor wearing a duck costume? In any case my question is what do we get out of speculating? I love gossip as much as anyone. But it's pretty silly, usually
Cosmic Kid

Posts:1059

--
07/11/2013 09:39 PM
Ok, so I'll ask this again....if SKY is dirty, and has been since they hired Leinders, then why did they clean house during the off season with anyone who had a doping past? Furthermore, why didn't any of those let go (Julich, Yates, et al) call bullschitt on them when they got canned? "What a bunch of hypocrites. They fired me for something I did back in the 90's, but they are doing he exact same thing RIGHT NOW, I am nothing but a scapegoat." I am not saying that SKY is clean, but if I was one of those guys and I got canned, I would be screaming from the rooftops. And please don't tell me Omertà.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
ElleSeven

Posts:48

--
07/11/2013 09:46 PM
Cosmic, I think that's a really good question.
Ride On

Posts:424

--
07/11/2013 09:53 PM
The question I have is why does cycling seem to attract that once in a life time athlete lately?
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 3 of 5 << < 12345 > >>


Active Forums 4.1

Latest Forum Posts
Get Y'r Ya-Ya's Out! Join the Team posted in The Ride Spot

dropper posts for the pro tour? posted in Road Cycling

Modern "Hair Net" Helmet posted in Gear Advice


At least it's sumthin' posted in The Coffee Shop


Vuelta **SPOILER** posted in Professional Racing

No articles match criteria.
  Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy  Copyright 2008-2013 by VeloNation LLC