The Sky-Con-O-Meter. Predictions on how much more ridiculous they can get - Page 68 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #671  
Old 12-27-12, 01:02
taiwan's Avatar
taiwan taiwan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinvickers View Post
In a way, that's my point- I read that as Armstrong DID know the most up to date techniques - and he knew it precisely because of his paranoic need to know more. He was on a constant hair trigger for the next big thing.

Riis, and other, just didn't seem as obsessive.
Nah you suggested it was inconieveable that LA and Hog did not know "every scintilla" of their rivals' medical programmes. In Hamilton's and Mayo's case, they evidently did not, and I think there were other examples.
__________________
Scientific Expert
Reply With Quote
  #672  
Old 12-27-12, 03:39
red_flanders's Avatar
red_flanders red_flanders is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,570
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by King Of The Wolds View Post
You know, I went fishing the other day, and I caught a fish. This big, it was. My mate was pretty impressed. He believed it too, so when I told another mate, I exaggerated a bit and I made out it wasn't just that but this big. True story.

You know before every boxing fight, both fighters always, without fail, come out with the following - 'I'm the best shape of my life, hitting harder than ever, I can't be beaten, I'm a monster". Every single time. Wonder why they do that?

People talk a lot of s***. Sometimes to make out they're better than they are. Sometimes to make themselves sound good in a book they want to sell. Sometimes to try to get in the mind of an opponent who might be listening. God knows, if I was a cyclist trying to win a GT next year, I'd be quoting all sorts of power stats I'm capable of knocking out. It would have the opposition riding for 2nd place before I'd even hit the start line.

Lots of people around here think Wiggins and Rogers talk a lot of s***. They don't believe a word they say. Apart from when they're stat checking their own power files. Very strange.

Of course, I'd love to see some sort of evidence to show that they aren't talking s***.
It would seem likely that since those kind of numbers are 100% sure to arouse suspicion and questions, that few would choose to lie about them and incur the waste of time, energy and effort answering them.

Hard data and empirical measurements are measurable, exact, and not as prone to subjective exaggerations like "best shape of my life".
Reply With Quote
  #673  
Old 12-27-12, 08:11
Alphabet's Avatar
Alphabet Alphabet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The yard
Posts: 807
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregga View Post
From Wiggins' book :
- average power at threshold 450w
- weight 69,5 kg

6,5W/kg

Not normal.
Where do we make the cut-off for doped vs. clean performance? 6 W/kg?
Reply With Quote
  #674  
Old 12-27-12, 08:20
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 5,673
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alphabet View Post
Where do we make the cut-off for doped vs. clean performance? 6 W/kg?
Any objection in starting with Greg Lemond's threshold PB?
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
Reply With Quote
  #675  
Old 12-27-12, 09:26
Franklin Franklin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Flatland
Posts: 2,285
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
Any objection in starting with Greg Lemond's threshold PB?
I have an objection. We simply do not know if Greg is the best a man can do.

In fact Hinault claims a similar or higher VO2 (1 point, besides, a Langlaufer was even higher) and a fit Fignon rode roughshod over Greg in 1984. And many people realize that Greg was a wheelsucker in 1989 (smart and understandable!) and was weaker than Fignon. Wattage wise had Fignon had the same material he would have crushed Greg by minutes.

Greg certainly was one of the best riders ever, but there is no medical or physiological reason to say he is the pinacle of a cycling human.
Reply With Quote
  #676  
Old 12-27-12, 10:02
Cloxxki Cloxxki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franklin View Post
I have an objection. We simply do not know if Greg is the best a man can do.

In fact Hinault claims a similar or higher VO2 (1 point, besides, a Langlaufer was even higher) and a fit Fignon rode roughshod over Greg in 1984. And many people realize that Greg was a wheelsucker in 1989 (smart and understandable!) and was weaker than Fignon. Wattage wise had Fignon had the same material he would have crushed Greg by minutes.

Greg certainly was one of the best riders ever, but there is no medical or physiological reason to say he is the pinacle of a cycling human.
The skier delivered the test when on EPO or blood doping most likely. The test results are indeed effected.
Reply With Quote
  #677  
Old 12-27-12, 10:40
Fearless Greg Lemond's Avatar
Fearless Greg Lemond Fearless Greg Lemond is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,401
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franklin View Post
I have an objection. We simply do not know if Greg is the best a man can do.

In fact Hinault claims a similar or higher VO2 (1 point, besides, a Langlaufer was even higher) and a fit Fignon rode roughshod over Greg in 1984. And many people realize that Greg was a wheelsucker in 1989 (smart and understandable!) and was weaker than Fignon. Wattage wise had Fignon had the same material he would have crushed Greg by minutes.

Greg certainly was one of the best riders ever, but there is no medical or physiological reason to say he is the pinacle of a cycling human.
Good points, it would be stupid not to take Fignon and Hinault as a benchmark for what is supposedly humanly possible.

Great footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG6Q2nFF0mI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBacb2VgKY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpotMliQuX8

3 benchmarks
Reply With Quote
  #678  
Old 12-27-12, 10:59
Franklin Franklin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Flatland
Posts: 2,285
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fearless Greg Lemond View Post
Good points, it would be stupid not to take Fignon and Hinault as a benchmark for what is supposedly humanly possible.

Great footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG6Q2nFF0mI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBacb2VgKY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpotMliQuX8

3 benchmarks
Oh thank you for those clips! *Swoon*
Reply With Quote
  #679  
Old 12-27-12, 11:33
martinvickers martinvickers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taiwan View Post
Nah you suggested it was inconieveable that LA and Hog did not know "every scintilla" of their rivals' medical programmes. In Hamilton's and Mayo's case, they evidently did not, and I think there were other examples.
I re-read what I wrote, and you are correct, i expressed my self very poorly. I appreciate Armstrong could not possibly know exactly what specific others were doing - he's a doper, not a clairevoyent - but I'd be amazed if he was not at the absolute cutting edge more generally, and knew it - I think he knew every drug that was available, every routine, every trick, even if he didin't know which of those his rivals were on - but you are absolutely right that he was clearly paranoid that someone, somewhere, knew something he didn't.
Reply With Quote
  #680  
Old 12-27-12, 11:37
martinvickers martinvickers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by red_flanders View Post
It would seem likely that since those kind of numbers are 100% sure to arouse suspicion and questions, that few would choose to lie about them and incur the waste of time, energy and effort answering them.".
Surely if they are 100% sure to arouse suspicion and questions, then if they are dodgy, it would make most sense simply not include them? In other words, if wiggins were a doper, and these numbers were a clear red flag on the issue, why would he publish it at all?

Why would he leave such obvious breadcrumbs?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:40.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.