Log in:  

Register

QS 2018

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

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re: Re:

22 Apr 2018 20:38

Koronin wrote:
rick james wrote:If it was sky this thread would be 100 pages already, Hippocrates sadly


Um this thread was started at the beginning of this month and many of us were willing to wait and see. Now things are starting look a lot more suspicious than during the cobbled races which they have always been good in and always had teams for just many times very bad tactics. The Ardennes are a different story.

Not sure that's really true. They've been extremely strong in the hilly classics for a while now. In fact, with the exception of Valverde, they've been the dominant force in the Ardennes for the last few years or so.

LBL they were 2nd last year, 2nd in 2015, 3rd in 2014.
Fleche they were 2nd last year, 2nd and 3rd in 2016, 2nd in 2015, 3rd in 2014.
Amstel they were 1st last year, 6th in 2016, 1st in 2015, 5th in 2014.
User avatar DFA123
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,219
Joined: 07 Nov 2010 16:00
Location: Valencia

Re: Re:

22 Apr 2018 21:05

DFA123 wrote:
Netserk wrote:
DFA123 wrote:Of course. You just have to look at Indurain or Ullrich to see how they can take you to the next level. One thing Jungels has though, which is very difficult (maybe impossible) to fully creae using drugs, is that rounded power profile. I always think riders who have excellent aerobic, anaerobic and sprint power are the biggest natural talents. While my suspicion of 'donkey to racehorse' falls mostly on those who just have huge aerobic engines and not much else.

whatever you need to tell yourself

I'm not telling myself anything. It's a hypothesis based on several observed factors. Well done for the great contribution to the discussion though as usual. :o

It's a hypothesis based on not verifying if talent is actually natural before claiming someone who's a bit allround is a natural talent
Veni, Vidi, Kirby

I came, I saw, I was dead wrong as per usual
User avatar Red Rick
Administrator
 
Posts: 14,290
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 18:15

Re: Re:

22 Apr 2018 21:13

DFA123 wrote:
Koronin wrote:
rick james wrote:If it was sky this thread would be 100 pages already, Hippocrates sadly


Um this thread was started at the beginning of this month and many of us were willing to wait and see. Now things are starting look a lot more suspicious than during the cobbled races which they have always been good in and always had teams for just many times very bad tactics. The Ardennes are a different story.

Not sure that's really true. They've been extremely strong in the hilly classics for a while now. In fact, with the exception of Valverde, they've been the dominant force in the Ardennes for the last few years or so.

LBL they were 2nd last year, 2nd in 2015, 3rd in 2014.
Fleche they were 2nd last year, 2nd and 3rd in 2016, 2nd in 2015, 3rd in 2014.
Amstel they were 1st last year, 6th in 2016, 1st in 2015, 5th in 2014.



A bunch of those podiums you mentioned are Dan Martin who's not there. He's at UAE and not exactly preforming very well which actually may lead to more questions.
User avatar Koronin
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,068
Joined: 14 Oct 2017 01:42
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Re:

22 Apr 2018 21:34

Red Rick wrote:
DFA123 wrote:
Netserk wrote:
DFA123 wrote:Of course. You just have to look at Indurain or Ullrich to see how they can take you to the next level. One thing Jungels has though, which is very difficult (maybe impossible) to fully creae using drugs, is that rounded power profile. I always think riders who have excellent aerobic, anaerobic and sprint power are the biggest natural talents. While my suspicion of 'donkey to racehorse' falls mostly on those who just have huge aerobic engines and not much else.

whatever you need to tell yourself

I'm not telling myself anything. It's a hypothesis based on several observed factors. Well done for the great contribution to the discussion though as usual. :o

It's a hypothesis based on not verifying if talent is actually natural before claiming someone who's a bit allround is a natural talent

Wrong. At least I think what you said is wrong, it's a pretty clunky sentence you've written there. It's based on observing that doping vastly enhances aerobic power more than it does anaerobic or sprinting. Riders who only have strong aerobic power could be absolute donkeys who are massively doped up. Riders who have good all round power are much less likely to be donkeys.

You just need to look at the stories of riders in their youth career - i.e. when they were 12 or 13 and very unlikely to be doping. The ones who you hear about dominating everyone are those with the all round power profiles. The one dimensional aerobic beasts, tend to make big leaps after turning professional - with all which that entails.
User avatar DFA123
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,219
Joined: 07 Nov 2010 16:00
Location: Valencia

22 Apr 2018 21:37

i dont find the results suspiscious really,none of them was above what you would expect from those winners...the only race that is highly suspiscious was gilbert RvV last year

the way they won would be exactly how i would predict the race to unfold,one of them would eventually get away after few attacks and the chasers wouldnt cooperate or in Alaphil. case win by being strongest in last few hundreds of meters - and if vanendert was smarter who knows if he could beat him

i havent seen any otherwordly performance from QS this year,just bunch of guys who win by getting the tactics right and losing by getting the tactics wrong like in P-R
saganftw
Member
 
Posts: 1,319
Joined: 21 May 2010 01:08

Re: Re:

22 Apr 2018 21:38

Koronin wrote:
DFA123 wrote:
Koronin wrote:
rick james wrote:If it was sky this thread would be 100 pages already, Hippocrates sadly


Um this thread was started at the beginning of this month and many of us were willing to wait and see. Now things are starting look a lot more suspicious than during the cobbled races which they have always been good in and always had teams for just many times very bad tactics. The Ardennes are a different story.

Not sure that's really true. They've been extremely strong in the hilly classics for a while now. In fact, with the exception of Valverde, they've been the dominant force in the Ardennes for the last few years or so.

LBL they were 2nd last year, 2nd in 2015, 3rd in 2014.
Fleche they were 2nd last year, 2nd and 3rd in 2016, 2nd in 2015, 3rd in 2014.
Amstel they were 1st last year, 6th in 2016, 1st in 2015, 5th in 2014.



A bunch of those podiums you mentioned are Dan Martin who's not there. He's at UAE and not exactly preforming very well which actually may lead to more questions.

Sure; I'm certainly not vouching for them being clean. But you said the Ardennes are a different story. Which isn't the case. They have been the best all round team there for the last few years, and would have been even more dominant there than on the cobbles if it wasn't for Valverde constantly pipping them to the line. And they only let Martin go because they believe (seemingly correctly) that Alaphilippe is better than him.
User avatar DFA123
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,219
Joined: 07 Nov 2010 16:00
Location: Valencia

23 Apr 2018 00:32

There's no way Jungels was ever a donkey.

And it's not surprising that he can ride a good LBL. Mind you, he was dropped in AG and has hardly shown the kind of form that made this look possible.

On top of everything else this spring, and given the history of the sport, at least half an eyebrow ought to be raised. It's so hard to win even one classic - there are so many genuine contenders who target specific races, and the level is so high. Even more so for a monument.

The 'good tactics' argument is a bit short sighted - you need the legs as well; amazing, amazing legs to pull off a long range attack in a field of champions, many of whom have peaked for that day.

When so many QS'ers have such amazing, amazing legs, well, it's definitely eyebrow raising.
User avatar The Hegelian
Member
 
Posts: 839
Joined: 06 Jul 2014 09:18

Re:

23 Apr 2018 00:40

The Hegelian wrote:There's no way Jungels was ever a donkey.

And it's not surprising that he can ride a good LBL. Mind you, he was dropped in AG and has hardly shown the kind of form that made this look possible.

On top of everything else this spring, and given the history of the sport, at least half an eyebrow ought to be raised. It's so hard to win even one classic - there are so many genuine contenders who target specific races, and the level is so high. Even more so for a monument.

The 'good tactics' argument is a bit short sighted - you need the legs as well; amazing, amazing legs to pull off a long range attack in a field of champions, many of whom have peaked for that day.

When so many QS'ers have such amazing, amazing legs, well, it's definitely eyebrow raising.



For me, it's the entire body of work this year where the eyebrow has to be raised. Then add in the factor that Dan Martin has been nowhere to be found this year leads to another eyebrow being raised.
User avatar Koronin
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,068
Joined: 14 Oct 2017 01:42
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re:

23 Apr 2018 01:56

rick james wrote:If it was sky this thread would be 100 pages already, Hippocrates sadly

Image
User avatar 42x16ss
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,790
Joined: 23 May 2009 04:43
Location: Brisbane, Aus

Re: Re:

23 Apr 2018 03:28

Koronin wrote:
The Hegelian wrote:There's no way Jungels was ever a donkey.

And it's not surprising that he can ride a good LBL. Mind you, he was dropped in AG and has hardly shown the kind of form that made this look possible.

On top of everything else this spring, and given the history of the sport, at least half an eyebrow ought to be raised. It's so hard to win even one classic - there are so many genuine contenders who target specific races, and the level is so high. Even more so for a monument.

The 'good tactics' argument is a bit short sighted - you need the legs as well; amazing, amazing legs to pull off a long range attack in a field of champions, many of whom have peaked for that day.

When so many QS'ers have such amazing, amazing legs, well, it's definitely eyebrow raising.



For me, it's the entire body of work this year where the eyebrow has to be raised. Then add in the factor that Dan Martin has been nowhere to be found this year leads to another eyebrow being raised.


I saw nothing strange about today, nor in any of the other classics I've watched this year. What I don't see is ridiculous performances by riders who used to suck. Dan Martin may not be getting the same horsepower in his bike now that he doesn't ride for JV anymore (and with a new UCI head).
Huapango
Junior Member
 
Posts: 115
Joined: 23 Apr 2016 01:19

Re: Re:

23 Apr 2018 03:32

Huapango wrote:
Koronin wrote:
The Hegelian wrote:There's no way Jungels was ever a donkey.

And it's not surprising that he can ride a good LBL. Mind you, he was dropped in AG and has hardly shown the kind of form that made this look possible.

On top of everything else this spring, and given the history of the sport, at least half an eyebrow ought to be raised. It's so hard to win even one classic - there are so many genuine contenders who target specific races, and the level is so high. Even more so for a monument.

The 'good tactics' argument is a bit short sighted - you need the legs as well; amazing, amazing legs to pull off a long range attack in a field of champions, many of whom have peaked for that day.

When so many QS'ers have such amazing, amazing legs, well, it's definitely eyebrow raising.



For me, it's the entire body of work this year where the eyebrow has to be raised. Then add in the factor that Dan Martin has been nowhere to be found this year leads to another eyebrow being raised.


I saw nothing strange about today, nor in any of the other classics I've watched this year. What I don't see is ridiculous performances by riders who used to suck. Dan Martin may not be getting the same horsepower in his bike now that he doesn't ride for JV anymore (and with a new UCI head).



I actually like QS, but the dominance they are showing pretty much everywhere is raising some questions. Then add in the fact that Dan Martin is no where to be found after leaving. There are definitely question marks there.
User avatar Koronin
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,068
Joined: 14 Oct 2017 01:42
Location: North Carolina, USA

23 Apr 2018 05:03

doesn't it make sense for a weaker rider on a stronger team to be able to nab results they couldn't have accomplished riding totally solo? IOW the QS boys should all be punching above their weight, benefiting from team tactics and circumstance, and when they move to another team their results would suffer.
proffate
Member
 
Posts: 418
Joined: 10 Jul 2012 01:35

Re:

23 Apr 2018 06:02

proffate wrote:doesn't it make sense for a weaker rider on a stronger team to be able to nab results they couldn't have accomplished riding totally solo? IOW the QS boys should all be punching above their weight, benefiting from team tactics and circumstance, and when they move to another team their results would suffer.


Surely it cuts both ways. i.e. if you're in super good form, but on a strong team, you may have to sacrifice results that you would otherwise get being a leader on a weaker team.
User avatar The Hegelian
Member
 
Posts: 839
Joined: 06 Jul 2014 09:18

23 Apr 2018 07:50

my fave team dedicate themselves to my fave races sign best riders for these races and win shock!

...but this year is different a 'lil luck and a whole lot of indecision and negativity from rivals

Mark L
User avatar ebandit
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,119
Joined: 02 Aug 2012 18:24

23 Apr 2018 11:51

"...attacked on the descent and time trialed to victory, exploiting tactical advantage of having race favourite behind..."

Well, yes. But....

He also smashed the decisive climb of the day - 11%'ish - in which numerous favorites were dropped.....and only then, did he attack on the descent. Gilbert opened it up and Jungels smashed it apart. Good tactics yeah, but how strong do you have to be make that kind of attack on the climb and then, without a pause, stomp home for 20 more k?

Say what you will, I never thought Jungels had that kind of puncheur power in him before - the kind that can split a LBL field deep into the race.

If he just slipped away on the flats, then I would agree, 'nothing to see here.'
User avatar The Hegelian
Member
 
Posts: 839
Joined: 06 Jul 2014 09:18

23 Apr 2018 12:19

Think we'll worry after the 3 GT's - It's often said QS is a non-factor at GT's, yet they won 16 stages in 2017 and got three top ten's in GC.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,312
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

23 Apr 2018 17:22

The whole Martin-left-the-team-and-now-he-sucks-so-they-have-to-be-doping-argument is pretty weak imo. He had several health issues and a good bit of misfortune in other races this season. And more decisively, he won both of his monuments riding for Cannondale, so it's not like he was bad before and after QS while being a world beater in between...
Sestriere
Member
 
Posts: 356
Joined: 24 Jun 2017 11:59

23 Apr 2018 17:48

I don't think the argument is Martin-left-the-team-and-now-he-sucks-so-they-have-to-be-doping. It's Martin-left-the-team-and-now-he-sucks-so-that-reinforces-the-pre-existing-notion-that-they-have-one-of-the-most-effective-doping-programs-courtesy-of-one-Dr-Ibarguren. I agree that Martin's level doesn't necessarily tell us much in isolation, but be fair.
User avatar hrotha
Veteran
 
Posts: 15,694
Joined: 10 Jun 2010 20:45

Re: Re:

23 Apr 2018 17:53

DFA123 wrote:
Red Rick wrote:
DFA123 wrote:
Netserk wrote:
DFA123 wrote:Of course. You just have to look at Indurain or Ullrich to see how they can take you to the next level. One thing Jungels has though, which is very difficult (maybe impossible) to fully creae using drugs, is that rounded power profile. I always think riders who have excellent aerobic, anaerobic and sprint power are the biggest natural talents. While my suspicion of 'donkey to racehorse' falls mostly on those who just have huge aerobic engines and not much else.

whatever you need to tell yourself

I'm not telling myself anything. It's a hypothesis based on several observed factors. Well done for the great contribution to the discussion though as usual. :o

It's a hypothesis based on not verifying if talent is actually natural before claiming someone who's a bit allround is a natural talent

Wrong. At least I think what you said is wrong, it's a pretty clunky sentence you've written there. It's based on observing that doping vastly enhances aerobic power more than it does anaerobic or sprinting. Riders who only have strong aerobic power could be absolute donkeys who are massively doped up. Riders who have good all round power are much less likely to be donkeys.

You just need to look at the stories of riders in their youth career - i.e. when they were 12 or 13 and very unlikely to be doping. The ones who you hear about dominating everyone are those with the all round power profiles. The one dimensional aerobic beasts, tend to make big leaps after turning professional - with all which that entails.

Junior races are vastly different, great endurance is somewhat useless in races under 2 hours
Juniors have a lot less exposure to big climbs than pro's
Everyone matures at a different rate
Everything benefits from doping
There's a huge trade off between different qualities, so you can just train differently on doping and focus on other qualities rather than on the strictly aerobic ones.
Even purely aerobic abilities require talent. Gaps in that talent don't go away if riders dope and respond equally.
Veni, Vidi, Kirby

I came, I saw, I was dead wrong as per usual
User avatar Red Rick
Administrator
 
Posts: 14,290
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 18:15

Re:

23 Apr 2018 18:12

hrotha wrote:I don't think the argument is Martin-left-the-team-and-now-he-sucks-so-they-have-to-be-doping. It's Martin-left-the-team-and-now-he-sucks-so-that-reinforces-the-pre-existing-notion-that-they-have-one-of-the-most-effective-doping-programs-courtesy-of-one-Dr-Ibarguren. I agree that Martin's level doesn't necessarily tell us much in isolation, but be fair.

My post was rather directed to one member who stated that he/she generally liked QS and didn't think they were suspicious after their amazing cobbled camapign but now changed sides after the Ardennes races. One of the main arguments was Martin's week performance this year, which I've given my opinion on. Of course I also noticed that said member is one of the most passionate Valverde-fans on the board, but thats probably only coincidentally..

However, to those of you who believe everyone in the pro peloton is on drugs, my point will naturally be entirely invalid.
Sestriere
Member
 
Posts: 356
Joined: 24 Jun 2017 11:59

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: King Boonen and 17 guests

Back to top