Netserk said:If all current doping products/techniques were available ten years ago, I'm sure all the contenders would've been slim as well.
the higher your hct, the more muscles you need to take advantage of the increased oxygen flow
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Netserk said:If all current doping products/techniques were available ten years ago, I'm sure all the contenders would've been slim as well.
proffate said:the higher your hct, the more muscles you need to take advantage of the increased oxygen flow
Tonton said:Good point, i.e. Cadel Evans, whom I think won clean.
They are slower: how much is less doping? Could it be less talent overall as well? Did the Spanish become dominant due to lesser competition? Did emerging cycling countries emerge for the same reason? How much did all the scandals deter parents to get their kids into cycling in some usually prolific cycling countries? Who would want to spend all that money on bikes (me) and risk the health of their child (not me)? A 12 year old kid at the time of the Festina scandal would be 26 today...
I am on record writing that the peloton is cleaner, attributing (rightly I hope) the resurgence of French cycling to less doping. Still, I can't buy the idea that cycling is doing much to eliminate doping when the Vinos, Mr. 60%, are allowed be anywhere near, or mentor, the young riders. I can't.
i agree, but it's a hypothetical scenario.Netserk said:I think it's obvious that if there's a talent like Lemond (who for some reason wouldn't like to win the Tour and therefore dope), he would be able to fx win a stage in the Tour. I can't see why a Lemond like talent shouldn't have a chance to beat Kadri on the stage he won.
I don't think it's possible to compete for the win of the overall in the Tour clean, but I certainly do think highly talented clean riders can have a better career now than they could 20 years ago. It'd surprise me very much if you don't think so too.
sniper said:a coupla years back robert gesink was considered a real talent in the netherlands who could podium the tdf in the near future.
Cycle Chic said:Does anyone think the rest day visit by anti doping had anything to do with todays results ?
Tonton said:What a huge can of worms you're opening!!! If the answer is yes, what performances would you suggest were affected? No!
237.5 km would be enough of a reason. Yesterday's stage was hardly comparable to the other mountain stages.Cycle Chic said:Referring to the top contenders - What reason would Bardet and Tejay have for riding such a poor stage ? with one hard climb. Bardet was rollin all over the bike at that top of that climb.
hrotha said:237.5 km would be enough of a reason. Yesterday's stage was hardly comparable to the other mountain stages.
There were two category four climbs early on, mere bumps on the road compared to what was still ahead...... The group had an eight-minute lead as they headed up the third climb of the day, over the Col de Portet-d'Aspet, where Voeckler took the points at the top. The peloton, still moving at a comfortable pace, hit the top 10:15 minutes later.
The front group climbed the next ascent over the Col des Ares, and it was Voeckler, again, leading the group over the top, with peloton ambling over at 12:11 minutes down.
What part of "237.5 km" did you not understand.Cycle Chic said:http://www.cyclingnews.com/tour-de-france/stage-16/results
Hardly a tough stage ...and... after the rest day...
Cycle Chic said:http://www.cyclingnews.com/tour-de-france/stage-16/results
Hardly a tough stage ...and... after the rest day...
last huzzah from him, updating to papy status?lemoogle said:Really not liking peraud's perf tbh.
For me, that's a perfectly good explanation for his 9th place in 2011 at 34.BYOP88 said:Wait so the Froome defense doesn't work with Peraud?
The theory was that Froome developed later because he took up (road) cycling at a later age.
hrotha said:For me, that's a perfectly good explanation for his 9th place in 2011 at 34.
This, however...