Alpe d'Huez - 2011

[patricknd]

But, but, bbbutt. How dare you......I will get you for this.

Foxxybrown said anybody climbing it less than 40 was a doper. Then they say he isn't because he gets tired in GT's. Then they compare him to Sastre who doesn't get tired in GT's but the CW in here is that Sastre is clean.

I think I'm gonna go play golf and drink alot of beer and think about this awhile. My head hurts.

well now i'm stumped myself. i didn't know 40 was the benchmark, and frankly i'm a little upset that i missed that memo. could it be that he's clean because he's french? or never tested positive?

 

[Mambo95]

The 40 minute benchmark is a little too convenient for assessing possible doping. It's too round a number and circumstances vary greatly.

The best pre-EPO time is 41'50 (Fignon and Herrera). Many things have changed since then, particularly GC riders waiting until the last climb to do anything, so I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to anything down to 39 minutes, but really looking at 39.30 as a realistic guideline in normal conditions.

 

[Magnus]

The 40 minute benchmark is a little too convenient for assessing possible doping. It's too round a number and circumstances vary greatly.

The best pre-EPO time is 41'50 (Fignon and Herrera). Many things have changed since then, particularly GC riders waiting until the last climb to do anything, so I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to anything down to 39 minutes, but really looking at 39.30 as a realistic guideline in normal conditions.

One thing that has changed is bike weight. Assuming bikes are now 2.5 kg lighter than in the pre-EPO time you get approx a one minute difference when comparing 70 kg riders doing 6 watt/kg on 13 km 8% climb (according to bikecalculator.com).

 

[Mambo95]

One thing that has changed is bike weight. Assuming bikes are now 2.5 kg lighter than in the pre-EPO time you get approx a one minute difference when comparing 70 kg riders doing 6 watt/kg on 13 km 8% climb (according to bikecalculator.com).

As I said, 'many things'. I wouldn't have attributed a whole minute to bike weights (I really wouldn't know). That's interesting. Cheers.

 

[Bavarianrider]

Considering the fact that its the 19th stage this year, and in general Watt/Kilo seem to be a bit down, i bet that we won't see a sub 40 minutes time.

 

[The Hitch]

Regarding bike weights, i dont know much either but i recall Alpe d huez ( i think) linking to articles which compared bikes from the 60's to bikes from today and concluded that the time gained was surprisingly low.

Im pretty sure of that though i guess my mind could be playing tricks on me.

Moncouties top performance can probably be explained by the fact that it was a short tt rather than a long stage, and as someone said, came after a rest day.

Still an amazing performance. Its a shame he wasnt able to try his luck in a clean peloton.

I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to anything down to 39 minutes, but really looking at 39.30 as a realistic guideline in normal conditions.

I thought you never ever judged riders on whether they are doping unless there is an investigation or a test. Certainatly not on performance.

 

[Mambo95]

I thought you never ever judged riders on whether they are doping unless there is an investigation or a test. Certainatly not on performance.

You're right. I certainly prefer to prefer to give riders the benefit of the doubt. I'm definitely a fan of cyclists generally and don't like to point the finger.

If anyone goes below 39 minutes, which I doubt I'll see from any clean white European, I'll privately have great reservations.

But, I'll never be someone who accuses just because they won a race, because that's the road which has no hope.


PS Certaintly? You are Sean Kelly and I claim my £5.

 

[luckyboy]

If anyone goes below 39 minutes, which I doubt I'll see from any clean white European, I'll privately have great reservations.

Why white European?

 

[woodburn]

Is comparing times for the TT really applicable to the times at the end of a stage? Certainly you would expect times to be better for the former than the latter.

 

[Lanark]

Is comparing times for the TT really applicable to the times at the end of a stage? Certainly you would expect times to be better for the former than the latter.

That's not always the case. In 2004 Santi Perez rode a slower mountain time trial on the same climb he had done the day before, because in an actual race situation the first couple of kilometers you can usually draft behind other people. Doesn't make a huge difference, but can be enough to ensure a faster time in a 'normal' stage.

 

[Benotti69]

That's not always the case. In 2004 Santi Perez rode a slower mountain time trial on the same climb he had done the day before, because in an actual race situation the first couple of kilometers you can usually draft behind other people. Doesn't make a huge difference, but can be enough to ensure a faster time in a 'normal' stage.

the difference could be explained by his legs still suffering from the day before's effort.

 

[ChrisE]

Why white European?

He must be harkening back to the Kenyan runner thread, where it was concluded that the Kenyans were better long distance runners than Europeans because they had to run from lions and cheetahs and such.

 

[Cloxxki]

It's an interesting debate, but I'm going to let the race sample test results provide the answer to this question.

What's that going to bring you? Dopers go hundreds of tests without gettting caught. We know this, because they explained us how.
If you ride up AdH in ~40minutes, if you're doping, you're doing it well. Not just a bit of dope to get caught by the first test and maybe get a tiny advantage.