Basso suggests Sky doping? Likens them to Armstrong/USPS

[blackcat]

Id shudder to think of the numbers if Froome was unleashed and if the rest of the field hadn't been destroyed on the lower slopes.

If riders can't attack you know it's fast.... too fast.

dont disagree.

Be entertaining for peak Armstrong, peak Riis, and peak form
Ullrich
Landis
Heras
Froome
Ricco
Pantani

to just smash it on a Queen stage

 

[Mellow Velo]

Was basso clean when he won the 2012(10) Giro?

I'll never know but he published his entire seasons blood values along with explanations from several experts. He posted watts as well. All of this was through Sassi's website.

That's better than Garmin or Sky have done or will ever do...

He also grafted his win. It looked believable. Proof of nothing of course but adding all that up compared to what I've seen in this Tour I can safely say Sky were doped. Period.

How's them apples?

Pretty much the apples I'd expect, when the bag is opened.

 

[oldcrank]

Ivan Basso on Team Sky: "Like I said, they're riders with big balls."

 

[thehog]

Pretty much the apples I'd expect, when the bag is opened.

Watching Basso and Evans climb the Zoncolan that year was believable. I didn't see Basso turning around and gesturing to Evans to ride faster.

I also didn't see Lquigas completely dominating the race day in day out like Sky have done this Tour. Basso was vunrebable the entire Giro.

Sure he may have been doped. But you have to admit this Tour is been a total massacre. The two best climbers. The two best TTs. The two best doms - all in one team?

That's some coincidence. How could they lose?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Was basso clean when he won the 2012(10) Giro?

I'll never know but he published his entire seasons blood values along with explanations from several experts. He posted watts as well. All of this was through Sassi's website.

That's better than Garmin or Sky have done or will ever do...

He also grafted his win. It looked believable. Proof of nothing of course but adding all that up compared to what I've seen in this Tour I can safely say Sky were doped. Period.

How's them apples?

While it was interesting to watch you go into a Sky induced meltdown you never did actually answer the question.

Still bedtime for Pedro

 

[DirtyWorks]

That's all very interesting and I like the way you go off on a tangent but can you answer the question?

Do you think it was just him that was clean or his whole team?

I suspect you are pretending thehog didn't respond directly to you as some kind of wierd way to validate your world view.

If not, It's pretty clear Thehog is saying at least two riders are doping.

 

[doperhopper]

I don't think this kind of veiled messages, like the one we got from Evans ("they're all in the form of their lives"), is meant to be taken like that. Even dopers have standards, because in their mind they're not cheating on everyone. If you overdo it, *then* you're cheating, you're going beyond what the sport requires, you're making the rest of them look like fools and you become a liability because you're risking getting caught, which would be a disaster for everyone in the peloton (or you have the UCI on your side, which is even worse).

100+ for the fantastic 4-word summary of the cycling history

"Even dopers have standards"

 

[Parrot23]

its like womens athletics today v the GDR, they still have not grabbed those WRs set, and Sky are still not threatening the peak numbers of the 90s are they.

So there is no magic wonder drug.

+1 Good points, blackcat.

Like Marita Koch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marita_Koch

And let's complete the Wiggins quote (and source it) for those engaged in misdirection:

"Sky’s cerebral but romance-free approach has hardly thrilled the neutral over the past three weeks, but Wiggins looked to place his win in the context of the ongoing fight against doping. “When we were riding on the front at 450 watts or whatever, someone would attack and Mick Rogers would say ‘just leave him, he can’t sustain it,’” Wiggins said.

“Someone is going to have to sustain 500 watts over 20 minutes of a climb to stay away which is not possible anymore unless you’ve got a couple of extra litres of blood. That’s the reality of it. It really is."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-the-tour-is-a-lot-more-human-now

 

[thehog]

+1 Good points, blackcat.

Like Marita Koch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marita_Koch

And let's complete the Wiggins quote (and source it) for those engaged in misdirection:

"Sky’s cerebral but romance-free approach has hardly thrilled the neutral over the past three weeks, but Wiggins looked to place his win in the context of the ongoing fight against doping. “When we were riding on the front at 450 watts or whatever, someone would attack and Mick Rogers would say ‘just leave him, he can’t sustain it,’” Wiggins said.

“Someone is going to have to sustain 500 watts over 20 minutes of a climb to stay away which is not possible anymore unless you’ve got a couple of extra litres of blood. That’s the reality of it. It really is."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-the-tour-is-a-lot-more-human-now

Ummmm but he did ride faster that Armstrong's final TT in 2005. Or we not counting that?

In addition Froome was held back in the mountains and I'm sure he could have been pushing very close to Armstrong/Pantani type numbers if pushed.

Finally does not going as fast as Pantani mean you haven't doped? They were getting close to those numbers. Does that mean clean?

They were certainly pushing Ullrich/Basso type numbers from 2003-2005.

 

[thehog]

Was basso clean when he won the 2012(10) Giro?

I'll never know but he published his entire seasons blood values along with explanations from several experts. He posted watts as well. All of this was through Sassi's website.

That's better than Garmin or Sky have done or will ever do...

He also grafted his win. It looked believable. Proof of nothing of course but adding all that up compared to what I've seen in this Tour I can safely say Sky were doped. Period.

How's them apples?

Thanks Hog. Good post.

Here's Basso's blood values from the 2010 Giro:

Ivan Basso's hematocrit values decreased by 4.3 percentage points on his way to winning the Giro d'Italia last month. Italian newspaper La Gazzetta dello Sport published yesterday the results of three controls used for Basso's biological passport.

The newspaper published results from three tests, showing a drop in hematocrit and haemoglobin values – indicating a clean performance. The first control was in Amsterdam, two days before the race started (43% hematocrit, 13.9g/dl haemoglobin), the second control was on the second rest day, between the stage to Monte Zoncolan and Plan de Coronas (40.9, 13.3) and the final control was in Verona on the morning of the last stage (38.7, 12.9).

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/4...rom-Giro-dItalia-published.aspx#ixzz21JVfnZn9

 

[BroDeal]

Ummmm but he did ride faster that Armstrong's final TT in 2005. Or we not counting that?

In addition Froome was held back in the mountains and I'm sure he could have been pushing very close to Armstrong/Pantani type numbers if pushed.

Finally does not going as fast as Pantani mean you haven't doped? They were getting close to those numbers. Does that mean clean?

They were certainly pushing Ullrich/Basso type numbers from 2003-2005.

I like this idea that power levels are down so the sport must be clean. So what riders are not using the outrageous amounts of doping that Armstrong used? That does not mean they are clean. They can just be using less. The Astana insider talked about Contador using 150ml transfusions. He was not squeezing in 800ml like the Postal team, but he was hardly clean.

Then there is this idea that since the climbers are not sprinting uphill like Ricardo Ricco, it shows the Tour is clean. This idiocy is an even more dubious reason to believe that the Tour is clean. Ullrich was doped to the eyeballs and he never sprinted uphill. He dieseled his way up, just like the current guys.

 

[Parrot23]

They were getting close to those numbers.

They were certainly pushing Ullrich/Basso type numbers from 2003-2005.

Because you say or purport something ("certainly") doesn't make it true.

(On TT's, we don't know what the road and wind conditions were at all, unless we were riding it--and that we certainly are not. Not quite the same problem with the climbing data.)

http://www.sportsscientists.com/

Porteleau too...http://www.rue89.com/rue89-sport/201...egulier-233861

 

[thehog]

Because you say or purport something ("certainly") doesn't make it true.

(On TT's, we don't know what the road and wind conditions were at all, unless we were riding it--and that we certainly are not.)

http://www.sportsscientists.com/

Porteleau too...http://www.rue89.com/rue89-sport/201...egulier-233861

Oh so its ok to claim they're not getting getting close to the Armstrong/Pantani numbers... but when you find out that Wiggins actually went faster than Armstrong we can't count them due to wind conditions!! LOL!

You can't be serious. You guys make me laugh.

I assume it doesn't get windy on MTF? So those number are ok?

 

[Parrot23]

Oh so its ok to claim they're not getting getting close to the Armstrong/Pantani numbers... but when you find out that Wiggins actually went faster than Armstrong we can't count them due to wind conditions!! LOL!

You can't be serious. You guys make me laugh.

I assume it doesn't get windy on MTF? So those number are ok?

You clearly don't ride a bike--or think much when you do. Good on you.

Apples and apples, oranges and oranges. Common sense specially for you, don't you think?

I repeat for deaf ears:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/

Porteleau too...http://www.rue89.com/rue89-sport/201...egulier-233861

And again, for your selective misdirection: "Not quite the same problem with the climbing data". In fact, not nearly as much. Clearly, you don't have a physics degree.

For your edification, I have not addressed the other misdirection in your post.

 

[thehog]

You clearly don't ride a bike--or think much when you do. Good on you.

Apples and apples, oranges and oranges.

I repeat for deaf ears:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/

Porteleau too...http://www.rue89.com/rue89-sport/201...egulier-233861

And again, for your selective misdirection: "Not quite the same problem with the climbing data". In fact, not nearly as much. Clearly, you don't have a physics degree.

Thanks for the links. The quote from the first article is telling. Its obvious you don't have a degree in common sense.

Fact remains Wiggins went faster than Armstrong in the final ITT in 2005. Period. But you're telling me it was the wind? Maybe Armstrong had a tailwind and Wiggins a headwind so he might have been even faster?

Nice quote:

"Now, an important disclaimer. None of this disproves doping, and none of this proves doping either. When a rider produces performances that have "alien" physiology implications, it's a strong flag for doping (I'm gratified to read that cycling's governing bodies are actually looking at this approach now). But when the physiology is "normal" or at least, not suspicious, then it doesn't necessarily vindicate the rider. Why? Because doping helps with far more than on-the-day performances - it also aids recovery and thus enables consistency. "

- That will be Chris Froome!

 

[Parrot23]

Nice quote:

"When a rider produces performances that have "alien" physiology implications, it's a strong flag for doping "

Your reading comprehension is deliberately poor.

That line doesn't at all say what you are implying it does. Again, you misdirect: He is saying the watts produced in this case don't imply alien, as in unreasonable, physiological conclusions. That is the entire thrust of his article, which you managed to miss.

The exact opposite of what you imply. Keep up the good work.

(On recovery, people like Tucker, scientists etc, can't measure it. There's no public or even estimable data like watts, so Tucker in an objective debate can't address it. Translation: it's I said, you said. Maybe true, maybe not. Futile debate.)

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I suspect you are pretending thehog didn't respond directly to you as some kind of wierd way to validate your world view.

If not, It's pretty clear Thehog is saying at least two riders are doping.

Well, perhaps I am not seeing it and if you can point me to it I will be the first to admit I missed it? Also, no one has to answer my question(s) but if you quote my question and then answer something completely differently then is it surprising I respond?

 

[Bumeington]

Fact remains Wiggins went faster than Armstrong in the final ITT in 2005. Period. But you're telling me it was the wind? Maybe Armstrong had a tailwind and Wiggins a headwind so he might have been even faster?

Come on now Hog, play fair. I've ridden as fast as Armstrong in 2005 over 40km. Ok it wasn't after 3 weeks of a GT, but it did take a magical 320W, which is more Cav taking it easy after 3 weeks than Wiggo going for it.

Point is, you can throw this data out because of wind conditions and 2005 was a bit more hilly (http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2005//tour05/graphics/profile20.gif).

Lots of people have very valid points about Sky to question whether they are playing fair, but with comments like the above you are detracting from some well reasoned arguements.

Unless you think I should quit my day job and go for the centenary tour on the basis that I can ride faster than Armstrong in 2005.

 

[will10]

Ummmm but he did ride faster that Armstrong's final TT in 2005. Or we not counting that?

In addition Froome was held back in the mountains and I'm sure he could have been pushing very close to Armstrong/Pantani type numbers if pushed.

Finally does not going as fast as Pantani mean you haven't doped? They were getting close to those numbers. Does that mean clean?

They were certainly pushing Ullrich/Basso type numbers from 2003-2005.

There's enough to go on without making pointless comparisons based on time trial average speed. The 2005 TT was a completely different kettle of fish to this one.

Come on now Hog, play fair. I've ridden as fast as Armstrong in 2005 over 40km. Ok it wasn't after 3 weeks of a GT, but it did take a magical 320W, which is more Cav taking it easy after 3 weeks than Wiggo going for it.

Point is, you can throw this data out because of wind conditions and 2005 was a bit more hilly (http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2005//tour05/graphics/profile20.gif).

Not to mention that this year's ITT was point to point, and the 2005 was a lap of Saint Etienne, very technical and much hillier than the 2012 flat bash. Remember Lance rode a Hed3 rear rather than a disc because of all the extra accelerations out of the corners compared to a normal TT. Whereas here Bradley hardly had to get off the extensions. Apples and oranges.

 

[Geordieracer]

“Look. It’s the same discussion as always, it’s like watching the Tour when Lance [Armstrong] or [Miguel] Indurain raced. You could try to attack, get ahead, but then what are you going to do? Just to have a laugh?” Basso said, sitting on the steps of the team bus.

“If he [Wiggins] goes as they have been, where Richie Porte is pulling and you are on the wheel pushing 420 watts, then explain to me, where are you going to go?

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/07/news/basso-its-useless-to-try-to-stop-sky_230769

- Basso has seen it all from the inside. He's know what they're up to.

A great example of using a quote to your own cynical gain
Basso is commenting on skys racing strategy
Everyone who knows cycling knows this
And like someone else points out , Whos he to comment

 

[rickshaw]

and his sister is hot!

 

[wannab]

There's enough to go on without making pointless comparisons based on time trial average speed. The 2005 TT was a completely different kettle of fish to this one.

+10000

Whoever uses that logic to try to prove something is biased ..

 

[thehog]

There's enough to go on without making pointless comparisons based on time trial average speed. The 2005 TT was a completely different kettle of fish to this one.



Not to mention that this year's ITT was point to point, and the 2005 was a lap of Saint Etienne, very technical and much hillier than the 2012 flat bash. Remember Lance rode a Hed3 rear rather than a disc because of all the extra accelerations out of the corners compared to a normal TT. Whereas here Bradley hardly had to get off the extensions. Apples and oranges.

I actually agree with you 100%.

You've proved the very point I was making. Thank-you.

Whilst its ok to push numbers forward of Sky's to suggest its a non-doping effort but when a number suggest different we claim wind/technical course etc.

Which goes to say that Sky's numbers this year are strange. When have you ever had a yellow jersey deliberately slowing the climbing in the last 5km?

When have you had visibly so strong he could ride anyone down but is forced to slow?

The numbers would have been higher if Froome had ridden as hard as he wanted on mountain stages.

Those guys were on another level. Period. And Basso just called them out. That you cannot disagree with.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I actually agree with you 100%.

You've proved the very point I was making. Thank-you.

Whilst its ok to push numbers forward of Sky's to suggest its a non-doping effort but when a number suggest different we claim wind/technical course etc.

He disagreed with exactly what you were saying?

 

[scribe]

He is usually on crack.