Basso suggests Sky doping? Likens them to Armstrong/USPS

[Race Radio]

1. Re Science of Sport, Andy Coggan (> Tucker) has suggested their limits of ‘physiological plausibility’ are too low.

Andy also believes in Unicorns

 

[D-Queued]

... Only a handful of riders in history are capable of that. None I can think of rode after Lemonds last Tour win.

...

Big Mig had really big lungs. So does Ryder. And Lance could ride at over 100 rpm.

Your recollection of Merckx's power is off by almost 100 watts. His power for his 1972 hour record is listed at 485 watts, which is 6.46 watts/kg. Boardman is around 6.4. This is consistent with Lemond's claim of 6.5 watts/kg.

http://www.bikecult.com/bikecultbook/sports_recordsHour.html

Thanks... In training for the hour, Merckx is said to have held 475 watts for an hour - which I had thought was higher than actually during the hour record. Problem with his output, of course, is that his record wasn't completely clean.

While that site is quite interesting, not sure that it is entirely accurate. Indurain is listed at 477 watts, when this is well below most accounts of 509.4 watts.

Dave.

 

[mastersracer]

Big Mig had really big lungs. So does Ryder. And Lance could ride at over 100 rpm.



Thanks... In training for the hour, Merckx is said to have held 475 watts for an hour - which I had thought was higher than actually during the hour record. Problem with his output, of course, is that his record wasn't completely clean.

While that site is quite interesting, not sure that it is entirely accurate. Indurain is listed at 477 watts, when this is well below most accounts of 509.4 watts.

Dave.

I agree the values differ - the Padilla paper would put Indurain around 6.3 watts/kg. Padilla's estimate for Merckx yields 5.2 watts/kg, which seems questionable (I've also seen conflicting accounts about Merckx's altitude prep and issues related to power under-reporting due to wind conditions on outdoor track). I think a more realistic range for these records is 6.2-6.4 watts/kg. Bassett's normalized power yileds 429 for Merckx, though they note that too might under-report due to outdoor track conditions. Rominger is an outlier at over 7 watts/kg, but I think the explanation for that is fairly transparent.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Tony Martin chimes in.

“He [Wiggins] was so super humanly strong in the Tour de France. I think that he will also triumph in London.”

 

[Franklin]

Tony Martin chimes in.

“He [Wiggins] was so super humanly strong in the Tour de France. I think that he will also triumph in London.”

Nothing to see here, move along

 

[Caruut]

Big Mig had really big lungs. So does Ryder. And Lance could ride at over 100 rpm.



Thanks... In training for the hour, Merckx is said to have held 475 watts for an hour - which I had thought was higher than actually during the hour record. Problem with his output, of course, is that his record wasn't completely clean.

While that site is quite interesting, not sure that it is entirely accurate. Indurain is listed at 477 watts, when this is well below most accounts of 509.4 watts.

Dave.

Still, with Merckx's numbers, they are at least going to be around that level. Nothing like the distortion from blood doping.

 

[Kretch]

Wiggins will win the road ITT in a week. He'll put a minute into Cancellara and Martin. Froome if GB has two riders, could pull a silver. Who'd have thought that conceivable two years ago? Or last year? That the two greatest time triallists in a very, very long time would possibly be fighting for bronze at best at an Olympics?

Off-topic, but I'm afraid a 22 year old kid is going to put a spanner in the works - Phinney will take gold. http://competitorradio.competitor.com/

 

[D-Queued]

Still, with Merckx's numbers, they are at least going to be around that level. Nothing like the distortion from blood doping.

I hate to even suggest it, but it is possible that blood doping could have been employed for the hour.

It would have been much harder for him to have done that for any Tour, let alone his triple and all of the classics, etc., without the availability of EPO, etc.

But, perhaps a bit higher possibility for the hour.

(Don't shoot me... I am not looking to tarnish the legend)

Dave.

 

[Kender]

I hate to even suggest it, but it is possible that blood doping could have been employed for the hour.

It would have been much harder for him to have done that for any Tour, let alone his triple and all of the classics, etc., without the availability of EPO, etc.

But, perhaps a bit higher possibility for the hour.

(Don't shoot me... I am not looking to tarnish the legend)

Dave.

One thing that always made me curious was the little chat with Landis in the bar after Landis popped. The next morning Merckx places a bet with the bookies that Landis will win the stage. we all know what happened next

 

[D-Queued]

One thing that always made me curious was the little chat with Landis in the bar after Landis popped. The next morning Merckx places a bet with the bookies that Landis will win the stage. we all know what happened next

Never said he was stupid.

Dave.

 

[hiero2]

I'm not going to listen to all the Tour commentary for 5 days, but I struggle to believe that Harmon or Kelly would so much as suggest the possibility that Sky were doping. I'd really have to hear it.

Wish I could play it for you - but I don't record those broadcasts. Kelly's comments, from my memory, might not have been pointed - but he WAS saying something about how absolutely remarkable and fantastic Sagan was, and in doing so made some references that sounded to me like he was saying "if he doesn't get caught".

Harmon and the others made a few less veiled remarks about prior remarkable performances, and like I said, that guest (somebody I did not know of, obviously) was practically out about it, saying something like "this was a great performance, if it doesn't turn out to be a disappointment like others we have seen in the past few years".

Many of us say these guys never speak up, but it sure sounded like they were speaking of what they COULD speak of, legally and all.

 

[function]

That was for the mountains dude. Not the chronos. Haven't you seen the power wattages Merckx did on the track in his hour record? 389W from memory. He'd finish at least two minutes easy back on Wiggins in the first ITT. At least four back in the second one.

Merckx was 380W in 1972 (2000 Padilla et al), at altitude and without acclimatization as he set it a few days after arriving in Mexico City. So not a good comparison to make.

 

[BoxCoppi]

Harmon and the others made a few less veiled remarks about prior remarkable performances, and like I said, that guest (somebody I did not know of, obviously) was practically out about it, saying something like "this was a great performance, if it doesn't turn out to be a disappointment like others we have seen in the past few years".

I can't remember the comments by Sagan but I do remember the above in bold. I thought it was quite weird at the moment as commentators always stay WAY clear of such things. Can't remember the guy's name either though.

 

[Franklin]

I hate to even suggest it, but it is possible that blood doping could have been employed for the hour.

It would have been much harder for him to have done that for any Tour, let alone his triple and all of the classics, etc., without the availability of EPO, etc.

But, perhaps a bit higher possibility for the hour.

(Don't shoot me... I am not looking to tarnish the legend)

Dave.

I'd say that's a bit early. It's possible, but we will go into the same shady area as "when did epo hit the first riders".

 

[thehog]

Tony Martin chimes in.

“He [Wiggins] was so super humanly strong in the Tour de France. I think that he will also triumph in London.”

Needs its own thread.

"Pro peloton references about aliens to team Sky"

 

[iZnoGouD]

Merckx was 380W in 1972 (2000 Padilla et al), at altitude and without acclimatization as he set it a few days after arriving in Mexico City. So not a good comparison to make.

Wiggins was not rested and he still kicked ***

 

[badboygolf16v]

Here is a nice suggestion. The ASO should prove cycling is clean. It's actually quite easy and it would make for amazing viewing. Well it did in 1989 when EPO and blood doping wasn't going on.

Superb suggestion. Bravo.

 

[acoggan]

Andy also believes in Unicorns

Only if their existence were supported by a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

 

[egtalbot]

Although I pretty much agree with the conclusions regarding the power output these days suggesting more effective doping than the 70's and '80's, I wouldn't read too much into VO2 max. Yeah, someone with a VO2 max of 65 is not likely to be able to compete with someone at 90, but someone at 82 certainly might be able to.

 

[thehog]

Please tell me you aren't basing this on the rubbish the Science of Sports guys who work with known doper in South African Rugby have been trouting. They said AC was arguably clean. Ashenden said that was bogus.

What measuring stick are you using? What standard? I think BigBoat has put up the only reasonable numbers. That over 6.1W/kg in the high mountains is impossible over an hour. Why? Lemond and Hinault didn't do it. I've asked people multiple time to give the numbers from the 80s. They flat out right refuse. Why? It's much easier to compare current times to the raging epo 90s. Even Indurains power outputs were dwarfed by Armstrongs. Are guys still hitting numbers two of the classiest and most gifted cyclists ever didn't and couldn't produce? Hell yes and then some. How about an ITT over an hour on the track by Merckx? Yeah, that's being demolished, on the road after two and a half weeks of hard racing.

The sport is so far from clean it's hilarious. That's why Basso said what can one do other than laugh? Want a list of the VO2max these guys have? Basso, LA, Porte, Rogers...all 79-81. Lemond and Hinault were 92-94ml/min/kg. Gosh, dude, Andrew Coggan was taking the mickey out of people once again in the power output thread talking about the peak performance of people in regards to their maximal physiological power outputs and it's reduction with fatigue and sustained exertion.

That for me is the tell. Guys today who are annihilating others, known dopers if you will, and yet take them back to the 80s, where would they be without blood vector doping? Miles behind. Oh and as I pointed out, they're not only physiologically inferior to the 80s champs, they're also much, much faster. People still ride Alpe d'Huez in 42' or there abouts at the pointy end of proceedings. Lemond and Hinault riding tandem alone, with an entire peloton dropped did it in 48'. Long way from clean. Long, long way. No super talent could have won this Tour. Maybe come around 10th. Maybe. No, I don't think those guys there are clean. They know they're not naturally amazing, hence they dope.

The Science in Sport guys are forever quoted as the virtue of clean cycling. They were at one point writing papers that Lance was more than likely to be clean. Now they're quoted on Sky threads.

SiS needs to be banned. They are terrible.

 

[oldcrank]

Greg Lemond has never said anything untoward about Sky.
Both Sky and Mr. Lemond have a relationship with Rapha.
Will there be another relationship announced soon?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The Science in Sport guys are forever quoted as the virtue of clean cycling. They were at one point writing papers that Lance was more than likely to be clean. Now they're quoted on Sky threads.

SiS needs to be banned. They are terrible.

Go home SiS, you're drunk.

 

[86TDFWinner]

I've always liked Ivan.
Good for him.

This. I do too. Just being realistic.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

This. I do too. Just being realistic.

I like his sister too. She is easy on the eye.

 

[thehog]

This. I do too. Just being realistic.

I like Ivan as well. Speaks the truth. Has seen both sides of the equation. Knows when he sees suspect performances.