Basso suggests Sky doping? Likens them to Armstrong/USPS

[DirtyWorks]

Armstrong got it right. Bar a few well paid crits he wouldn’t race again keeping the myth alive. These guys have to do the Olympics. Be interesting to see how they go outside of Cav.

Next year expect Saxo to app back to CSC levels and Liquiags to be the new T-Mobile.

Are you kidding? Storybook ending for the Olympic road race with Wiggo leading Cav out for the win. My estimation is it's so close to the TdF, the doping performance window will still be open.

My crackpot theory is if the Sky TdF team shows up at Worlds then they will be mid-pack in both the TT and the RR.

 

[noddy69]

I think apart from the comment on richie porte, the language he uses at the end if translated right is the most interesting. Now unless he has knowledge of their privates saying they have cohones isnt commenting on their guts but could be construed as they have some nerve to do what they are doing . Just my reading of it.

 

[Angliru]

Him plainly saying that they rode like champions kind of nullifies any implications of doping in his statement. My interpretation is that he admires their arriving at the Tour well prepared to the max and taking care of business. I don't see any negative intent there even with the Armstrong/Postal reference. People will interpret it as they see fit but I just don't see it the same as the OP is making it out to be.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Him plainly saying that they rode like champions kind of nullifies any implications of doping in his statement. My interpretation is that he admires their arriving at the Tour well prepared to the max and taking care of business. I don't see any negative intent there even with the Armstrong/Postal reference. People will interpret it as they see fit but I just don't see it the same as the OP is making it out to be.

Please read my last post in this thread.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I don't really see this possiblity in the replies:

Basso IS referring to the possibility of doping, but also recognizing the possibility that the performance was not doped. After all, Basso is not in the Sky team bus, and was not at their training camp. The results COULD be honest, and that is what he is saying. "They could be honest, they might not be honest - but it was one hell of a ride".

Actually, I have heard a LOT of people using that line this year. On Eurosport Harmon, Kelly, and others made practically direct references to doping - each saying, at some point, words to the effect: "If they are clean, these are great performances" about Sky and Sagan.

Alright, how about the fact that the last time a GC leader won Paris-Nice, Tour de Romandie, Criterium de Dauphine, and the Tour de France was...

NEVER!

Not a bad one-off when your secret is warming down....

 

[mastersracer]

Basso did not implicate doping in his comments on Wiggins. His tweet:

Honneur,respect,admiration pour @bradwiggins Exemple merveilleux de comment volonté et détermination savent transformer un homme en jaune.

tweeted by Basso in Italian, French, and English. I think he wanted the message to get through.

 

[Franklin]

Basso did not implicate doping in his comments on Wiggins. His tweet:

Honneur,respect,admiration pour @bradwiggins Exemple merveilleux de comment volonté et détermination savent transformer un homme en jaune.

tweeted by Basso in Italian, French, and English. I think he wanted the message to get through.

Of course, everyone was egging Riis when he was on the podium even when they hinted in the odd interview

Truly... there is no reason, none whatsoever to have questionmarks. How dare we try to ask for transparency and clean cyclin! HOW DARE WE!

Btw, Masterracer, did you answer yet my question about your strawmen?

 

[Caruut]

Basso did not implicate doping in his comments on Wiggins. His tweet:

Honneur,respect,admiration pour @bradwiggins Exemple merveilleux de comment volonté et détermination savent transformer un homme en jaune.

tweeted by Basso in Italian, French, and English. I think he wanted the message to get through.

Hmm. Perhaps he didn't mean what it seemed like initially.

It could always be that the comments were getting a larger reaction than he intended so backtracked.

Both are plausible.

 

[BroDeal]

Amazing how these fanboys try to deny the obvious. It's a pathology that makes the Armstrong homers look sane by comparison.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Basso did not implicate doping in his comments on Wiggins. His tweet:

Honneur,respect,admiration pour @bradwiggins Exemple merveilleux de comment volonté et détermination savent transformer un homme en jaune.

tweeted by Basso in Italian, French, and English. I think he wanted the message to get through.

As I said on the other thread you posted this on, the point came through perfectly!

"A perfect example of how sacrifice and determination can transform a man in yellow"

If you know Basso's background (as I'm sure you do, since you're such a scholar of the cycling arts), then I'm sure you can appreciate how far he crammed his tongue into his cheek.

Man, you're tiresome....

 

[mastersracer]

As I said on the other thread you posted this on, the point came through perfectly!

"A perfect example of how sacrifice and determination can transform a man in yellow"

If you know Basso's background (as I'm sure you do, since you're such a scholar of the cycling arts), then I'm sure you can appreciate how far he crammed his tongue into his cheek.

Man, you're tiresome....

wow, you guys will stop at nothing to force the square peg into the round hole. I guess when he says this about his own teammate (Sagan) it's also a veiled reference to doping: mai visto uno forte come lui

 

[hrotha]

wow, you guys will stop at nothing to force the square peg into the round hole. I guess when he says this about his own teammate (Sagan) it's also a veiled reference to doping: mai visto uno forte come lui

Basso plays by the rules of omertà. He's expected to praise Wiggins, and that's also why his insinuations had to be veiled. When you couple what he said with what Szmyd said, with Nibali saying Sky had no respect for their rivals, with LLS's frustrated gestures, with the many "incredible", "out of this planet", etc references, you get a pretty coherent full picture.

 

[Galic Ho]

This is worth repeating:

1. The bio-passport system is an elaborate system whose purpose is to protect riders from killing themselves. That's it. It is working exactly as designed. There is ample room for Sky to have a team-wide program. The phrase 'never tested positive' has come to mean more for a good reason. Only idiots get an AAF.

Agreed. The telling thing about the BioPassport for me was Dr Ashenden's analyse of Contadors blood profile from the 2010 Tour and other seasons samples. He made it very clear AC had many obvious doping markers and trends. Ashenden also made it very clear that trying to copy your bodies natural biological markers is impossible. Reference the 2010 TdF leaked suspicion list. Conclusion? The UCI, ASO and everyone involved know fully well that most pros are doping. If the standards were stricter, the sport would be decimated.

For me though, the interesting thing in this knowledge is that Team Sky were called before the Tour to show their samples and perameters to the ASO. In other words, it's perceivable they were given a green light to go further than normal. At the same time, other known dopers and consistently high performing riders get annihilated! Coincidence? Nope, they were reigned in. That or Sky really did discover the elixir of everlasting life, aka The Cincimatti Stone. One sip, you're a new man.

2. Doping as a part of an athlete's preparation has been compared to a symphony. Lots and lots of details, lots of things to test for the best outcome, and even then every rider is different. All the parts have to work together. So, it's most likely it's not that Sky's on something different as they found what works best for each rider. This would explain the very light schedule and trips to Tenerife very well.

I agree with others, Basso's chosen his words carefully. He's no saint and he's not going to break Omerta, but he's still calling what Sky has done a clear case of team-wide doping.

Agreed again. Leinders is the conductor working in shift with the swim doctor. This type of program is a symphony. A level of discipline, order and dedication that would be unfathomable to most people is in place. They left nothing to chance. Last year was the test phase. This year was go for GOLD. Literally.

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?

Oh and if it hasn't been mentioned (I am only at page 4), Ivan can't blab how most people would wish. It's not like he won the 2010 Giro clean. Sure not uber Robo Ivan 2006 style, but he was still doped. The peloton knows this. At least he was at a level he could be beaten at. Sky aren't. They'd have beaten Contador in 2011 Giro form. The doped up bell curve has seen a massive shift. Expect a lot of odd performances to srping up. Lots of new names and unexpected 'super peaks' from riders looking to get in on the action. Sky will get a fight...none of it will be from clean riders. They're out the back or barely hanging on.

 

[Galic Ho]

Looking at the watt numbers, I believe a natural supertalent could have won this Tour clean. I also believe Sky was doped to the gills.

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.

 

[Stueyy]

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.

Excellent posts!!! Thanks.

 

[Frosty]

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 Lemond/Hinault time is surprisingly slow for that occasion and maybe suggests what a massacre that day was and how far ahead they had got. Herrera did it in 41.50 the next year which is maybe a better indication of what the limits were back then.

Difficult to compare now to the 80s. I have wondered how improved nutrition affects things because surely this will result in people having more energy towards the end. Difficult to quantify this though, i am not one of those people who believe that any hour long training ride for a 4th cat requires two energy gels, three energy drinks and a few powerbars. However, if pushing hard over several earlier cols then getting the right (legal) energy into you really must help for top-end efforts.

 

[hrotha]

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.
(etc)

I'm basing that in the wattage figures being consistently below 6 W/kg. I think someone of LeMond's huge natural talent might have won this Tour, and I didn't imply anything beyond that. Save your tirade for someone else, you're preaching to the choir here.

 

[Galic Ho]

I'm basing that in the wattage figures being consistently below 6 W/kg. I think someone of LeMond's huge natural talent might have won this Tour, and I didn't imply anything beyond that. Save your tirade for someone else, you're preaching to the choir here.

Re-read my post above. I said I was at page 4. I only quoted you because it sounded off key for what you normally write. Sounded like people were claiming 2010 should be the benchmark for clean. I don't think that is very wise at all considering what happened to the winner of the 2010 Tour. The point I was making, was that only the most phenomanally gifted, guys who unequivocally and instantly stated when asked, what they could do, said their data was lower than those today. And then there is the form being there at a young age. It was always there. No need for a transformation like this years winning circle.

Lemond said 410W at the start of the Tour was about what he could sustain over an extended period, around an hour. 390W at the end. Yet we have Basso saying they were doing 420W from Porte setting tempo and Froome and Wiggins joking in the first week about doing 480W! It's ludicrous! They're all doping. Heck, Nibali on the Ferrari orange juice program struggled to keep up. The Vuelta might make more people take notice. I'm expecting Froome to beat Contador. Convincingly.

Sure take the intervals and time periods these numbers occured over, but it's still crazyily high for guys nowhere near the physically elite end of the bell curve. Adding all the pieces together, I have no doubt Lemond and Hinault in their peak, one who won the Tour by over 10 minutes, would have been flogged senseless. They'd keep up one or two days early on, then that's it. Recovery versus blood bag micro transfusions gets them.

I'll stay with what I said about the Science of Sport guys. I call BS on their conclusions based on their work. Antoine Vayer is the only one worth listening to. Anyone working with Rugby players has their blinkers on. Time for someone to do a PhD study into 60s, 70s and 80s sporting performances versus the 90s and naughties in key sports. Swimming, athletics and cycling. Sport today is pretty much only good for a laugh.

The Lemond/Hinault time is surprisingly slow for that occasion and maybe suggests what a massacre that day was and how far ahead they had got. Herrera did it in 41.50 the next year which is maybe a better indication of what the limits were back then.

Difficult to compare now to the 80s. I have wondered how improved nutrition affects things because surely this will result in people having more energy towards the end. Difficult to quantify this though, i am not one of those people who believe that any hour long training ride for a 4th cat requires two energy gels, three energy drinks and a few powerbars. However, if pushing hard over several earlier cols then getting the right (legal) energy into you really must help for top-end efforts.

Of course one has to take into consideration the parcours and how the preceeding stages have unfolded. I'll still stick with what I've said many times. The numbers are too high. I've only seen times from 91 and after for Alpe and just the one set from the 80s.

Luis Herrera? Little Columbian weighing a bit over 50kg? Never heard his time before. But it is revealing. Look, that day proved one thing back in 1986. That in a blood doping free sport, even the best are a lot slower than today. Nobody kept up with Hinault and Lemond. They rode away from everyone on the second last climb. It is conceivable given the race went for 24 stages(?) back then, that they could have gone faster in todays length Tour. But a Columbian climber with a speciality for climbing is not a GC all rounder who can time trial and climb like Lemond or Hinault. Hinault and Lemond were 65kg guys. Thats a physiological difference. They should be slower than him. Now? Hell no, there is a major fundamental shift in how people perform and their physique and actual physiological parameters. Evans Alpe d'Huez times from 2008 and 2011 are similar. Bit slower in 2011. That's shockingly close to Herrera's times, yet he looks just like Lemond and Hinault did. Note he got massacred this year.

I still think if the Tour was clean, only a small handfull of guys can compete at the fine end. And no, they don't have paltry and average VO2max's of around 80ml/min/kg. Simon Gerrans is 81. We all saw the video of him flogging Froome on this forum. Yes, I think if it's clean, little sherpa build riders living at high altitudes all their life will wipe people away in the mountains. That a rider cannot be king at everything, unlike this years 1st and 2nd places.

I know of a channel posting 80s Tour footage. They do a lot more than that, but they just started doing the 87 Tour. I will take a look at how Herrera raced that year.

 

[Frosty]

Alpe d' Huez times

The Alpe d'Huez times are viewable here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez

I think i have seen many of the times elsewhere so i think the data is good. However, the ranking idea is a bit odd as there are a lot of times missed out, often only a few of the best in any one ascent are given.

Lemond did the Alpe on several other occasions. In 1989 he finished 1.19 behind Fignon who was given a time of 41.50. Adding the two together gives 43.09. I think they started together but that Fignon attacked late on with Lemond then struggling. On that occasion they had pretty much done a replica of the 1986 stage to alpe d'huez, ie start at Briancon, climb over Galibier and Croix de Fer on the way. Total stage time was 7 minutes something longer but they did find an extra 2.5km somewhere.

Also, in 1990 he finished in the same time as stage winner Bugno but the ascent time for Bugno is not given making me think it wasnt a fast climb for the time. In 1991 he finished at 1.58 to the stage winner Bugno who did 39.44 giving Lemond a time of 41.42 although the climbs on that stage had been relatively easy (2 second cats).

FWIW Moncoutie (reputed to be a clean rider) took pretty much exactly 40 minutes to climb it in the 2004 mountain time trial although a TT up it is obviously going to result in a faster time than climbing it at the end of a hard mountain stage.

 

[roundabout]

410w for an hour by a 65kg rider would still be very competitive today.

Froome did less than that in Salamanca last year when he finished second in the TT.

 

[xcleigh]

As I said on the other thread you posted this on, the point came through perfectly!

"A perfect example of how sacrifice and determination can transform a man in yellow"

If you know Basso's background (as I'm sure you do, since you're such a scholar of the cycling arts), then I'm sure you can appreciate how far he crammed his tongue into his cheek.

Man, you're tiresome....

You talk about tiresome! Not only can people tell whether someone is doping by simply watching them on tv, but you can also tell the inference a person makes when all you have is a little knowledge of their background(do you actually know Basso, his sense of humour, his life outlook, politics?) and a frickin' tweet.

Man you guys are flipping geniuses(now tell me am I joking or serious?).

 

[Galic Ho]

The Alpe d'Huez times are viewable here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez

I think i have seen many of the times elsewhere so i think the data is good. However, the ranking idea is a bit odd as there are a lot of times missed out, often only a few of the best in any one ascent are given.

Lemond did the Alpe on several other occasions. In 1989 he finished 1.19 behind Fignon who was given a time of 41.50. Adding the two together gives 43.09. I think they started together but that Fignon attacked late on with Lemond then struggling. On that occasion they had pretty much done a replica of the 1986 stage to alpe d'huez, ie start at Briancon, climb over Galibier and Croix de Fer on the way. Total stage time was 7 minutes something longer but they did find an extra 2.5km somewhere.

Also, in 1990 he finished in the same time as stage winner Bugno but the ascent time for Bugno is not given making me think it wasnt a fast climb for the time. In 1991 he finished at 1.58 to the stage winner Bugno who did 39.44 giving Lemond a time of 41.42 although the climbs on that stage had been relatively easy (2 second cats).

FWIW Moncoutie (reputed to be a clean rider) took pretty much exactly 40 minutes to climb it in the 2004 mountain time trial although a TT up it is obviously going to result in a faster time than climbing it at the end of a hard mountain stage.

Thanks for the times. But do note, the difference in the 80s was that only a few riders had such fast times. So Lemonds fastest time is pretty much what Evans has done. 94 VO2 max vs 87 VO2 max. Hmmmmmnnnn. Interesting.

Bugno's time is EPO. Pure EPO. Fignon said as much. He went from being an amphetamine GT winner in 89 to Bugno's super domestique. Said he refused to dope like that. Still it proves what Lemond said. He didn't feel like he was physically inferior to his wins in 89 and 90 in the years that followed. He assumed he had some kind of problem related to his shotgun accident, poisoning form the pellets or a reaction to them that prohibited him. After all, guys he wiped the floor with in 89 and 90 were beating him easily. Then he found out about the use of EPO and everything made sense.

So yeah, on your best day 42' up Alpe d'Huez is about the best I can expect from a clean rider. A clean rider with a VO2max over 90 and multiple Tour de France wins. In other words, a freak of nature. Only a handful of riders in history are capable of that. None I can think of rode after Lemonds last Tour win.

Sheesh, that's gonna be hard to match. Real hard. I can think of one current or semi recent pro who even comes close figure wise. Not sure if this one is true, because I've never seen the data from him, unlike the others I listed. Heard Floyd was almost as high as Hinault VO2max wise. Almost. Bit above Evans and Cancellara, who are 87-88. Cancellara's aerobic breathing intake is enormous. If he were lighter, his figure would be huge.

I'll also like to thank the person updating Wikipedia. Last time I was on the Alpe d'Huez page, those times weren't there. Was about a year ago from memory. Especially not tabled. Only ever had the one time from the 80s, written in the paragraph it is in, the 48' time.

Those times do a great deal to affirm the ridiculous, that doping really can jump you up that far over clean riders who are the genetic lottery winners. The truly gifted. You can match them and beat them on the right gear. You need many parametes to fully understand who did what and how they did it. Evans really does come off looking more believable as one of the more gifted recent pros...but look at the shadows engulfing him.

IMO, Lemond or Hinault raced this years Tour they'd be somewhere between 16 and 20 minutes back on Wiggins. That's a lot of doped performances across the board. And the last time someone won the Tour as far out as Wiggins did, was in 1981. From memory Hinault won that Tour by 20 minutes on third. Do the math and run the numbers. A lot more are still doping. Heck, maybe with 20+20 = 40 mins back, Valverde was really clean?

 

[Galic Ho]

410w for an hour by a 65kg rider would still be very competitive today.

Froome did less than that in Salamanca last year when he finished second in the TT.

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.

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.

Get someone to analyse the numbers from the 89 Tour. Now make the 100th edition, next years race, an exact copy of the 89 race. Heck, it was the greatest Tour in history, ironically won by the last guy most people who know anything about cycling would say is/was clean. use that as a benchmark. Get the riders tested, blood levels, lactate, VO2max, FTP, etc the whole kitten caboodle. Then see who flogs Lemonds times and Fignons. Compensate of course for peloton pace, etc, with weather and other minor fluctuations. The times should in theory, if the riders are clean, be similar and their data for their peak outputs etc should also match.

Alas, they won't do it. The jump in performance would be glaringly obvious. All I can say about this farce of a Tour, was that some GC riders were made to look clean. Ironic given their pasts. BTW, I don't think they were all having bad Tours. Sure Bottle and the other USADA talkers had to ride clean, that was a given. But too many riders were way off form.

Alpe d'Huez should be back in next year. Froome to do sub 40 easy. Maybe even break the 39 minute barrier if he has this form next year. Nobody since Sastre has come anywhere close to that.

 

[mastersracer]

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.
.

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

2. Lemond has stated his power (e.g., http://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html). Assuming a race weight of ~69kg (68.6 kg published in a few articles), Lemond indicated he was capable of 450-460 watts at threshold in a rested state. That is ~6.5 watts/kg (quotes his VO2max of 92-93). He states his climbing wattage on Alpe d’huez of 380-390 (~5.58 watts/kg). He also states his 1989 final ITT 420-430 watts, 6.16 watts/kg), a 26’57” effort (arguably a much harder final week).

 

[mastersracer]

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.

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