Uhm... did you just agree with your own post?
They also both present false information as insider stories (hog's notorious breaking news posts from 2009 to 2011 which included Lance pulling out of the TDF and Contador signing for Garmin)pmcg76 said:He is mocking the poster who has had more comeback attempts than Lance but unlike Lance is not banned for life.....but should be.
To be fair, Contador could sign for Garmin he'd fit right in.The Hitch said:They also both present false information as insider stories (hog's notorious breaking news posts from 2009 to 2011 which included Lance pulling out of the TDF and Contador signing for Garmin)
The negotiations did happen, and JV said he believes Contador is clean because his tests were really really good.BYOP88 said:To be fair, Contador could sign for Garmin he'd fit right in.
Sure Uran's doctor sucked big time before!Race Radio said:I think that several of SKY performance are not normal and I have made this clear several times. Froome on the top part of Ventoux showed he could likely put :30-1min on Quintana on a 30-40 min climb. That would put him around 38:30 on Alp d'Huez, or even faster on an easier stage. Not Normal. Semnoz is also not normal, highest output of the race. Uran in the Giro? Not normal. I think Sky knows this and that is why they didn't resign him. JTL? Doper. They would have to have been idiots to not know this. Classics riders using Cortisone OOC without a TUE, legal but certainly not ethical. I still don't know what to make of Wiggins or Porte. I also don't think there is a team program.....Flame away I just don't know.
As much as I think this w/kg stuff is interesting I am far from an expert at it. I think it is an interesting data point but far more interesting is a disgruntled wife, SKY has one of those, or a former rider like Flecha spilling the beans.
The weight thing makes no sense to me. There is clearly something going on but none of the people I talk to can figure it out. Sure some say various substances but nothing that is traceable or had been found on anyone.
I have written all of this several times, often with far more detail, but some like to pretend I have not.
Not directed at you but I am sure others will flame away but don't expect me to respond. Really tired of the endless nonsense here
BYOP88 said:To be fair, Contador could sign for Garmin he'd fit right in.
Haha having a good laughThe Hitch said:The negotiations did happen, and JV said he believes Contador is clean because his tests were really really good.
Don't say JV doesn't learn from his mistakes though. His method for telling whether or not Froome is clean is far better thought out and more substantial.
He has seen that Froomies test results are really really good.
Master50 said:I have always assumed that while I don't arrive at the same conclusion in this discussion that we are all here for the same purpose.
I will state mine:
To make cycling a better sport and that all results are achieved fairly and according to all of the rules. I think that doping is cheating and as I have also made clear I believe that for a penalty to be fair it must be applied with due process.
Not forgetting:Justinr said:On the record for me:
1. I have followed cycling / TdF since the early 80s and the names of Millar, Roche, Hinault, Fignon, etc.
2. I’m surprised Armstrong used PEDs after his cancer because of the health risk, but not surprised (and even suspected) that he used transfusions. We don’t know the whole story here – I believe he used new / unreleased drugs and was indeed a few years ahead of the game. I’m hoping Bruyneel can be persuaded to cough it all up.
3. I get annoyed when people try to lay all the blame @ USPS’s feet – they wouldn’t have been the only team with a sophisticated doping program, although possibly theirs was the most extensive in terms of number of riders involved.
4. I’m willing to give Cookson a go as I believe McQuaid was bad news – I didn’t like the way he tried to change the UCI election rules for his own end.
5. I believe Berty has been a long term doper (Puerto, dodgy beef and plasticisers) but don’t think he was that juiced (if at all) in last year’s tour as he looked toasted in the mountains.
6. I believe blood doping is a lot less prevalent nowadays due to improved testing for EPO / transfusions / plasticisers and also longitudinal testing.
7. I believe SKY are clean – Brailsford and Ellingworth have been long time well know and vehement anti dopers. The fact that their PR often isn’t slick is ok with me – if it all agreed to the letter there would be many on here who would claim it was too perfect.
8. I believe Garmin is clean and trust Vaughters. I’m not bothered that there have been ex-USPS riders involved since many of these were happy to escape the Armstrong / Bruyneel vice and lead a more normal life.
9. The presence of Bjarne Riis and Oleg Tinkov in owning / running a team is very bad for cycling.
10. I have no idea who Dr Maserati is / was but the name makes me laugh.
Justinr said:I happen to believe what i believe (and i have said this a number of times) because of what Brailsford and co did with track cycling.
Merckx index said:Explain how the data would look for there to be nothing suspect. If he had power/weight values comparable to what Grappe claims they are for post-2011, how would you explain his much poorer performances? Are you aware that we have already compared his ITT times pre- and post 2011 Vuelta, and found an indication of a 15% increase in power? How does someone with Froome’s current power ride ITTs so poorly? Do you think better bike handling, not wobbling around so much, can produce a 15% increase in power? Without so much as a visit to a wind tunnel? Seriously?
OTOH, if his power values were consistent with his poorer performance, how would he explain the large increase over a period of a few months in 2011? Michele, who never answered some pertinent questions put to her when she was on the forum recently, implied that it might have resulted from weight loss, but there are no data supporting that claim, either. It’s pure speculation. And even if there were data, they wouldn’t explain a 15% increase in power/surface area. He would have to lose more than 30% of his body weight to accomplish that.
She also didn’t seem aware that Grappe never measured Froome’s V02max; he estimated it, based on assumptions that may or may not be correct. Grappe thinks it’s over 85, and that it might be over 90. How in the world can someone with a V02max that high show so little promise for so long? How many Tom Danielsons are there, who never proved to be quite elite as GT contenders, but who set all kinds of hill climbing records in situations where tactics, bike handling skills and the ability to conserve energy over a three week race did not come into play? And yet a guy with a V02max that might be off the charts is never noticed?
You know the most disappointing part of this entire coverup? Not that they won’t measure and publish his V02max; not that they won’t publish his power values pre-2011; not that they won’t publish his weight during these time periods. It’s that they won’t even admit that there is a problem to address. If Froome is really clean, they should be publishing all the data they can, shouting from the rooftops that a huge increase in performance is possible without doping.
Walsh wants to write a book? How about a detailed description of how such a transformation was made? That would be one of the most inspirational sports science stories of all time, if it could be documented in terms of a detailed analysis of all the relevant parameters. There has to be an explanation for Froome's big jump in performance, and any real trainer or doctor associated with the team would want to know more than anything else in the world how it happened. Maybe it really happened clean, but how will we ever know if they make no effort whatsoever to find out, apparently not even privately, among themselves. That says volumes about what they believe is the answer.