Cancellara

[Galic Ho]

Spartacus also probably saved too much for the last part. I think I remember him averaging 40+mph between time checks 3 and 4. Aerodynamic drag is not a conservative force... Gravity is.

40 miles per hour. Incredible. Thats approximately 64 km/h. Thats faster than women track sprinters in the pursuit. But a fair part of that was downhill. Explains how he made the gap up. Similar to what happened in the prologue. Cancellara tore chunks out of everyone in the last quarter of that as well.

The fact is Contador would have won that particular TT by an even greater margin if the wind hadn't turned around by the time the GC contenders took to the road later in the day. It wouldn't have made any difference to the overall, but Wiggins would probably have been second for the stage, and LA third or so.

That's why that performance did raise eyebrows. Still don't think AC could beat Cancellara over a short distance, no matter what he is on.

So Wiggins who was 6th @ 43 seconds back and Armstrong in 16th @ 1:30 back would have come second and third? Perhaps then if the wind (rumoured because I haven't heard this before nor had it confirmed) had distorted the last ten riders then Andy Schleck @ 1:45, Vande Velde @ 2:00 and Nibali 2:06 would almost believably be in or near the top 10 times as well. I don't think this was likely. The weather was by all accounts I've heard, was consistent enough for the times to be based on who had more power and energy, not drag coefficients perturbed by wind. Wiggins was just making excuses. But Wiggins did well given what blackcat mentioned about his time trialling record. Contadors win didn't surprise me. I knew he would be close to Cancellara. On a flatter longer course he'd have had no chance.

 

[blackcat]

At the end of the day they're all cheaters.

Lamenting who's the better rider (contador/cancellara/wiggins) is like asking who's the better singer: milli or vanilli?

touche

 

[Kazistuta]

On Wiggins, go and look at his tt history,

won a l'Avenir prologue, weak field
won a Dunkirk chrono in 2006 when he left the track behind for that year, another weak field.

Perhaps the weakest field of all is the pursuit.

Mcgee could never commit because he was paid on the road. Huizenga was a Dutch amateur that beat his time in Manchester last year. And Roulston pushed him, when he had had a cardiac ailment and just ridden domestic NZ for the last 3 years.

I mean, if you closely scrutinise his palmares, it is a myth that the guy is a phenomenal timetrialer.

Now Contador started tting in the pros, right from the start. His win at Poland rates above Wiggins' l'Avenir prologue, and above the Dunkirk win. Then Contador really started to show form.

It is an anglophone board, but these misconceptions prevail.

No doubt that Contador often mistakenly is considered a new-born time trialer, which he clearly isn't. But your part about Wiggins is just as wrong IMO. One should definitely rank Wiggins amongst the top time trialist of the world, though mostly in shorter terrains. You showed sought-out palmares, let's look at '07:
1st in Dunkirk (granted, medium field)
2nd in La Sarthe (competing with Klöden and Backstedt, approved)
1st in Dauphine (defeating Leipheimer, dope-Kash, Hincapie and Zabriskie, more than approved)
4th in TDF (Just after Cancellara, Levi & Big George, approved)

And that's just prologues, a win in Poitou-Charentes and a fourth place in TDF states the fact that Bradley's actually more than "kinda good"...

Oh yeah, and placing seventh in the WC as a 25-yo isn't all bad either....

My point is: You can conclude anything you want by pinpointing certain results, but the fact remains that Bradley Wiggins has had enough outstanding TT results to label him a TT expert. The same could be said about Contador, but aren't as he had a more prominent label: "top climber".

 

[blackcat]

No doubt that Contador often mistakenly is considered a new-born time trialer, which he clearly isn't. But your part about Wiggins is just as wrong IMO. One should definitely rank Wiggins amongst the top time trialist of the world, though mostly in shorter terrains. You showed sought-out palmares, let's look at '07:
1st in Dunkirk (granted, medium field)
2nd in La Sarthe (competing with Klöden and Backstedt, approved)
1st in Dauphine (defeating Leipheimer, dope-Kash, Hincapie and Zabriskie, more than approved)
4th in TDF (Just after Cancellara, Levi & Big George, approved)

And that's just prologues, a win in Poitou-Charentes and a fourth place in TDF states the fact that Bradley's actually more than "kinda good"...

Oh yeah, and placing seventh in the WC as a 25-yo isn't all bad either....

My point is: You can conclude anything you want by pinpointing certain results, but the fact remains that Bradley Wiggins has had enough outstanding TT results to label him a TT expert. The same could be said about Contador, but aren't as he had a more prominent label: "top climber".

since when is a prologue a timetrial. Cav has won a couple of prologues, lets think, Britain, Romandie, and Suisse?

Nope, I will stand by my thesis. A prologue cannot justify a core argument for a strong timetrialer. You need to try again.

 

[cyclingmad]

Great thread

Cancellara's performance was at 53km/h. Simply amazing. I guess it's too amazing for some.
Ole' Bertie Contador definetly knows, demands and get wht he wants if you know what i'm saying

This is a great thread because it shows just how easy it is to make someone look suspicious by slight distortions of information and opinion to make your favourite riders look good.
Firstly 48:30 by my calculations looks more like 50km/hr than 53km/hr calculator check. Is this an impossible performance? Well quite a few british riders can go close to 50 for a 25 mile TT so doesn't look suspicious to me.
Beating Cancellera who is so the guru. Well the fact that it is the last week in the race and after mountains says it all.
A bigger and older rider suffers more in the last week because of the calorie deficit created in riding especially through the mountains so muscle wear is greater. If you look at 2007 Cancellera was 13th in the last TT 2:55 down and 1:28 down on Evans. No-one ever dears to accuse Evans of doping. At one stage he was said to be proof clean riders could win. What a lot of crap that was. He just looked like crap when he rides nothing about whether anyone was clean or dirty
For a distance like Annecy neither Cancellera nor Contador are ideal weight. Cancellera is perfect for a Prologue where the extra mass helps but longer is not his thing the extra energy requirement of the weight outweighs the muscular advantage. Certainly Cognac to Angoleme in 2007 demonstrated this even further. 67-72Kg is about ideal for a TT around a 25 mile so both are about the same difference from ideal.
Now lets look at the last TT of 2007 again 55k (I can confirm it was a downwind point to point and was a significant wind) so the comparison to Indurain time is invalid. Now both Levi Leipheimer 63Kg and Cadel Evans 64Kg achieved a higher Watts per kg than Contador. Does that mean they were doping too?? Also beating Cancellera by a woping margin (2.55, 1.28) should we be suspicious?.
Contador is good at TTs and Mountains just like Evans, thats why he wins, he is just a little better at both. He has good recovery and is younger than Evans which makes a difference. Looking at prologue in London pan flat course few corners he beat Evans by 1 sec and was 15th. Cancellera totally destroyed him and everyone else with his superior physiology and freshness over 7.8Km.
Contador is better in prologues than longer TTs because even though he is small is endormorphic so more fast twitch fibre. Check out the quads on him quite impressive for a small guy. Also the stages he wins with massive accelerations and lots of top end power. He doesn't like long stages and his attacks typically are 15-20 mins at the top of a climb.
Albi and Angoleme in 2007 caught him out as did the Olympics. Annecy was shorter so he can hold on longer. His aero position more than anything is his advantage in a TT. I am sure looking at both him and Andy Schleck they put out the same Watts in a TT.
Paris Nice this year he showed his awesome prologue skills and clearly Wiggins who beat him by 12 secs in London prologue was more trained for climbing and was not in the same stage of prep as he was.
Is it possible that Wiggins can lose a lot in prologue and Time Trialling? Look at Michael Rogers untouchable in a TT 5 years ago and triple world champ. Concentrates on climbing and tours and has lost lots of TT as a result. Could it be that he was on the good juice for his TT wins? Well he was in the supposedly dodgy Telekom team back then and then again so was Evans?? Should that be grounds for suspicion?

Good thread Dimspace there is lots of evidence to show doping was out of control in the 90s and up to 2005. Lots of people got busted in 2006/7. We now have a very clean peloton it is time to start enjoying racing on an equal footing. Some people will still try and cheat it has always been like that but the advantage gained is not what it was in the past.

 

[sgreene]

Some things that give Cancellara an aura of credibility:

I think he choose a relatively small number of days each year when he will be in peak form and when he will put in his maximum effort. Since he specializes in TT and certain types of one day race, it is easy to pick these dates well in advance. When he puts in these mammoth efforts, he looks like he's hurting.

Next, he does have bad days. He even has bad time trials.

Thirdly, the time trial is a technical discipline. Even on days when he is not the strongest rider, he is by far the best at dosing his effort over the whole course.

My five year old son is a huge fan of Cancellara's. He doesn't understand much about cycling but even he cannot understand how Contador won that final TT in this year's TdF. Cancellara looked like a monstrously powerful athlete putting in a huge effort - Contador just doesn't look (to a five year old) that he can possibly go that fast.

So now I guess we can suspect someone of doping solely on their appearance? Well geez, I guess nobody who's kinda skinny or kinda small could EVER win a flat time trial, right? Thanks for clearing that up for me!

 

[cyclingmad]

wind in annecy

All the guys that went out last - the GC guys - were massively effected the head wind in the second part of the course. Wiggins lost so much time that his team initially said the timing system must be faulty. Contador also was well up for the first half but barely hung on during the second half. Armstrong too was doing reasonably well but lost lots of time on the second half. No doubt about it - the wind had changed around for that section of the course.

The wind wasn't that strong it was quite changeable temparature variable some showers on and off. The last guys went out over 2 hours after Cancellera and had no rain at all. The wind had changed over the whole course so the last guys were faster earlier in the course and slower later in the course. Wiggins got directions from Millar who's conditions were similar to Cancellera and downwind downhill in the last 15k so go all out and hold. This turned out to be the wrong strategy for the different conditions that Wiggins faced later in the day

 

[riobonito92]

So now I guess we can suspect someone of doping solely on their appearance? Well geez, I guess nobody who's kinda skinny or kinda small could EVER win a flat time trial, right? Thanks for clearing that up for me!

The original question posed was why do some riders get widely suspected of being dopers while others are widely viewed as being clean. I believe that many fans construct their own mental lists of probable dopers and probable non-dopers. In the absence of direct first-hand knowledge and in an environment where no public statements by riders, managers or officials can be taken at face value, judgment by appearances, nationalistic prejudice and stray bits of gossip and sheer fantasy from forums like this are the evidence most fans probably use.

How else is the casual fan supposed to do it?