-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Alex Simmons/RST said:
Thanks Alex, very interesting. The '04 TT times were brought back into the fold with the top 5 averages as opposed to armstrong's individual time flying high above the rest. Mig looks like a clown. What was the sentiment of the fans during the Mig/Riis/Ullrich/Pantani winning years? Those look like very funny times to be living in!
Edit: I did not mean armstrong's time being better than the rest, meant to refer to the "frequency of top 200 times by year" chart that Alex had posted up thread.
So basically the book says Epo came to cycling in early 90es and speeds got alot higher. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh what great news. never heared of that before.
You're right, my bad. Still only one and a halve minute faster than Herrera. That would bring LeMonds best time out of the top 200jens_attacks said:
The ones that died say hello to you.
webvan said:
Not that it makes a difference, but these 3 riders won a lot of world level events as juniors, in a 'cleaner' time and had a lot of success as neo-pros. There is no doubt that they had winning wattages early on contrary to the manufactured performances as of the mid nineties.
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Lol, Armstrong's 2001 time is good enough for 6th.
Next best times from 01 are beyond 50. Gives you an hint how much Armstrong was over the top and ahead in terms of doping.
jens_attacks said:
In fact i taped that AdH 91 stage (VHS), I might look at it again sometime, hoping the tape didn't shrink
jens_attacks said:
Yes, when I did my analysis in my 2010 blog post I did not include the quoted Pantani times because the timing points used before 2001 were not the same and there seemed to be variances in times quoted as well.
The charts I posted here are simply based on that Finnish forum list, and I again made the point about not knowing how the times were verified or if they are actually measuring the same thing.
Updating charts is trivial, but it seems obtaining correct information is not.
If people are able to supply validated times that use the same timing points then charting is the easy bit.
Bavarianrider said:
I think the relevant part is the more recent past, after everyone stopped doping in 2006. Somehow they kept the speeds up!
Big Doopie
BANNED
red_flanders said:
But according to all the graphs, the speeds have actually gone done in the last few years.
Perhaps a little after 2006
but, they have gone down. I don't see it all black and white. Sure, still plenty of doping going on, but all the evidence points to a "limited" state of doping. Why that is can be debated.Of course the last time there was a dip, a certain sociopath took advantage of it.
ozerulz said:
Here
http://www.joomag.com/magazine/alternativ-editions-not-normal/0269766001370594539
I found it pretty interesting.
Race Radio said:
So it seems Vino was clean (in terms of blood doping) in the years 2000 and 2001. A further indication that Telekom as a whole was not on the juice in those 2 years.
Also it seems as Basso totally stopped doping after the second Giro win.
Or he just got worse (whilst still doping) to level that can be achieved clean.Bavarianrider said:
Come on, the one thing the clinic has taught me is that once they start, they never stop. Also everyone is doping all the time, all except Saint Lemond
It always puzzled me that toward the ends of their careers both Indurain and Chiapucci appeared to have put on enormous muscle mass on their legs to earlier in their careers. At the time I assumed this was from years of mashing massive gears but knowing what we know in 2013 I wonder if it was something else. Have a look at the Indurain of 1990 at Luz Ardiden and compare it with the Indurain of Atlanta in 1996 - the leg muscles (particularly thighs) are enormous. They almost looked too big to climb comfortably towards the ends of their careers, did all that bulk prove to much to carry up mountains?
I was also going to point out that the bulk of the cycling press have not picked up on Vayers piece even a few days later.
I was also going to point out that the bulk of the cycling press have not picked up on Vayers piece even a few days later.
Merckx index said:
I mostly agree with you, but comparing times from the '80s to present days is problematic. How much did that steel Gitane that Lemond rode in '84 weigh vs. a modern racing bike. Take the Lemond of '86 and give him a bike that is probably at least three pounds lighter and he's going to go faster. Not to mention light, but aerodynamic carbon wheels that not only will be faster on the climb but save energy throughout the stage for that final climb.
Yeah, no doubt there was a lot of bad stuff going on in the '90's and 2000's, but there are so many variables.
Also, two of Lemond's Alpe d'Huez climbs were less than he was capable of. The tourist ride with Hinault in '86 and in '89 where he bonked and lost time. No, I don't think he was on EPO, but that is an example that I know of that skewed his times and therefore calculated power downwards.
Similarly Armstrong on Alpe d'Huez in '99 rode only in defense and had a slower time than he was capable of.
And Indurain. Ride a ripping TT (not judged by this work) and then defense on the climbs. This probably rated him lower than he might have otherwise without the big TT cushion.
I think that the general gist of what the article/book says is correct, but the "math" seems so fraught with peril.
Where did Lemond's climb of Luz Ardiden in '89 rate him compared to his other climbs? I would imagine it was one of his highest for tactical reasons. He rode pretty much the whole thing full gas to take time on Chiapucci whereas other climbs may have been tactical for a significant portion.
For those of you with poor reading comprehension I will spell it out just to be safe. IMO:
No, Greg wasn't on EPO.
Yes, Lance was.
Many others were also.
martinvickers
BANNED
Fatclimber said:
Is 99 not basically, much of the field held back the first year after Festina, but Lance didn't - hence the 5 rider average is down to 'near normal' - then the field stopped panicking and joined in again?
martinvickers
BANNED
red_flanders said:
2006? As in Year Landis? I always thought it was supposed to be AFTER 2006, rather than IN 2006 that a change was supposed to have started?
I know it's splitting hairs, of course...
martinvickers said:
Landis was clean. He wasnt doing more than 6.0w/kg and everyone had stopped doping after Fuentes.
Speaking of mutants, just wondering out loud when Miguel Indurain is going to be exposed.
I know a few years ago Thomas Davy made mention of systematic doping on Banesto, but I believe he later retracted his original statements and the whole controversy went nowhere.
He is the last of the great riders from the EPO era that need to be stripped of his Teflon veneer.
I know a few years ago Thomas Davy made mention of systematic doping on Banesto, but I believe he later retracted his original statements and the whole controversy went nowhere.
He is the last of the great riders from the EPO era that need to be stripped of his Teflon veneer.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 985
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
77th Tour de Romandie (2.UWT) // 23rd - 28th of April 2024- Started by Logic-is-your-friend
- Replies: 746
-
Florian Lipowitz is the new German GC hope discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 26
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram