Any time there's a peloton of riders, tactics matter.MartinGT said:Whenever I speak with people about Sky doping or, doping in the peloton, all I hear is "aye, but climbing speeds are down"
So climbing speeds are down on the big climbs, therefore its clean. Surly its not THAT clear cut!
And how did the courses compare? What were the tactics on each stage, the wind. There are a whole factor of things.SundayRider said:This is what Bernhard Kohl had to say about the general speed of racing in the Tour, a couple of years ago.
"While Kohl wouldn't directly speculate on whether Alberto Contador had used doping products or methods, he noted that the average speeds ridden at the Tour might cause one to think so.
"Floyd Landis won the Tour de France and his average speed was 40 kph," Kohl said. "This year it was Contador and it was also about 40. It was nearly the same average speed. Landis was doped. Maybe in 10 or 15 years, you can win (without drugs) if we work with the anti-doping movement."
Guess what speed BWs win was?
Yes, and most likely they were. Yes course/wind/tactics play a part but remember the race is over 3 whole weeks in the same month each year - so over statistically speaking over a number of years, patterns emerge.Don't be late Pedro said:And how did the courses compare? What were the tactics on each stage, the wind. There are a whole factor of things.
You already posted a list of overall speeds for tours and from reading that it implies people were doping more in the early 80s then in the early 90s for some years.
Of course patterns emerge. Whether you can read anything into them is another matter entirely.SundayRider said:Yes, and most likely they were. Yes course/wind/tactics play a part but remember the race is over 3 whole weeks in the same month each year - so over statistically speaking over a number of years, patterns emerge.
I guess BW's was 35.2 KphSundayRider said:This is what Bernhard Kohl had to say about the general speed of racing in the Tour, a couple of years ago.
"While Kohl wouldn't directly speculate on whether Alberto Contador had used doping products or methods, he noted that the average speeds ridden at the Tour might cause one to think so.
"Floyd Landis won the Tour de France and his average speed was 40 kph," Kohl said. "This year it was Contador and it was also about 40. It was nearly the same average speed. Landis was doped. Maybe in 10 or 15 years, you can win (without drugs) if we work with the anti-doping movement."
Guess what speed BWs win was?
Thank you, that is what I wanted to know.SundayRider said:I think your being sarcastic? But it was 39.83Kph.
That speed which is incidentally, faster than Riis's 96 tour win, Ullrich's 97 win and couple of LA's 'wins'.Mad Elephant Man said:Thank you, that is what I wanted to know.
who knows? There is obviously pressure from TV companies to get the front end of the race finished in a certain amount of time/at a certain time.Don't be late Pedro said:So what is considered a 'clean' average speed?
I think they are doping now just at about 60-70% of the level that they were when it was at its 'peak'.del1962 said:FWIW
2011 39.79
2010 39.6
2009 40.31
2008 40.5
2007 39.23
2006 40.89
2005 41.65
2004 41.02
2003 40.03
2002 39.98
2001 40.01
2000 39.55
But you really need to take into account hardness of stages, how they were raced, weather etc.
Think what you like, just don't put it across as some truth,SundayRider said:I think they are doping now just at about 60-70% of the level that they were when it was at its 'peak'.
the sky thread is more than justified. this one is a hard sell. tough to draw conclusions when the speed depends on tactics and many riders wanting to race or not.ebandit said:just like the sky thread.................where nothing can be proven from
Don't know where you got that data from but its a little different to the data I had.del1962 said:Think what you like, just don't put it across as some truth,
More Data that tells us little
2012 39.9
2011 39.79
2010 39.6
2009 40.31
2008 40.5
2007 39.23
2006 40.89
2005 41.65
2004 41.02
2003 40.03
2002 39.98
2001 40.01
2000 39.55
1999 40.28
1998 41.76
1997 39.19
1996 40.7
1995 39.5
1994 37.83
1993 38.71
1992 39.5
1991 38.75
1990 38.6
1989 37.48
1988 38.9
1987 36.65
1986 37
1985 36.23
1984 34.9
1983 35.9
The op has started a legitimate and interesting discussion about climbing speeds. The only link to sky was the perfectly valid comment that sky point to lower speeds meaning cleanliness.ebandit said:this is great...........perfect clinic material
just like the sky thread.................where nothing can be proven from
available data............the debate can go on..............and on
SundayRider said:That speed which is incidentally, faster than Riis's 96 tour win, Ullrich's 97 win and couple of LA's 'wins'.
This thread can't proove anything, the data came from wiki, however some may be wrong, I noted that for 1972 wiki gave two values, one slightly above 38kph while on th say page it says slightly below 37, but it is data that is sufficient for the clinic.SundayRider said:Don't know where you got that data from but its a little different to the data I had.
Whilst this thread can't prove that cycling is cleaner now than it was then, it can prove that cycling is just as FAST as it was when doping was apparently much more widespread.
One has to take things with a pinch of salt, for the reasons you state, but there's not a huge variation from one year to the next in tactics, weather, route etc. So when one can observe with one's own stopwatch that the ascent of Alpe D'Huez in 2011 took the top guys 3-4 minutes longer (*), when they were racing seriously (**) than during the EPO years, one would be unwise to ignore the information.MartinGT said:So when someone says "Climbing speeds are lower" it means nothing due to the tactics, weather, what par cours, where the climbs are etc.