Climbing Speeds

[ferryman]

I can't speak for the 'guys' as I only pop in here now and then but I will address your point about Wiggins and will add in Sky in general.

I wouldn't single out just Wiggins. Wigan, Froome, Porte and Rogers were all dodgy as fck last year. The focus should be on whoever is winning the big races and turning them into a farce.

Agreed. Erm, who won all the big races that he entered last year

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Agreed. Erm, who won all the big races that he entered last year

I'll take "Bradley Wiggins" for $2M please.

 

[ferryman]

I know a cheap shot last post by me, but let's try and keep this thread free from personal stuff guys.

 

[acoggan]

I'm confused how a PhD and years experience make things any clearer.

That's okay, I'm confused what point you were attempting to make by pasting different comments offered by different people in different contexts together.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I can't speak for the 'guys' as I only pop in here now and then but I will address your point about Wiggins and will add in Sky in general.

I wouldn't single out just Wiggins. Wigan, Froome, Porte and Rogers were all dodgy as fck last year. The focus should be on whoever is winning the big races and turning them into a farce.

This is one of the the great tragedies of doping and it is the single biggest fallacy of this forum which is dominated by the "if you're winning you MUST be a doper" mentality. By all means, focus on the winner, but if you're going to do so, then be realistic, and use real evidence, not errors of fact stemming from ignorance and lack of education, and worse still not made up lies. Some stuff is just complete and utter BS.

Times are changing but various people in this place refuse to accept it because they are obsessed with everyone being dopers. In Armstrong's day you could not have won the tour clean, but in the last 2yrs there has been no single effort anywhere on any climb or ITT that would be considered physiologically impossible by world leading experts. Yet the keyboard cowboys in this place like dear wiggo, benotti69, brodeal, the hitch, and thehog all think they know better than those world leading experts and they post the same sh!t over and over everyday. It's sad and pathetic really.

 

[Ferminal]

What's to stop a super talented clean athlete beating Armstrong in say, 2002?

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

What's to stop a super talented clean athlete beating Armstrong in say, 2002?

You mean someone who is more talented than any established GT rider, past or present? Uhhh... it's theoretically possible, I guess.

 

[Ferminal]

You mean someone who is more talented than any established GT rider, past or present? Uhhh... it's theoretically possible, I guess.

Well it seems he was inside the "physiologically possible" range, so why not? But if that athlete is only going to come around every 50 years maybe in real terms that barrier is meaningless.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

Well it seems he was inside the "physiologically possible" range, so why not?

On any given stage, probably so. But I'm not sure how that would translate to a 3-week GT.

 

[mac220]

Before I post my thoughts I'll set out my position. I don't have any formal study of exercise physiology, I've read a number of books on the subject, so am no expert just interested in the topic of this thread

I know this is completely unscientific, I watched some of the Vuelta last year on one of the mountain stages Contador and I think Rodriguez rode away from the leading group in very much the same way as Contador and the chicken did in 2007, there was no response what so ever and they both looked like they were sat on the back on a Sunday ride to Mrs Miggins Pie shop somewhere in the Cotswolds. It seemed to me at the time that none of the other riders were able to up the pace to go with them, it wasn't a super aggressive attack, the pace went up and off they went. I can't remember which stage it was but I just remember thinking at the time, wow thats interesting......

My immediate reaction was they must be on something, it just didn't seem believable.

I would be very interested to hear the thoughts of others who have much more knowledge than I do about the power data from the vuelta last year and see how that stacked up compared to the TDF last year and whether the performances were suspect or not

 

[rata de sentina]

What's to stop a super talented clean athlete beating Armstrong in say, 2002?

Too much bratwurst in the off season.

 

[Ferminal]

Before I post my thoughts I'll set out my position. I don't have any formal study of exercise physiology, I've read a number of books on the subject, so am no expert just interested in the topic of this thread

I know this is completely unscientific, I watched some of the Vuelta last year on one of the mountain stages Contador and I think Rodriguez rode away from the leading group in very much the same way as Contador and the chicken did in 2007, there was no response what so ever and they both looked like they were sat on the back on a Sunday ride to Mrs Miggins Pie shop somewhere in the Cotswolds. It seemed to me at the time that none of the other riders were able to up the pace to go with them, it wasn't a super aggressive attack, the pace went up and off they went. I can't remember which stage it was but I just remember thinking at the time, wow thats interesting......

My immediate reaction was they must be on something, it just didn't seem believable.

I would be very interested to hear the thoughts of others who have much more knowledge than I do about the power data from the vuelta last year and see how that stacked up compared to the TDF last year and whether the performances were suspect or not

The data suggests things were quite "normal", nothing unusual compared to other GTs 2011/2012.

We should be careful reading into how things look. The Vuelta top10 thinned out pretty quickly so it's not a big surprise that two of the best climbers in the world found themselves alone as soon as they went for it. Contador was also trying very hard to get time on Rodriguez so had his team setting good tempo before he launched his attacks. That someone is or isn't able to attack isn't really an indicator either - Contador's natural style is to accelerate out of the saddle, settle into a rhythm, and go again.

In the Giro where on most climbs the GC guys were riding together for long periods. On what should have been a decisive climb they were happy to let Basso set the pace (who wasn't in the top3 climbers). That potentially explains why those Giro climbs were slower than expected. You could also argue that the Giro field had better depth so more top guys staying together but the best wasn't as good (Rodriguez who looked better in the Vuelta, and no Contador).

The Tour was probably somewhere in between where some occasions Sky were putting others into serious trouble but other times Froome was protecting Wiggins by slowing it down.

All in all it's very hard to compare.

 

[airstream]

Explain to me someone why Contador, Nibali or any other are legit dopers whereas Wiggins and Froome are outlaw dopers? For me they all deserve the same attidute in this regard. However, almost everyone sling mud at sky.

 

[happychappy]

Explain to me someone why Contador, Nibali or any other are legit dopers whereas Wiggins and Froome are outlaw dopers? For me they all deserve the same attidute in this regard. However, almost everyone sling mud at sky.

That's called rabid cyclingnews forum logic.

 

[theyoungest]

Interesting comments by Steven Kruijswijk in Wielerrevue: he says he rode the same Watts in Tirreno last year, as in the Tour de Suisse 2011. In the Tour de Suisse 2011 he got third and won a stage, in Tirreno 2012 he finished 21st. He says he'd rather doubt himself than the riders around him, but...

Laurens ten Dam said he had reasonable form in Paris-Nice, and rode the uphill TT full gas. He got 38th. Out of frustration he then did a week of training 5-6 hours a day.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Explain to me someone why Contador, Nibali or any other are legit dopers whereas Wiggins and Froome are outlaw dopers? For me they all deserve the same attidute in this regard. However, almost everyone sling mud at sky.

How about: 4 bank robbers all approached the same bank to rob it, 2 individuals and a pair. Only the pair came away with anything.

This happened all year.

Which bank robbers do you think would be discussed the most? The ones that tried and failed to rob the banks?

Or the ones that tried and succeeded.

You are basically asking, why are the unsuccessful bank robbers not discussed as much as the successful ones.

Answer: because they failed.

Now imagine one bank robber succeeded where the pair and everyone else failed.

And when someone said, "Hey! He's robbed that bank", noone disagreed.

Now imagine half the forum disagreed that the pair robbed all the other banks.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

How about: 4 bank robbers all approached the same bank to rob it, 2 individuals and a pair. Only the pair came away with anything.

This happened all year.

Until one of the solo bankrobbers - Let's call him "The Pistol Kid" - was released from jail and became free to start robbing banks again.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

How about: 4 bank robbers all approached the same bank to rob it, 2 individuals and a pair. Only the pair came away with anything.

This happened all year.

Which bank robbers do you think would be discussed the most? The ones that tried and failed to rob the banks?

Or the ones that tried and succeeded.

You are basically asking, why are the unsuccessful bank robbers not discussed as much as the successful ones.

Answer: because they failed.

Now imagine one bank robber succeeded where the pair and everyone else failed.

And when someone said, "Hey! He's robbed that bank", noone disagreed.

Now imagine half the forum disagreed that the pair robbed all the other banks.

Now imagine one person was caught robbing the bank. Hence, less people would argue about him attempting to rob it again.

Whereas many people think that the pair robbed the bank but there is no definitive proof albeit circumstantial evidence.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Until one of the solo bankrobbers - Let's call him "The Pistol Kid" - was released from jail and became free to start robbing banks again.

Your post is 6 miuntes after the edit. Read it again, mmk?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Your post is 6 miuntes after the edit. Read it again, mmk?

My post stands as it is. You said that only the pair were successful all season.

They key point is that a very successful bankrobber from previous years was unavailable until around August, due to ongoing difficulties with the law enforcement agencies. When he was freed from these, he took up his pistols again and was soon back into his stride, loading his saddlebags with Spanish gold and galloping off into the sunset.

 

[Mr.38%]

Interesting comments by Steven Kruijswijk in Wielerrevue: he says he rode the same Watts in Tirreno last year, as in the Tour de Suisse 2011. In the Tour de Suisse 2011 he got third and won a stage, in Tirreno 2012 he finished 21st. He says he'd rather doubt himself than the riders around him, but...

Laurens ten Dam said he had reasonable form in Paris-Nice, and rode the uphill TT full gas. He got 38th. Out of frustration he then did a week of training 5-6 hours a day.

Advice to ten Dam: Train before the race like all the others.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

My post stands as it is. You said that only the pair were successful all season.

They key point is that a very successful bankrobber from previous years was unavailable until around August, due to ongoing difficulties with the law enforcement agencies. When he was freed from these, he took up his pistols again and was soon back into his stride, loading his saddlebags with Spanish gold and galloping off into the sunset.

That's right. And my analogy, answering the questions, "Why are only Sky talked about" also stands - because noone disagrees when the cry, "He's a bank robber!!!" is made about el Pistolero.

Only the dastardly duo or the Tenerife Trio or whatever we call them get accused and defended ad infinitum.

That's why Sky are the ones talked about the most.


Oh, and also coz Sky reckon they are squeaky as a mouse clean. And so does David Millar. And JV.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Let's not derail this one in another SKY thread, let's talk climbing speeds in general. For that matter, also the TT speeds/wattages.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

That's right. And my analogy, answering the questions, "Why are only Sky talked about" also stands - because noone disagrees when the cry, "He's a bank robber!!!" is made about el Pistolero.

Only the dastardly duo or the Tenerife Trio or whatever we call them get accused and defended ad infinitum.

That's why Sky are the ones talked about the most.


Oh, and also coz Sky reckon they are squeaky as a mouse clean. And so does David Millar. And JV.

OK. I see where you're coming from. I wasn't actually commenting on anything to do with Sky being talked about; I was commenting on you somewhat misleading claim that only "the pair" had been successful all season, whereas per races ridden, Berto had an exceptionally successful season. Unbelievably so, one might say!

 

[JimmyFingers]

That's right. And my analogy, answering the questions, "Why are only Sky talked about" also stands - because noone disagrees when the cry, "He's a bank robber!!!" is made about el Pistolero.

Only the dastardly duo or the Tenerife Trio or whatever we call them get accused and defended ad infinitum.

That's why Sky are the ones talked about the most.


Oh, and also coz Sky reckon they are squeaky as a mouse clean. And so does David Millar. And JV.

And the board is mainly Australian