Fearless Greg Lemond said: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.
This +10000000000
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!
Fearless Greg Lemond said: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.
Dear Wiggo said:Except your graph jumps from a track-based 4 minute effort to ... a 2009 effort. Where the people who think he's a doper often believe he started doping.
Dear Wiggo said:AS for your "facts" - it's not what Ed was saying, if you want to be honest. Of course someone who has never ridden a bike can improve their efficiency. "Efficiency is trainable".
Ed was claiming an elite level cyclist with years of training and racing at the elite / pro level, continued to improve his efficiency, based on really dodgy data.
theyoungest said: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...
.
Krebs cycle said: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.
Krebs cycle said: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.
sittingbison said:An example being acoggan STILL misses the wood from the trees with Coyles article, simple fact being every single test Coyle ever did was on a doper juiced to the gills but presuming him to be a clean athlete so the entire experiment and all the data and conjectures and hypthoesis were BS.
sittingbison said:The ONLY times and performances we can place ANY reliance on as being "clean" are 1989 preEPO wnen Badger Lemonf and Professor were duking it out.
acoggan said:A little background reading for you (note that these are just Coyle's own articles leading up to his case study of Armstrong; there are numerous others that also provide important information and context):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1501563
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1521959
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8005729
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10668757
acoggan said:Didn't Fignon admit to doping before his death?
The FDA approved EPO on 1-June-1989 and by the end of thesittingbison said:The ONLY times and performances we can place ANY reliance on as being "clean" are 1989 preEPO
Mr.38% said:Advice to ten Dam: Train before the race like all the others.
It would be a waste of my time pointing out every bogus statement in this post so I will just focus on this particular piece of logic.sittingbison said:Why should any of us believe what a "sports scientist" has to say when the entire profession is completely discredited and mired in corruption. Every time we switch on the telly and watch a footy, rugby, soccer, tennis, baseball, gridiron bla bla bla game its more than even money (and we cant even believe them odds with crooked betting and match fixing by organised criminals thrown in) we are watching a charade of dopers.
lol the 1980s... a time when steroid use was rampant in the peloton. You really are the most gullible kid in the playground.Originally Posted by sittingbison
The ONLY times and performances we can place ANY reliance on as being "clean" are 1989 preEPO
THE ROLE OF SPORTS SCIENTISTS, COACHES AND OTHER FACILITATORS
Some coaches, sports scientists and support staff of elite athletes have orchestrated and/ or condoned the use of prohibited substances and/or methods of administration. Sports scientists are now influential in professional sport in Australia, with some of these individuals prepared to administer substances to elite athletes which are untested or not yet approved for human use. In many Australian sporting codes, sports scientists have gained increasing influence over decision making within the clubs. Some sports scientists and doctors are experimenting on professional sportspersons in an effort to determine if particular substances can improve performance without being detected. Complicit medical practitioners are a key conduit through which peptides and hormones are being supplied to athletes and other individuals on prescription. In some cases, medical practitioners who are prescribing peptides, hormones and other PIEDs are engaging in lax, fraudulent and unethical prescribing practices, such as prescribing controlled drugs in false names.
Krebs cycle said:lol the 1980s... a time when steroid use was rampant in the peloton. You really are the most gullible kid in the playground.
It seems it is in the Holy Bible of physiology to dodge questions with a question or making childish insults.acoggan said:Didn't Fignon admit to doping before his death?
sittingbison said:acoggan, are you ever going to admit that the entirety of Coyles data on Lance is totally corrupted by the test subject being juiced to the gills the whole time? For the love of god give it up man.
Fearless Greg Lemond said:It seems it is in the Holy Bible of physiology to dodge questions with a question or making childish insults.
Specially the steroids remark is so good! Since you guys have been dragging and dragging on about aerobic versus anaerobic. What are steroids used for?
No sir, that is another looping whole in your theories.
You just do not know what is humanly possible, do you? A lot of assumptions, dodgy data.
Tell Sell Science.
Good, now we have established a clear waypoint, let's go back at the questions of sitting bison.acoggan said:Why are you conflating my remarks with Kreb cycle's??
EDIT: Your complete lack of logic of doing so is illustrated by the fact that he and I couldn't be further apart on what is "physiologically possible" with respect to human power output (and hence the topic of this thread).
Do you feel the same on this? OR is there just now way of knowing what is accomplishable clean? Is there a reliable database?The ONLY times and performances we can place ANY reliance on as being "clean" are 1989 preEPO wnen Badger Lemonf and Professor were duking it out. If domestique level riders are kkilling these performance levels then we have a problem...which we most certainly do.
Don't mind the names of the riders involved but do you feel the same on this or are you just looking at the numbers and say 'hey, this is possible numberwise'? Do exercise phsyologists analyze who is making the watts work? Put them into historic perspective?Dodger (and Porte) scything down all opposition in the Pyrenees, Wiggo belting the opposition in the ITTs on the Tour and the Olympics, the insane mountain stages of Bertie and JRod in the Veulta, Wiggo dominating the entire season from wo to go. These are not performances within the realms of "normal" performances, supposed "sports scientists" theories about what is physiologically possible are complete rubbish because every time they open their cakehole it gets revealed dopers are the root of the equation.
Fearless Greg Lemond said:Specially the steroids remark is so good! Since you guys have been dragging and dragging on about aerobic versus anaerobic. What are steroids used for?
No sir, that is another looping whole in your theories
Fearless Greg Lemond said:Do you feel the same on this? OR is there just now way of knowing what is accomplishable clean? Is there a reliable database?
Fearless Greg Lemond said:Don't mind the names of the riders involved but do you feel the same on this or are you just looking at the numbers and say 'hey, this is possible numberwise'? Do exercise phsyologists analyze who is making the watts work? Put them into historic perspective?
Course not, steroids are usefull as well for aerobic athletes. Built up of muscles, recuperation. But hell, bloodboosters are much more effective.oldcrank said:Surely you are not trying to say that steroids are of no benefit to
athletes competing in aerobic or largely aerobic sports? You
cannot really be saying that, or can you be?
Thats a bit vague. Have you never in your carreer as a athlete coach seen an athlete/cyclist improve that much in a short time that you thought 'hell, what is that guy doing'?acoggan said:I don't believe that you can determine whether or not someone is doping based on their performance.
What should we do in your view to make sure dopers have no chance in the future?I can't speak for others, but in my book analyzing climbing performances or even directly-measured power outputs is a waste of time (see above).
Fearless Greg Lemond said:Have you never in your carreer as a athlete coach seen an athlete/cyclist improve that much in a short time that you thought 'hell, what is that guy doing'?
Fearless Greg Lemond said:What is YOUR red flag when it comes to human possible performances? A genuine question.
Fearless Greg Lemond said:What should we do in your view to make sure dopers have no chance in the future?
I agree that steroids and blood-doping are highly effective,Fearless Greg Lemond said:Course not, steroids are usefull as well for aerobic athletes. Built up of muscles, recuperation. But hell, bloodboosters are much more effective.
Or do you not agree on that?
This is pretty much the crux of it. You know it, I know it, Rob Parisotto knows it, Michael Ashenden knows it, Chris Gore knows it, Chris Abbiss, Dave Martin and Marc Quod know it, Ross Tucker knows it, Olaf Schumacher knows it, various other Aussie ex phys uni lecturers with an interest in cycling know it, and I'm pretty damn sure Peter Keen and Tim Kerrison would too. But according to sittingbison, since NRL and AFL football codes have been involved in taking PEDs (is that really a surprise to anyone?), then if you watch cycling on TV apparently you are more qualified than all of the above wrt to cycling science and anti-doping and thus you CAN determine whether someone is doping by obsessing over actual performances which occurred in 2012.acoggan said:I'm not about to claim that I have any bright new ideas, but I will say that I don't think that there is really anything to be gained by obsessing over actual performances.