ergmonkey said:Yeah, pretty much just looks like a guy cruising down to the bakery on a city bike to pick up some bread:
[/IMG]
your point being
ergmonkey said:Yeah, pretty much just looks like a guy cruising down to the bakery on a city bike to pick up some bread:
[/IMG]
roundabout said:your point being![]()
Magnus said:ergmonkey was probably adressing hog's statement that
"Riis should have least pretended to be trying!"
Benotti69 said:Lemond's quotation might be appropriate to plagiarise here;
“(Training) doesn't get easier; you just get faster”
So to apply that to racing with EPO
"Racing on EPO doesn't get easier you just go much much much much faster"![]()
roundabout said:Uh, the only one who is spinning here is you with your assertion that gaps of 50 seconds or more are not rare.
If you want spin, here it is.
Di Luca gained 43 seconds and had abnormal test readings in the same Giro.
Contador who is dodgy enough as it is had the Mexican Chicken with him in 2007.
Ricco was very much likely to be doping in 2008 even in the Giro.
Cobo* and Sastre put 2 minutes plus on the field going almost from the bottom of legitimate HC climbs with Cobo having Piepoli with him to share the work and Sastre not being really chased (on that climb, riders were really attacking each other, unlike your spin on what happened yesterday)
In 2008 Vuelta the biggest gap was on the Angliru and I certainly didn't see any ramps like that yesterday.
Pellizotti the rider currently banned as you may remember had the biggest margin in 2009 Giro.
We had a thread or two about Contador's Verbier ride.
2010 Andy Schleck who is considered to be a doper pulled out that gap on a HC climb going with 10 or 9 to go.
No sir, nothing peculiar about Contador getting 50 seconds yesterday. Many people who pulled out such gaps haven't tested positive later. Never.
Spin away.
Edit: btw, the official climb profile has 344 meters of elevation gain for the final 7km. 345 for the final 6. That's less than 6%.
ergmonkey said:I'm inclined to agree 100%
If anything, you always hear about EPO being most effective for recovering quickly between intense efforts and for recovering from hard days of training and racing. The EPO allowed riders to do intense interval sessions more frequently and to attack more often.
It was definitely cheating, but it definitely wasn't easy. The riders suffered and they did so very, very often.
Benotti69 said:EPO gave more than recovery.
bhilden said:I have worked on this sort of calculation with Dr. Allen Lim and I would say that Escabarajo's number's look pretty close to me. Lance was in the 450 watts range when he was in full flight. Contador weighs significantly less which makes something around 420 watts about right.
I have worked with meaning what? as equals? working on a published paper together?Or as his grad student when doing your PhD.bhilden said:I have worked on this sort of calculation with Dr. Allen Lim ............
I have to say it again. These Ferrari's numbers aren't correct. For example, Contador's time can't be 6:28. It's almost certainly ~7:10.IzzyStradlin said:The good doctor's take:
http://53x12.com/do/show?page=indepth.view&id=117
"It took 6 minutes 28 seconds for Alberto Contador to ride between km 6 and km 3 to the finish line, at the average speed of 28.1 km/h.
The VAM = 1821m/h on the average gradient of 6.5% required an average power output of 6.87 w/kg, equal to 426 watts assuming a body weight of 62 kg.
The ascent was affected by strong winds, therefore the expressed power was probably even higher, although it is quite difficult to quantify......"
ergmonkey said:Absolutely. All that I had in mind was the fact that when people talk about EPO they usually talk about increasing oxygen carrying capacity and thus increasing the ability to sustain high-intensity efforts. This is, of course, a massive advantage from EPO.
In addition to this, though, you don't tend to hear quite as much talk about EPO and recovery. But, when you do hear the anecdotes, they can be pretty striking. Guys were doing a lot of interval training to prep for the Ardennes Classics, in particular. A quantity and frequency of suffering that just wouldn't be feasible (or, wouldn't be feasible and productive, at least) without some major recovery benefits.