Point being?Indurain said:With a 40% increase in power, Moncoutie would probably be as good as Armstrong at his peak. Remember also that most of the elite pro's who are sprinters probably climb faster than Elite Cat 1 climbers. You just become better at what you're naturally good at. 40% increase in power doesn't mean 40% increase in speed or time.
The fact that Moncoutie could be so much better (as good as the best Armstrong) with doping indicates that doping is not wide spread, as no-one is as good as Armstrong in his prime (simply by comparing time and even wattages even though stages are easier now).
And indeed, sprinters in the Tour may be quicker on the mountains than Elite 1 climbers. It would be interesting to compare times from mountain time trials though to prove it. But then again, I don't think that's weird. Look at Vitaly Petrov in Formula 1, he did a good job last weekend even though he is generally regarded as a poor rider, and I am sure there are loads of talents in Formula 3, 3000 or whatever that are better than him. But just because he has been riding for a year he was able to stay in front of Alonso. Just because sprinters are professionally training and riding on the highest level they will be reasonable climbers, because in essence climbing a mountain on a bike is still cycling.