File under "You have got to be &$(%ing kidding me?!

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
blackcat said:
Contador was 23 on his second TdF was not he? some context
Contador was 24, had just won Paris Nice convincingly and was at 29/1 odds. He also missed the '06 Tour as his team wasn't invited. Contador was also a similar age to Fignon when he won his second Tour against Hinault, LeMond, Kelly, Millar, Anderson etc...
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
42x16ss said:
Contador was 24, had just won Paris Nice convincingly and was at 29/1 odds. He also missed the '06 Tour as his team wasn't invited. Contador was also younger than Fignon when he won his second Tour against Hinault...
thnx for the correction.

but i think the point stands that i was attempting to hint

fignon's second did not go head to head with epo did it.

the new era in dope, became a higher barrier to entry. you not only had to have the legs, but you needed to raise your threshold with the doping plan.

ok, it might be, work ethic, but Boasson Hagen, Kreuziger, Andy Shleck, Peter Sagan, all got on the super programs and had 1) talent, 2) good dope responders, and p'raps most importantly, 3) the work ethic and will.

Fignon never had to hire a preparatore of the likes of Cecchini or Ferrari did he?

Oh, but you say, Contador was with a Spanish network and had the dope to match the professional peloton. p'raps. i have considered the parameters. I think Contador was still about 85% max, of his full potential.
 
His '09 form was even better again, that's for sure! But I believe that Contador wasn't far off it already in 07. He was troubling Rasmussen, who was climbing with Basso and Armstrong in '05! Don't forget that..
 
42x16ss said:
Excuse me? He was up to his eyeballs. Evans was the third most consistent climber that TdF (maybe, MAYBE 4th after Soler) even with Rasmussen (backed by Menchov and co.) and the Popo/Levi/Contador 1-2-3 working him over every mountain. As part of a sprinter's team too.

Then he blew them out of the water in the TTs to boot! Over 1 minute into AC on the first and nearly 90 seconds on the second. He took 1'41 out of Rasmussen in the first TT. It took two of the most blatant topups in cycling history (Vino and Levi) to beat him.

Take away his Jour Sans on Plateau de Beille and Evans would have beaten Rasmussen as well as Contador.
I think I'll weigh in here because my recollection of 2007 (which I followed very closely) is a little different and I think your logic is flawed. IMO his riding in the 2007 TdF against AC and Rasmussen was a big reason why Evans unfairly got a wheel sucker tag by many fans which he kept until his 2009 WC win.

Escarabajo touches on the theme that Evans was not really a serious factor in the mountains in 2007. On the climbs in 2007 Evans was hanging on for dear life - watch the videos!. 3rd or 4th most consistent climber only by sucking wheels because that is all he could do. On PdB he tried following successive attacks by both AC and Chicken, finally blowing and losing 2 min in the last 5km. That is where he lost the Tour but it also isn't that suspicious on the basis how badly he blew against those guys.

As for Levi, well Levi was only close at the end because he didn't try to follow AC & Chicken on PdB and finished 60 secs ahead of Evans. Evans also couldn't follow on the next stage over the Peyresourde and lost time to all 3 (Chicken, AC and Levi).

Now in relation to Evans taking 1.41 out of Rasmussen in the 1st TT well based on prior form so he should have! Chicken was always a skinny climber not a time trialist of any note culminating in his embarrassing 2006 capitulation. Evans on the other hand won the 2002 Commonwealth Games TT ahead of Mick Rogers and leapfrogged both AC and Valverde in the final TT at the 2006 Romandie. Evans always had some pedigree in TTs, Chicken did not. Extra doping just reduced Rasmussen's disadvantage in that discipline.

What had Rasmussen done before in TTs? Nothing. And his 2007 performances - transformed from KOM specialist to serious GC contender were most likely why his team pulled him before it got totally embarrassing. As for AC, well he was only 24 in 2007. Evans was 30 and at his physiological peak.

Then how do you know Chicken and AC didn't top up until the PdB stage? And don't forget on the earlier Galibier stage Evans cracked trying to follow AC.

And what is rarely discussed is what is the natural spread of talent in the peloton without dope? Nobody knows. But you also don't know if there are some freaks who don't need to top up as much.

Now none of this means Evans didn't dope. But I think we need to be fair and have some sense of perspective knowing all the relevant facts.
 
Escarabajo said:
In my eyes he was never, part of that shootout. I watched a different Tour de France that you two. Just saw the times up the climbs and he was always behind the shootout and sucking wheels quite a few times. The TT's might be the only place where he took advantage of the so call shootout.

I am not saying he did not dope. But he was never part of that shootout.

In PDB he was ~2 minutes behind.

In one of the climbs Contador even asked Evans to help with him and he could not even hold his wheel. Not close. Only after a collective collaboration he was caught.

Again, dope yes, part of the shootout, no.


http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.eu/
The tts where he destroyed contador aren't part of the race?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Cookster15 said:
I think I'll weigh in here because my recollection of 2007 (which I followed very closely) is a little different and I think your logic is flawed. IMO his riding in the 2007 TdF against AC and Rasmussen was a big reason why Evans unfairly got a wheel sucker tag by many fans which he kept until his 2009 WC win.

Escarabajo touches on the theme that Evans was not really a serious factor in the mountains in 2007. On the climbs in 2007 Evans was hanging on for dear life - watch the videos!. 3rd or 4th most consistent climber only by sucking wheels because that is all he could do. On PdB he tried following successive attacks by both AC and Chicken, finally blowing and losing 2 min in the last 5km. That is where he lost the Tour but it also isn't that suspicious on the basis how badly he blew against those guys.

As for Levi, well Levi was only close at the end because he didn't try to follow AC & Chicken on PdB and finished 60 secs ahead of Evans. Evans also couldn't follow on the next stage over the Peyresourde and lost time to all 3 (Chicken, AC and Levi).

Now in relation to Evans taking 1.41 out of Rasmussen in the 1st TT well based on prior form so he should have! Chicken was always a skinny climber not a time trialist of any note culminating in his embarrassing 2006 capitulation. Evans on the other hand won the 2002 Commonwealth Games TT ahead of Mick Rogers and leapfrogged both AC and Valverde in the final TT at the 2006 Romandie. Evans always had some pedigree in TTs, Chicken did not. Extra doping just reduced Rasmussen's disadvantage in that discipline.

What had Rasmussen done before in TTs? Nothing. And his 2007 performances - transformed from KOM specialist to serious GC contender were most likely why his team pulled him before it got totally embarrassing. As for AC, well he was only 24 in 2007. Evans was 30 and at his physiological peak.

Then how do you know Chicken and AC didn't top up until the PdB stage? And don't forget on the earlier Galibier stage Evans cracked trying to follow AC.

And what is rarely discussed is what is the natural spread of talent in the peloton without dope? Nobody knows. But you also don't know if there are some freaks who don't need to top up as much.

Now none of this means Evans didn't dope. But I think we need to be fair and have some sense of perspective knowing all the relevant facts.
good post, fleshed out what i was saying
 
1) Plateau de Beille (just like Peyresourde) wasn't near the record time, Hitch ;)

2) Evans was mucho retardo on Galibier. He was loco in that Tour, his strongest performances ever. Insane TTs.

3) Even without his jour sans on PdB, he still wouldn't have beaten Chicken. If he had had a good day he would still have lost time, just less than the 1'52''. If he had been with Leipheimer he would only have lost 40''. In that case he would've been 3'51'' behind Rasmussen before the last ITT (of course it would have been more than that since both Contador and Rasmussen completely ignored Evans on Aubisque and only concentrated about each other. Rasmussen could easily have distanced Evans by more that day if he had to). For Rasmussen to lose 3'52'' to Evans in the last ITT he would have to place 30th in the ITT 4'43'' behind Leech. He would have to lose more than a minute to Valverde that day (the same Valverde he caught and passed in the first ITT that year). Heck even if Evans was good enough to win over Chicken and Contador on PdB in a sprint, he still wouldn't have beaten Chicken in the final GC.
 
Under a minute (probably closer to 30 seconds in actual performance) on a 45 minute climb counts as near the record.

But whatever, the evil doper Evans probably produced something like 6% less power than the best that day
 
roundabout said:
Under a minute (probably closer to 30 seconds in actual performance) on a 45 minute climb counts as near the record.

But whatever, the evil doper Evans probably produced something like 6% less power than the best that day
49'' away from the record (~44'' if we take away the 40-50m) doesn't cut it as near the record time imo.

No one has called Evans evil, nor used that particular performance as primary argument of his doping.
 
Netserk said:
1) Plateau de Beille (just like Peyresourde) wasn't near the record time, Hitch ;)
It was. It took a little longer to go a little bit higher. Similar speeds.

roundabout said:
Under a minute (probably closer to 30 seconds in actual performance) on a 45 minute climb counts as near the record.

But whatever, the evil doper Evans probably produced something like 6% less power than the best that day
Yes, everyone but Contador is and always has been clean. :cool:
 
Netserk said:
It took 49'' to go 50m? 3.6km/h, I don't remember them crawling in the end, actually I thought they sprinted to the line.
I thought the difference was more like 30 seconds. Don't know what the exact times were. Also don't know what the gradient was on the part that was added. If it was Kronplatz/ Cuitu Negru like 50 metres could be more than 5 seconds.

In either case from what I've seen Contador absolutely smashed both of Pharmstrongs attempts on the climb which is very telling in itself.
 


as you can see, there is no other place where pantani could finish. the climb ends in the parking because of the logistics. in 1998 too
there might be more than 50, but not above 100 meters. it's flatish though so after 1998, they had to race not more than 10 sec extra.
 
Netserk said:
No one has called Evans evil, nor used that particular performance as primary argument of his doping.
I think Hitch was? Isn't this why you guys are arguing over PdB times and finishing points in 1998 and 2007?

Anyhow, if we assume 1998 was 75m shorter and use the times you supplied then 2007 was raced by AC & Chicken at an average speed 1.38% slower than Pantani 1998 (0.3kph). But the avg speed gap to Pantani rises to nearly 4% if we use Evans finishing time of +1min 51sec to AC.

I'd say this means 2007 PdB is not a good example to use to support Evans doping or not.
 
Cookster15 said:
I think Hitch was? Isn't this why you guys are arguing over PdB times and finishing points in 1998 and 2007?

Anyhow, if we assume 1998 was 75m shorter and use the times you supplied then 2007 was raced by AC & Chicken at an average speed 1.38% slower than Pantani 1998 (0.3kph). But the avg speed gap to Pantani rises to nearly 4% if we use Evans finishing time of +1min 51sec to AC.

I'd say this means 2007 PdB is not a good example to use to support Evans doping or not.
By that logic isn't Armstrong himself 3% slower than pantani? And all the guys he beat including guys who were top 5s, top 10s, winners of other gts, all of who were doping, were 5% slower than Pantani, even more. I'd say that puts Evans performance on ptb straight back in the obvious doping category.
Especially since he was a tt based rider who either side of the Pyrenees obliterated contador in recovery based tts.

Otherwise what we are saying is that any tt specialist is free to dope as much as they want so long as they keep a certain % behind the climbers on the climbsz even if they take back the time on tts and it won't be suspicious. Tony Martin can win the tdf but as long as he doesn't win a mountain stage it won't be suspicious.
 
Netserk said:
If you think so, then it should be easy for you to quote the part that made you think so.
It was not stated by Hitch but clearly inferred - otherwise 2007 PdB would not even be discussed on this thread. Anyhow, I think Hitch has just answered your challenge on my behalf ? ;) :D

By that logic isn't Armstrong himself 3% slower than pantani? And all the guys he beat including guys who were top 5s, top 10s, winners of other gts, all of who were doping, were 5% slower than Pantani, even more. I'd say that puts Evans performance on ptb straight back in the obvious doping category.
 
The Hitch said:
By that logic isn't Armstrong himself 3% slower than pantani? And all the guys he beat including guys who were top 5s, top 10s, winners of other gts, all of who were doping, were 5% slower than Pantani, even more. I'd say that puts Evans performance on ptb straight back in the obvious doping category.
I assume you mean Armstrong 2002. In 2002 PdB for at least the 1st half of the climb Armstrong was sitting comfortably on Jose Luis Rubiera's wheel, ie, he had not extended himself. Armstrong's time would have been much faster had he gone earlier. Obvious? No. Very hard to compare years as climbs are never raced at a steady speed unless a TT like 2004 Alpe.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS