Is it true Richie Porte is going to another team next year? (Remember Hamilton, Landis etc.)
-
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!
Re:
isn`t this within the realm of what is considered possible without juice?
the sceptic said:
isn`t this within the realm of what is considered possible without juice?
I'm blocked by JV, so can't paste link. But seems he's not a Froomatic anymore.
Race Radio retweeted
Jonathan Vaughters @Vaughters 7m7 minutes ago
Well..... Hmmmmm... Not much to say.
57 retweets 53 favorites
Reply Retweet57 Favorite53 Follow
Race Radio retweeted
Jonathan Vaughters @Vaughters 7m7 minutes ago
Well..... Hmmmmm... Not much to say.
57 retweets 53 favorites
Reply Retweet57 Favorite53 Follow
I think Froome was flying today... I've heard rumors about him being an alien and I think there might be a real claim to it.
Also, a shoutout to all the on-the-fencers who were saying it was unreasonable to say Froome was nuclear because he hadn't shown anything yet in this Tour. What do you say now?
Tailwind?
Tailwind?
Re:
There is a perfect explanation.. I showed it on last page.. nothing weird other than him not being human..
but thats not the first time in cycling..
If anyway one said it was unreasonable, I am sure they are not on the board today
Saint Unix said:
There is a perfect explanation.. I showed it on last page.. nothing weird other than him not being human..
but thats not the first time in cycling..If anyway one said it was unreasonable, I am sure they are not on the board today
Re:
This got him some respect from the doubters but 2 days later he was back to saying that Froome improved through marginal gains.
JV just reacts to what he thinks its popular. He sees everyone on twitter suggesting its doping so he posts pretty much the exact same post he did in 2013 when he said "I don't know"Anaconda said:
This got him some respect from the doubters but 2 days later he was back to saying that Froome improved through marginal gains.
Twitter saying he outclimbed the records of Armstrong, Riis, Verinque etc.? Anyone got proof of this
Never in my wildest dreams would I think they could ever top Ax3 with this squad against this field. Outrageous.
If any of you guys want to follow an exciting and competitive race this week I recommend the Giro Val d'Aosta.
If any of you guys want to follow an exciting and competitive race this week I recommend the Giro Val d'Aosta.
Pretty amazing stuff out there today.
I don't even know why people need to go over power numbers, or testing, or times.
It's pretty friggin obvious what's going on to the stupidest of people.
No one team, or one rider - in a "clean era" - can dominant like that.
There's no such thing as super hero's.
I don't even know why people need to go over power numbers, or testing, or times.
It's pretty friggin obvious what's going on to the stupidest of people.
No one team, or one rider - in a "clean era" - can dominant like that.
There's no such thing as super hero's.
Re:
The problem is that most will still watch the tour tomorrow.. if nobody saw the rest of the tour it might change abit.. after all they live from entertaining others...
H2OUUP2 said:
The problem is that most will still watch the tour tomorrow.. if nobody saw the rest of the tour it might change abit.. after all they live from entertaining others...
Re:
I agree. Because power analysis can potentially show that a performance exceeds what ought to be possible for human beings with human parameters, some are inferring that if power analysis doesn't show that, then the performance is clean. Or at least that there is no evidence it isn't.
That's a fallacy, though. Relative dominance is strong evidence of doping. If you look at today and go like "6.1w for 40 minutes? High, but believable. suspicious but we shouldn't jump to conclusions" when Froome has demolished the entire field with absolutely insane gaps, you can't be helped.
H2OUUP2 said:
I agree. Because power analysis can potentially show that a performance exceeds what ought to be possible for human beings with human parameters, some are inferring that if power analysis doesn't show that, then the performance is clean. Or at least that there is no evidence it isn't.
That's a fallacy, though. Relative dominance is strong evidence of doping. If you look at today and go like "6.1w for 40 minutes? High, but believable. suspicious but we shouldn't jump to conclusions" when Froome has demolished the entire field with absolutely insane gaps, you can't be helped.
Re: Re:
Yes, depending on who you talk to. SoS draws the line at 6.2-6.3, but that is for 25-30', so by their standards this is borderline. More than the 5.6 in the leaked data, though. But I don't know about wind conditions, if it turned out there was a significant net headwind, that would change things.
For comparison, Quintana is about 5.93, and Contador 5.70. Last year, Nibs climbed Hautacam, about the same vertical ascent (1060 m) with the same power, 6.09 watts/kg. Also climbed Port de Bales, 1120 m, at 6.02 watts/kg.
Another interesting comparison is with Alpe d'Huez, which has just a slightly lower vertical climb. A time under 41' is certainly borderline suspicious there, though not close to what was being recorded in the late 90s and early 00s. Regardless of what Froome may be on, clearly some of his dominance is due to a weaker peloton. His VAM really is not close to what was being done not so long ago.
Assuming 68 kg., that is 6.01 watts/kg, which I guess is fairly consistent with the VAM estimate of Froome.
Pulp said:
Yes, depending on who you talk to. SoS draws the line at 6.2-6.3, but that is for 25-30', so by their standards this is borderline. More than the 5.6 in the leaked data, though. But I don't know about wind conditions, if it turned out there was a significant net headwind, that would change things.
For comparison, Quintana is about 5.93, and Contador 5.70. Last year, Nibs climbed Hautacam, about the same vertical ascent (1060 m) with the same power, 6.09 watts/kg. Also climbed Port de Bales, 1120 m, at 6.02 watts/kg.
Another interesting comparison is with Alpe d'Huez, which has just a slightly lower vertical climb. A time under 41' is certainly borderline suspicious there, though not close to what was being recorded in the late 90s and early 00s. Regardless of what Froome may be on, clearly some of his dominance is due to a weaker peloton. His VAM really is not close to what was being done not so long ago.
Dekker_Tifosi said:
Assuming 68 kg., that is 6.01 watts/kg, which I guess is fairly consistent with the VAM estimate of Froome.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Tour of the Alps 2024 (April 15 - 19)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 356
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram