I'm not comparing to Movistar, they might be the least sanctioned team ever, I'm simply discussing Brailsfords track record is without a doping violation, no other team manager has that claim since mid 90s when Brailsford began at BC. Claims of unproven things I don't hold to have much weight as don't really mean anything yet.
-
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. 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: Re:
So you believe Indurain was a donkey fueled by doping and everyone else racing against Indurain for 5 years wasn't doping too then, even if they were proven racehorses by their palamares? History shows everyone was most likely doping alongside Indurain. How do you explain him taking 4 mins in a TT out of a doping 3x Tour winner less than 12 months after not even able to finish a Tour when everyone was doping?
Saint Unix said:
So you believe Indurain was a donkey fueled by doping and everyone else racing against Indurain for 5 years wasn't doping too then, even if they were proven racehorses by their palamares? History shows everyone was most likely doping alongside Indurain. How do you explain him taking 4 mins in a TT out of a doping 3x Tour winner less than 12 months after not even able to finish a Tour when everyone was doping?
Re: Re:
You make it sound like Wiggins and Thomas just appeared out of nowhere
Ever see those shiny round gold things they used to wear around their necks occasionally?
For a long time in the UK getting yourself one of those was a much wiser career choice for a cyclist in the UK than anything that could be achieved out on the road.
Just because they’ve been riding bikes all their lives, it doesn’t automatically follow that they’ve been trying and training to win the TDF all of their lives.
Saint Unix said:
You make it sound like Wiggins and Thomas just appeared out of nowhere
Ever see those shiny round gold things they used to wear around their necks occasionally?
For a long time in the UK getting yourself one of those was a much wiser career choice for a cyclist in the UK than anything that could be achieved out on the road.
Just because they’ve been riding bikes all their lives, it doesn’t automatically follow that they’ve been trying and training to win the TDF all of their lives.
Re: Re:
Of course he's being disingenuous, he included in that list races that happened before Indurain had even started racing professional. You see the first line "1984 Vuelta" and that's where you should stop paying attention to anything he writes.
Even before that. He was, and remains to this day, the youngest rider ever to lead the Vuelta, which he did as a neo pro, went on to win several spanish one week races that included mountains.
Saying Indurain was clean would be as moronic as, say, saying Thomas or Froome are clean. But the talent was very clearly there from the start.
Libertine Seguros said:
Of course he's being disingenuous, he included in that list races that happened before Indurain had even started racing professional. You see the first line "1984 Vuelta" and that's where you should stop paying attention to anything he writes.
Libertine Seguros said:
Even before that. He was, and remains to this day, the youngest rider ever to lead the Vuelta, which he did as a neo pro, went on to win several spanish one week races that included mountains.
Saying Indurain was clean would be as moronic as, say, saying Thomas or Froome are clean. But the talent was very clearly there from the start.
Re: Re:
I agree that riding track and trying to win Olympic Gold was a better career move, and they were obviously highly talented cyclists from the word go, there is evidence to support that that simply doesn't exist in the case of Froome, but let's not pretend that having the skillset to be one of the best in the Team Pursuit is more than tangentially relative to the skillset required to compete for the win in a Grand Tour. Don't tell me that if Romain Bardet or Mikel Landa suddenly decided they were going to win the Individual Pursuit, and then 3 years later they were smashing Ganna, and Bobridge, and their like, to all parts, you would go, "well, they were always good climbers and their ability in the Tour and the Giro clearly showed an ability to sustain a brutal 4km pace on the flat".
Being a great IP / TP rider has transferable skills to riding Grand Tours, sure, but it's in the same way as, say, being good at NASCAR has transferable skills to the Pikes Peak Hillclimb or the Paris-Dakar Rally. And that doesn't have the same physical limitations. Perhaps it's more akin to comparing to other 'pure' athletic endeavours - Federico Pellegrino is the best freestyle sprinter in the skiing world at the moment, arguably - but if he started winning Worldloppet races for fun, it would be preposterous. If Wayde van Niekerk started competing in marathons, and then in a couple of years was winning them, it would be absurd.
Cycling is a strange one in that its various formats do overlap with one another so that a rider can ride track or cross in the winter alongside a road calendar, and plenty of professional riders compete in the super-endurance races like the Grand Tours without any reasonable expectation of even being remotely able to compete, seeing as their speciality lies elsewhere and the Tour offers variation in terrain that allows riders of different kinds the option to come out of the race with a modicum of success even without competing for the overall or secondary prizes. The Tour de Ski and subsequent stage races developed in skiing are the only real analogues, and they were patterned after cycling anyway. But still - Pellegrino can win stages thanks to his sprint prowess, but he's never going to climb Alpe Cermis with the best, and he's never going to contest the Toblach-Cortina pursuit with the best either. So, sure, Wiggins and Thomas were great at doing the IP and TP. But that means very little for how well you can climb HC mountains, and if anything the physical attributes required for it are likely detrimental; likewise, reducing size for optimal climbing should be detrimental to the power you can put out on the flat.
We've just seen an attempt to argue Indurain as a late-career transformation to rival Thomas, but at Thomas' current age, Indurain had already pulled out of his last race.
Come on. Let's not play this game again.brownbobby said:
I agree that riding track and trying to win Olympic Gold was a better career move, and they were obviously highly talented cyclists from the word go, there is evidence to support that that simply doesn't exist in the case of Froome, but let's not pretend that having the skillset to be one of the best in the Team Pursuit is more than tangentially relative to the skillset required to compete for the win in a Grand Tour. Don't tell me that if Romain Bardet or Mikel Landa suddenly decided they were going to win the Individual Pursuit, and then 3 years later they were smashing Ganna, and Bobridge, and their like, to all parts, you would go, "well, they were always good climbers and their ability in the Tour and the Giro clearly showed an ability to sustain a brutal 4km pace on the flat".
Being a great IP / TP rider has transferable skills to riding Grand Tours, sure, but it's in the same way as, say, being good at NASCAR has transferable skills to the Pikes Peak Hillclimb or the Paris-Dakar Rally. And that doesn't have the same physical limitations. Perhaps it's more akin to comparing to other 'pure' athletic endeavours - Federico Pellegrino is the best freestyle sprinter in the skiing world at the moment, arguably - but if he started winning Worldloppet races for fun, it would be preposterous. If Wayde van Niekerk started competing in marathons, and then in a couple of years was winning them, it would be absurd.
Cycling is a strange one in that its various formats do overlap with one another so that a rider can ride track or cross in the winter alongside a road calendar, and plenty of professional riders compete in the super-endurance races like the Grand Tours without any reasonable expectation of even being remotely able to compete, seeing as their speciality lies elsewhere and the Tour offers variation in terrain that allows riders of different kinds the option to come out of the race with a modicum of success even without competing for the overall or secondary prizes. The Tour de Ski and subsequent stage races developed in skiing are the only real analogues, and they were patterned after cycling anyway. But still - Pellegrino can win stages thanks to his sprint prowess, but he's never going to climb Alpe Cermis with the best, and he's never going to contest the Toblach-Cortina pursuit with the best either. So, sure, Wiggins and Thomas were great at doing the IP and TP. But that means very little for how well you can climb HC mountains, and if anything the physical attributes required for it are likely detrimental; likewise, reducing size for optimal climbing should be detrimental to the power you can put out on the flat.
We've just seen an attempt to argue Indurain as a late-career transformation to rival Thomas, but at Thomas' current age, Indurain had already pulled out of his last race.
The point was Indurain Tour transformation was about a year. Everyone was doping, what made his transformation more possible and not the others? Ie why don't other teams dope better riders than Wiggins, Thomas, Froome, Indurain. Sure you can claim UCI protection, but does that not suggest protection can be purchased by anyone? Is there evidence only Sky can afford such protection? Why couldn't Contador afford it when Froome beat him? Why did Wiggins get it when he beat Nibali?
The overusing factor is everything available to Sky is available to everyone else too. History shows us this is how it worked. What has chabged simply because a bunch of track riders and staff rocked up to Tour de France one year?
The overusing factor is everything available to Sky is available to everyone else too. History shows us this is how it worked. What has chabged simply because a bunch of track riders and staff rocked up to Tour de France one year?
Re: Re:
Putting Froome aside, I didn’t mention him in my post for a reason...clearly a very different case to Wiggins and Thomas...
You refer to ‘specialism’. What is this; how is it defined. All we know is that these 2 under guidance took their obvious natural ability to be good at doing something on a bike, and focused on the glory and riches that the UK Olympic programme offered at the time. This inevitably leads one to the conclusion that they are track ‘specialists’. But this is a judgement based on what has transpired rather than any understanding of their abilities.
People tend to be called ‘specialists’ in the things they focus on being good at. That isn’t necessarily the same as their natural specialisms.
Libertine Seguros said:
Putting Froome aside, I didn’t mention him in my post for a reason...clearly a very different case to Wiggins and Thomas...
You refer to ‘specialism’. What is this; how is it defined. All we know is that these 2 under guidance took their obvious natural ability to be good at doing something on a bike, and focused on the glory and riches that the UK Olympic programme offered at the time. This inevitably leads one to the conclusion that they are track ‘specialists’. But this is a judgement based on what has transpired rather than any understanding of their abilities.
People tend to be called ‘specialists’ in the things they focus on being good at. That isn’t necessarily the same as their natural specialisms.
Re: Re:
Mig was a racehorse. He was probably the most naturally gifted TTer of all time and a freakishly good climber for his size, but his climbing, and particularly the climbing during his last three Tour wins, was still down to pure EPO-fuelled supercharging. Don't underestimate the benefit of being aided by EPO pioneer Conconi at a time where the science behind the dosages still wasn't worked out. Just like Armstrong, Indurain doped better.
As far as his TT ability goes, I'm sure you're aware of the fact that LeMond got shot and almost died in 1987 and still has lead pellets in his body to this day? That accident affected him a lot and he was never the same rider again, even if he did manage to crank out two Tour wins in '89 and '90. By '92, when he was crushed by Indurain in the TT, he was a shell of his former self while Indurain was reaching the peak of his powers.
It's hilarious that you're labelling LeMond as a doper, by the way, considering he has far less dirt on him even now, over 30 years after he turned pro, than Sky do just eight years after the team was formed, but you're still adamant Sky are clean. Clearly showing the color of your glasses there.
And I'm still waiting for just one non-Sky example of a rider that achieved that sort of trajectory without the help of doping. You said it was normal. Can we agree now that it very much isn't?
samhocking said:
Mig was a racehorse. He was probably the most naturally gifted TTer of all time and a freakishly good climber for his size, but his climbing, and particularly the climbing during his last three Tour wins, was still down to pure EPO-fuelled supercharging. Don't underestimate the benefit of being aided by EPO pioneer Conconi at a time where the science behind the dosages still wasn't worked out. Just like Armstrong, Indurain doped better.
As far as his TT ability goes, I'm sure you're aware of the fact that LeMond got shot and almost died in 1987 and still has lead pellets in his body to this day? That accident affected him a lot and he was never the same rider again, even if he did manage to crank out two Tour wins in '89 and '90. By '92, when he was crushed by Indurain in the TT, he was a shell of his former self while Indurain was reaching the peak of his powers.
It's hilarious that you're labelling LeMond as a doper, by the way, considering he has far less dirt on him even now, over 30 years after he turned pro, than Sky do just eight years after the team was formed, but you're still adamant Sky are clean. Clearly showing the color of your glasses there.
And I'm still waiting for just one non-Sky example of a rider that achieved that sort of trajectory without the help of doping. You said it was normal. Can we agree now that it very much isn't?
thehog
BANNED
Re: Re:
Berzin wa a track rider, rode the team pursuit from memory for Russia. Became a very good GT rider, won the Giro. Was also a Ferrari client and rode for Gewiss!
Saint Unix said:
Berzin wa a track rider, rode the team pursuit from memory for Russia. Became a very good GT rider, won the Giro. Was also a Ferrari client and rode for Gewiss!
Re: Re:
As per my post on the previous page:thehog said:Berzin wa a track rider, rode the team pursuit from memory for Russia. Became a very good GT rider, won the Giro. Was also a Ferrari client and rode for Gewiss!
thehog
BANNED
Re: Re:
Fully agree. Berzin was useless was the hematocrit rule came in. Which makes Thomas the only man to every do what he has done without drugs....... which proves the point that Thomas is a doper IMHO.
Saint Unix said:As per my post on the previous page:thehog said:Berzin wa a track rider, rode the team pursuit from memory for Russia. Became a very good GT rider, won the Giro. Was also a Ferrari client and rode for Gewiss!
Fully agree. Berzin was useless was the hematocrit rule came in. Which makes Thomas the only man to every do what he has done without drugs....... which proves the point that Thomas is a doper IMHO.
Re:
1. EPO was brand new, and very likely not used by the entire peloton in 1991.
2. He was a Conconi client. Conconi was the guy to go to if you wanted to use EPO back then. Huge advantage in terms of doping "correctly" as opposed to to just regular doping.
3. His first Tour win had 130km of flat ITTs and only three proper mountain stages, and those mountains were ridden slowly and well within the theorized realms of "clean cycling". It was basically the perfect parcours for Indurain to win. Indurain's true transformation into a jet-fuelled climbing beast happened in 1993, several years after he'd started consistently showing his abilities as a GC rider and as a climber.
And stop calling Indurain a donkey and comparing him to Froome, Wiggins and Thomas. He was far from it.
samhocking said:
1. EPO was brand new, and very likely not used by the entire peloton in 1991.
2. He was a Conconi client. Conconi was the guy to go to if you wanted to use EPO back then. Huge advantage in terms of doping "correctly" as opposed to to just regular doping.
3. His first Tour win had 130km of flat ITTs and only three proper mountain stages, and those mountains were ridden slowly and well within the theorized realms of "clean cycling". It was basically the perfect parcours for Indurain to win. Indurain's true transformation into a jet-fuelled climbing beast happened in 1993, several years after he'd started consistently showing his abilities as a GC rider and as a climber.
And stop calling Indurain a donkey and comparing him to Froome, Wiggins and Thomas. He was far from it.
Re: Re:
But I thought the consensus was that all GT winners dope...so why should ex track riders be singled out for special attention when they do so
thehog said:Saint Unix said:
Berzin wa a track rider, rode the team pursuit from memory for Russia. Became a very good GT rider, won the Giro. Was also a Ferrari client and rode for Gewiss!
But I thought the consensus was that all GT winners dope...so why should ex track riders be singled out for special attention when they do so
Interesting piece by Shane on Cyclingtips:
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/07/today-at-the-tour-the-question-of-geraint-thomas/
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/07/today-at-the-tour-the-question-of-geraint-thomas/
Re: Re:
Libertine has already said most of what needs to be said, but if you look at track riders who decide to take the step up to road cycling (and it is a big step up) and they overwhelmingly become sprinters or TT specialists, because that's where the skillset from track is relevant. And when I say TT specialist I mean like Phinney, Alex Rasmussen, Terpstra, Bobridge or pre-2009 Wiggins. All complete non-entities in any sort of longish uphill.
Aside from the track Brits who have started popping up at the pointy end of GT MTFs there's very, very little in terms of track riders successfully making the jump to real stage race contenders in the last 40 years. Saronni and Moser were two that did it during the late 70's/very early 80's. Aside from them you have to go all the way back to the 50's to find the likes of Coppi, Koblet and Anquetil, but if you want to compare 50's cycling to modern cycling you're going to have a bad time.
In short, winning on the track is all well and good, but it's almost completely irrelevant as far as climbing ability goes.
And you make it sound like being good on the track automatically means that a rider can follow the purebred mountain goats up Cols.brownbobby said:
Libertine has already said most of what needs to be said, but if you look at track riders who decide to take the step up to road cycling (and it is a big step up) and they overwhelmingly become sprinters or TT specialists, because that's where the skillset from track is relevant. And when I say TT specialist I mean like Phinney, Alex Rasmussen, Terpstra, Bobridge or pre-2009 Wiggins. All complete non-entities in any sort of longish uphill.
Aside from the track Brits who have started popping up at the pointy end of GT MTFs there's very, very little in terms of track riders successfully making the jump to real stage race contenders in the last 40 years. Saronni and Moser were two that did it during the late 70's/very early 80's. Aside from them you have to go all the way back to the 50's to find the likes of Coppi, Koblet and Anquetil, but if you want to compare 50's cycling to modern cycling you're going to have a bad time.
In short, winning on the track is all well and good, but it's almost completely irrelevant as far as climbing ability goes.
Re: Re:
The track background is not why thehog brought up Berzin, but it is curious nonetheless. Nice strawman.brownbobby said:But I thought the consensus was that all GT winners dope...so why should ex track riders be singled out for special attention when they do so
Re: Re:
So your argument is now Indurain was the best doped racehorse among all the other doped racehorses, but Froome is a doped donkey winning against what class of doped rider today exactly? Did the sport of cycling change to doped donkeys could win multiple Tour de France only when Sky arrived because all other teams stopped doping their racehorses for the first time in over 100 years?
I've already explained, nobody knows who is doping so any trajectory discussion is meaningless until you know. All we can do is look at history and history shows doped race horses have historically won Tour de France as you claim. Indurain was a doped race horse.
If we are using LeMonde as the only example where a clean rider can win against doped racehorses due to being a better racehorse even clean, that's some claim given the sports known history of that time, but equally perhaps also explains Froome, Thomas and Wiggins transformations as possible if LeMond could do it within a highly doped era.
Personally I dont see much transformation, a 4km pursuit rider is about as pure an indicator as you can find in cycling for GT ability I'd say. Way more valid argument that simply looking at the doped palamares of supposed racehorses anyway. You're either able to hold those 440+ watts for an hour at FTP or you are not, after that it's about losing weight and loosing weight is available to anyone and everyone, Sky don't have a monopoly on weight loss do they, we know how cycling has always done it and if you believe Sky were abusing Triamcinolone and Salbutomol to do it, that is all available for the cost of a few pints of beer anyway to every team too.
Saint Unix said:
So your argument is now Indurain was the best doped racehorse among all the other doped racehorses, but Froome is a doped donkey winning against what class of doped rider today exactly? Did the sport of cycling change to doped donkeys could win multiple Tour de France only when Sky arrived because all other teams stopped doping their racehorses for the first time in over 100 years?
I've already explained, nobody knows who is doping so any trajectory discussion is meaningless until you know. All we can do is look at history and history shows doped race horses have historically won Tour de France as you claim. Indurain was a doped race horse.
If we are using LeMonde as the only example where a clean rider can win against doped racehorses due to being a better racehorse even clean, that's some claim given the sports known history of that time, but equally perhaps also explains Froome, Thomas and Wiggins transformations as possible if LeMond could do it within a highly doped era.
Personally I dont see much transformation, a 4km pursuit rider is about as pure an indicator as you can find in cycling for GT ability I'd say. Way more valid argument that simply looking at the doped palamares of supposed racehorses anyway. You're either able to hold those 440+ watts for an hour at FTP or you are not, after that it's about losing weight and loosing weight is available to anyone and everyone, Sky don't have a monopoly on weight loss do they, we know how cycling has always done it and if you believe Sky were abusing Triamcinolone and Salbutomol to do it, that is all available for the cost of a few pints of beer anyway to every team too.
Re: Re:
[quote="samhocking
I've already explained, nobody knows who is doping so any trajectory discussion is meaningless until you know[/quote]
We can know what trajectories looked like prior to the advent of oxygen vector doping. Knowing who was or wasn’t doping isn’t particularly significant in performance terms when we are talking about amphetamines or strychnine. And we can know that “other” trajectories have appeared since then. Everyone who has followed one of these new trajectories between that time, circa 1990, and the rise of Sky has since either been proven to have been on a modern doping regime or is presumed to have been by anyone who has given it a moment’s consideration. Even following the rise of Sky, riders on other teams who have taken sudden mid career leaps forward, like Santambrogio, seem to still be obvious dopers. It is for those who think that we are now in a third period, in which those new trajectories continue to appear and indeed grow ever more extreme but suddenly no longer indicate obvious doping, at least if the rider is on one team, to explain this change.
[quote="samhocking
I've already explained, nobody knows who is doping so any trajectory discussion is meaningless until you know[/quote]
We can know what trajectories looked like prior to the advent of oxygen vector doping. Knowing who was or wasn’t doping isn’t particularly significant in performance terms when we are talking about amphetamines or strychnine. And we can know that “other” trajectories have appeared since then. Everyone who has followed one of these new trajectories between that time, circa 1990, and the rise of Sky has since either been proven to have been on a modern doping regime or is presumed to have been by anyone who has given it a moment’s consideration. Even following the rise of Sky, riders on other teams who have taken sudden mid career leaps forward, like Santambrogio, seem to still be obvious dopers. It is for those who think that we are now in a third period, in which those new trajectories continue to appear and indeed grow ever more extreme but suddenly no longer indicate obvious doping, at least if the rider is on one team, to explain this change.
"Personally I do t see much transformation, a 4km pursuit rider is about as pure an indicator as you can find in cycling for GT ability I'd say."
Fuggin lolz. New low for the Skybots.
Being able to churn out watts for a little over four minutes DOES NOT translate to delivering a lot of watts for the 30-60 minutes a hard GT mountain takes to climb, and it definitely does not equate to delivering a lot of W/kg, which is what climbing is. You're not far off claiming Gaviria is the best climber in the peloton because he puts out the most watts of everyone when going full blast.
Similarly, until Sky came along, it was impossible to "just lose the weight" without also losing a significant amount of power. For elite athletes at that level, it gets to a point where the weight they lose is pretty much just muscle mass. Unless they use some illegal methods, of course.
Then on to the rest of your post:
Racehorse ability shows early, so it's easy to tell who's an actual racehorse. The point of the whole donkey to racehorse thing is that it has never happened without doping regardless of what the racehorses are doing, until Sky came puttering along of course
You can not claim that a step from amateur to GC captain like that of Froome, Thomas and Wiggins is "normal" and "not much of a step" if you can't point to other similar examples. "Normal" is determined by the history of the sport and its riders. The history of the sport is literally in their collective palmarès'.
Fuggin lolz. New low for the Skybots.
Being able to churn out watts for a little over four minutes DOES NOT translate to delivering a lot of watts for the 30-60 minutes a hard GT mountain takes to climb, and it definitely does not equate to delivering a lot of W/kg, which is what climbing is. You're not far off claiming Gaviria is the best climber in the peloton because he puts out the most watts of everyone when going full blast.
Similarly, until Sky came along, it was impossible to "just lose the weight" without also losing a significant amount of power. For elite athletes at that level, it gets to a point where the weight they lose is pretty much just muscle mass. Unless they use some illegal methods, of course.
Then on to the rest of your post:
Racehorse ability shows early, so it's easy to tell who's an actual racehorse. The point of the whole donkey to racehorse thing is that it has never happened without doping regardless of what the racehorses are doing, until Sky came puttering along of course
You can not claim that a step from amateur to GC captain like that of Froome, Thomas and Wiggins is "normal" and "not much of a step" if you can't point to other similar examples. "Normal" is determined by the history of the sport and its riders. The history of the sport is literally in their collective palmarès'.
Great post.Zinoviev Letter said:
Re:
You don't understand endurance events like pursuit and even less how much of its training load correlates to what happens in last few km of an MTF or an hour's slog up a mountain. Wiggins and all of the pursuit squad training for pursuit up mountains in Mallorca wasnt done for the good weather lol. It was done because half the training for a 4km pursuit is done up the side of mountains hour after hour.
To hold the watts for 4km you don't train for 4km, you train for much longer. You can't just bolt on 500+ watts over 4km to nothing.
Saint Unix said:"Personally I do t see much transformation, a 4km pursuit rider is about as pure an indicator as you can find in cycling for GT ability I'd say."
Fuggin lolz. New low for the Skybots.
Being able to churn out watts for a little over four minutes DOES NOT translate to delivering a lot of watts for the 30-60 minutes a hard GT mountain takes to climb. You're not far off claiming Gaviria is the best climber in the peloton because he puts out the most watts of everyone when going full blast.
Similarly, until Sky came along, it was impossible to "just lose the weight" without also losing a significant amount of power. For elite athletes at that level, it gets to a point where the weight they lose is pretty much just muscle mass. Unless they use some illegal methods, of course.
Then on to the rest of your post:
Racehorse ability shows early, so it's easy to tell who's an actual racehorse. The point of the whole donkey to racehorse thing is that it has never happened without doping regardless of what the racehorses are doing, until Sky came puttering along of course
You can not claim that a step from amateur to GC captain like that of Froome, Thomas and Wiggins is "normal" and "not much of a step" if you can't point to other similar examples. "Normal" is determined by the history of the sport and its riders. The history of the sport is literally in their collective palmarès'.
You don't understand endurance events like pursuit and even less how much of its training load correlates to what happens in last few km of an MTF or an hour's slog up a mountain. Wiggins and all of the pursuit squad training for pursuit up mountains in Mallorca wasnt done for the good weather lol. It was done because half the training for a 4km pursuit is done up the side of mountains hour after hour.
To hold the watts for 4km you don't train for 4km, you train for much longer. You can't just bolt on 500+ watts over 4km to nothing.
Here is a Coggans description of what is required to be pursuit rider.
The individual pursuit: a deceptively simple event favoring specialists who possess superior aerobic fitness coupled with a high anaerobic capacity, excellent aerodynamics, and specific technical skills.”
The individual pursuit: a deceptively simple event favoring specialists who possess superior aerobic fitness coupled with a high anaerobic capacity, excellent aerodynamics, and specific technical skills.”
Re: Re:
Come off it. Look at Ed Clancy. Why can't he become a Tour winner? After all, he's an absolutely stellar team pursuiter. Or Jack Bobridge? He was a master in the Individual pursuit too, which is even more ideal, seeing as you don't benefit from drafting, it's all about maintaining aero and your own performance. Should be perfect for mountains, right? Yet it turns out, Clancy hasn't even got the road chops to get onto a top tier team, and Bobridge is one of the most rotten climbers ever to appear at the World Tour level. What he was good at, however, is what pursuiters are usually good at: short to mid length time trials where the aerodynamics and anaerobic capacity was of benefit, but before the longer TT distances where the endurance of the track specialists starts to become an issue. You know, just like Wiggins was, when his focus was on the track, because he was a pursuit rider. It was only after he stopped riding pursuit that he learnt how to get over a mountain, cos up until 2008 he was one of the weakest climbers in the péloton. You'd think that that pursuit background would have helped him at SOME point.
So why is it only Britons in the last few years who've been able to make the connection to how an "endurance event" like taking it in turns for 4km on a fixed condition track correlates to an "endurance event" like riding 3500km in open weather over three weeks, without filling themselves up to the neck with juice?samhocking said:
Come off it. Look at Ed Clancy. Why can't he become a Tour winner? After all, he's an absolutely stellar team pursuiter. Or Jack Bobridge? He was a master in the Individual pursuit too, which is even more ideal, seeing as you don't benefit from drafting, it's all about maintaining aero and your own performance. Should be perfect for mountains, right? Yet it turns out, Clancy hasn't even got the road chops to get onto a top tier team, and Bobridge is one of the most rotten climbers ever to appear at the World Tour level. What he was good at, however, is what pursuiters are usually good at: short to mid length time trials where the aerodynamics and anaerobic capacity was of benefit, but before the longer TT distances where the endurance of the track specialists starts to become an issue. You know, just like Wiggins was, when his focus was on the track, because he was a pursuit rider. It was only after he stopped riding pursuit that he learnt how to get over a mountain, cos up until 2008 he was one of the weakest climbers in the péloton. You'd think that that pursuit background would have helped him at SOME point.
That of course explains why every single individual pursuit specialist (bar Wiggins) since the 60's has chosen to remain in anonymity as a track cyclist instead of choosing the glitz, glam and money of being a GC contender.
thehog
BANNED
Re:
You are daft and completely wrong.
Coggan produced the Maximum power output table for a given timeframe as the indication of what could be produced. If you read the entire paper he wrote he doesn’t indicate that aerobic capacity over a 4 minutes timeframe equals over 4 hours, that’s the point of his study into power profiling.
Really wish you’d read rather than the quick google, cut and paste.
samhocking said:
You are daft and completely wrong.
Coggan produced the Maximum power output table for a given timeframe as the indication of what could be produced. If you read the entire paper he wrote he doesn’t indicate that aerobic capacity over a 4 minutes timeframe equals over 4 hours, that’s the point of his study into power profiling.
Really wish you’d read rather than the quick google, cut and paste.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 29K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 11K
-
Teams & Riders Alberto Contador Discussion Thread- Started by LaFlorecita
- Replies: 51K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 19K
-
Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.- Started by Miburo
- Replies: 21K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram