Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

[GuyIncognito]

Re:

Interesting piece by Shane on Cyclingtips:
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/07/today-at-the-tour-the-question-of-geraint-thomas/

"Shane"? It says Neil Rogers. Is Shane a nickname?

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

My god, George Hincapie can climb with the best of them...

 

[yaco]

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.

And you make it sound like being good on the track automatically means that a rider can follow the purebred mountain goats up Cols.

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.

How about Simon Yates who comes from a track background and has shown he can mix it in GT's.

 

[Rollthedice]

Barloworld, home of cycling legends.

 

[Ripper]

Re: Re:

Interesting piece by Shane on Cyclingtips:
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/07/today-at-the-tour-the-question-of-geraint-thomas/

"Shane"? It says Neil Rogers. Is Shane a nickname?

That's because it is Neil and not Shane, and my brain was not thinking! My mistake

 

[Ripper]

Re:

Interesting piece by Neil on Cyclingtips:
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/07/today-at-the-tour-the-question-of-geraint-thomas/

Edit - got the writer wrong! Corrected now

 

[Merckx index]

There’s a lot of misinformation being tossed around carelessly on this thread. Let’s start with facts.

Mass increases with the cube of height, while surface area increases with the square of height. Since power, resulting from muscle size, is proportional to mass, while wind resistance is proportional to surface area, it follows that, other things being equal (i.e., similar body proportions), larger riders tend to be better TTers than smaller ones. Their mass and power increases by the cube, while the air resistance that’s the primary force a TTer has to overcome increases by the square. This is just physics.

What about climbing? Here the key ratio is not power/surface area, but power to weight, since most of the work done in climbing, assuming a fairly steep slope, is expended to overcome gravity. Do smaller riders have a power/weight advantage? No. Since power increases with mass, and weight increases with (is) mass, other things being equal, there is no size advantage.

So why does the conventional wisdom say that smaller riders tend to be better climbers? It has to be based on physiology, not physics, and goes back to surface area. Smaller riders have a larger ratio of surface area/mass than larger riders, and while this is a disadvantage in flat riding, it provides potential advantages in climbing.

First, the larger surface area means more efficient heat loss. While riders can become overheated in any kind of terrain, in climbing, where the pace is slower, movement has less of a cooling effect. Riders tend to heat up, particularly, obviously, on very hot days. But smaller riders will heat up more slowly, and require less energy to cool down.

But surface area isn’t just external, it’s also internal. Interior surfaces play a key role in power production, from bringing oxygen into the lungs to transporting it to the muscles. At every step, larger surface/mass ratio means more efficient energy production and utilization. Smaller riders, smaller athletes in general, should—again, other things being equal—have greater values of parameters like V02 max (per kg) and efficiency. Greater surface area/mass should also enhance recovery, because again, surfaces are critical in transporting needed molecules to the muscles, as well as removing waste products.

In fact, this greater efficiency should come into play in any type of racing, including time trials. Having a higher V02max is obviously an advantage there, too. It’s just that in this case, the effect of wind resistance is generally much greater. In climbing, where wind resistance is greatly reduced, the advantages of surface area should predominate.

Obviously, no two athletes are exactly alike in body shape and proportion, so there will be all kinds of exceptions and qualifications. But being smaller should predispose riders to being better climbers. The notion that larger, heavier riders have an advantage in climbing over smaller ones is not supported by any science I’m aware of.

 

[GuyIncognito]

Re: Re:

Interesting piece by Shane on Cyclingtips:
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/07/today-at-the-tour-the-question-of-geraint-thomas/

"Shane"? It says Neil Rogers. Is Shane a nickname?

That's because it is Neil and not Shane, and my brain was not thinking! My mistake

Thanks for the link

 

[gregrowlerson]

There’s a lot of misinformation being tossed around carelessly on this thread. Let’s start with facts.

Mass increases with the cube of height, while surface area increases with the square of height. Since power, resulting from muscle size, is proportional to mass, while wind resistance is proportional to surface area, it follows that, other things being equal (i.e., similar body proportions), larger riders tend to be better TTers than smaller ones. Their mass and power increases by the cube, while the air resistance that’s the primary force a TTer has to overcome increases by the square. This is just physics.

What about climbing? Here the key ratio is not power/surface area, but power to weight, since most of the work done in climbing, assuming a fairly steep slope, is expended to overcome gravity. Do smaller riders have a power/weight advantage? No. Since power increases with mass, and weight increases with (is) mass, other things being equal, there is no size advantage.

So why does the conventional wisdom say that smaller riders tend to be better climbers? It has to be based on physiology, not physics, and goes back to surface area. Smaller riders have a larger ratio of surface area/mass than larger riders, and while this is a disadvantage in flat riding, it provides potential advantages in climbing.

First, the larger surface area means more efficient heat loss. While riders can become overheated in any kind of terrain, in climbing, where the pace is slower, movement has less of a cooling effect. Riders tend to heat up, particularly, obviously, on very hot days. But smaller riders will heat up more slowly, and require less energy to cool down.

But surface area isn’t just external, it’s also internal. Interior surfaces play a key role in power production, from bringing oxygen into the lungs to transporting it to the muscles. At every step, larger surface/mass ratio means more efficient energy production and utilization. Smaller riders, smaller athletes in general, should—again, other things being equal—have greater values of parameters like V02 max (per kg) and efficiency. Greater surface area/mass should also enhance recovery, because again, surfaces are critical in transporting needed molecules to the muscles, as well as removing waste products.

In fact, this greater efficiency should come into play in any type of racing, including time trials. Having a higher V02max is obviously an advantage there, too. It’s just that in this case, the effect of wind resistance is generally much greater. In climbing, where wind resistance is greatly reduced, the advantages of surface area should predominate.

Obviously, no two athletes are exactly alike in body shape and proportion, so there will be all kinds of exceptions and qualifications. But being smaller should predispose riders to being better climbers. The notion that larger, heavier riders have an advantage in climbing over smaller ones is not supported by any science I’m aware of.

Terrific post.

On the subject of 4km pursuiters becoming great GT GC riders, we have seen similar advancements (though not to the same extreme extent) in distance running since the major endurance doping factors came into play, with a 1,500 metre guy named Hicham El Guerrouj being able to also run a great (12:50) 5,000 metres. Compare that to the Brits of the '80's. Coe probably didn't run much under 14 minutes, and Ovett - who seemed more of an endurance athlete compared to Coe - didn't run much faster than 13:30. It also used to be the case that marathon runners were marathon runners, a different breed of athlete to the track runner. A higher percentage of fast - or at least faster - twitch fibres made it logical to have less slow twitch ones, and less ability to last out the marathon distance. It makes some casual sense that having a faster top end speed can enable one to 'cruise' easier for longer, but as far as I know, this isn't backed up by science. And by that logic Bolt should have been able to smash the 400 metres world record, but he never got remotely close to being world class over that distance. Yes, there was more prestige for him at the shorter distances anyway, but as has been pointed out on this thread, cycling works in the opposite way to running; the greater prestige has long been in the long distance events, so why haven't the track cyclists been moving up to the road and dominating for many decades?

On somewhat of a contrary argument, what is actually surprising is why did it take Sky and anyone this long to realise the potential of great track cyclists to become great GT GC riders when implementing outside methods? Why didn't other track stars make the transition to the road with mountain climbing success during the '90's?

 

[Craigee]

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?

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?

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.

Crikey Ed Clancy was their strongest rider when they won Olympic Gold in London. Best TP rider ever I would say. If only you'd told him he could have gone on to be a Tour de France winner.

Honestly he'd love to know this fact.

 

[Craigee]

Well actually you are right. Sir Dave could have made Ed a Tour winner no probs. A least Ed is a thoroughbred, not a donkey and Dave's done it with donkeys.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

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.”

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.

Endurance is part of every type of rider anyway. This is how a sprinter can still ride 200km before he wins a 200m sprint.
I was simply quoting Coggins for his statement of the attributes that make a good pursuit rider also make a good GC rider. Unless you are now arguing riding over a mountain and sprinting an MTF doesn't find out what riders have superior aerobic and anaerobic thresholds which seems to be you indirect argument here which is nonense. Racing a GT stage is 99% well bellow aerobic and anaerobic threshold until the last 5-10km. The key moments of pressure in a GT stage in mountains last no longer than an hour and pursuit riders will ride 3-4 hours to build FTP that the demands of the pursuit requires. All BC did was see the demands of endurance track events when you break it down to what actually happens in a GT stage are not much different physiokogically, proven by the fact two Pursuit riders look to have won Tour now.
Now if you want to claim only team Sky are doping and all other teams pure thoroughbred GT leaders are clean then go ahead. As far as I can tell that is not the case though.

 

[samhocking]

There’s a lot of misinformation being tossed around carelessly on this thread. Let’s start with facts.

Mass increases with the cube of height, while surface area increases with the square of height. Since power, resulting from muscle size, is proportional to mass, while wind resistance is proportional to surface area, it follows that, other things being equal (i.e., similar body proportions), larger riders tend to be better TTers than smaller ones. Their mass and power increases by the cube, while the air resistance that’s the primary force a TTer has to overcome increases by the square. This is just physics.

What about climbing? Here the key ratio is not power/surface area, but power to weight, since most of the work done in climbing, assuming a fairly steep slope, is expended to overcome gravity. Do smaller riders have a power/weight advantage? No. Since power increases with mass, and weight increases with (is) mass, other things being equal, there is no size advantage.

So why does the conventional wisdom say that smaller riders tend to be better climbers? It has to be based on physiology, not physics, and goes back to surface area. Smaller riders have a larger ratio of surface area/mass than larger riders, and while this is a disadvantage in flat riding, it provides potential advantages in climbing.

First, the larger surface area means more efficient heat loss. While riders can become overheated in any kind of terrain, in climbing, where the pace is slower, movement has less of a cooling effect. Riders tend to heat up, particularly, obviously, on very hot days. But smaller riders will heat up more slowly, and require less energy to cool down.

But surface area isn’t just external, it’s also internal. Interior surfaces play a key role in power production, from bringing oxygen into the lungs to transporting it to the muscles. At every step, larger surface/mass ratio means more efficient energy production and utilization. Smaller riders, smaller athletes in general, should—again, other things being equal—have greater values of parameters like V02 max (per kg) and efficiency. Greater surface area/mass should also enhance recovery, because again, surfaces are critical in transporting needed molecules to the muscles, as well as removing waste products.

In fact, this greater efficiency should come into play in any type of racing, including time trials. Having a higher V02max is obviously an advantage there, too. It’s just that in this case, the effect of wind resistance is generally much greater. In climbing, where wind resistance is greatly reduced, the advantages of surface area should predominate.

Obviously, no two athletes are exactly alike in body shape and proportion, so there will be all kinds of exceptions and qualifications. But being smaller should predispose riders to being better climbers. The notion that larger, heavier riders have an advantage in climbing over smaller ones is not supported by any science I’m aware of.

Climbers don't win Tour de France, all-rounders that can TT well do.

Just ask yourself, how does a doped donkey beat a doped racehorse to win Tour de France? How is that possible for Sky to achieve assuming other teams have a doped racehorse as leader competing against Sky? Protection doesn't explain it. No other team would carry on if they knew only Sky could dope while their riders are on bread and water and neither would their sponsors part with £millions each season knowing they were already probably beaten.

Also ask yourself, why doesn't Brailsford simply sign a rider with proven GT success and give him the magic stuff? A doped or superiorly doped racehorse should always beat a non doped or normally doped racehorse equally easily and with more guarantee he won't fall to bits half-day through 3 weeks.

As for Clancy, he simply doesn't want to be a GT rider, he's said that multiple times. Also his position in TP suggests he has more anaerobic than aerobic ability too don't forget. He's a great crit rider due to his superior anaerobic ability. As a TT rider he isn't that good, just average aerobically.

 

[thehog]

If Brailford hired Pinot it Bardet he’d struggle because he’d could only take their hematocrit from 48% to 50%

Seriously Sam look at a rider like Rolland. JV was going to turn him from GT Top 10, Stage winner into a podium spot with his modern training methods. He ever quoted as saying Rolland trained like it was 1975.

The only REAL improvement gains is hard training and drugs for recovery and top end speed.

 

[samhocking]

So why don't other teams do the same then if it's so simple? Do they like to know they will lose already?

 

[thehog]

Re:

So why don't other teams do the same then if it's so simple? Do they like to know they will lose already?

Seriously Sam, the missing 5-10% is in the preparation and Ferrari’s magic number. You know this. To this extent it’s already proven Sky have been using PEDs to a degree. How far did they go? We’ll all soon find out when Moscon and Wiggins totally lose their heads

 

[samhocking]

My point is not how Sky are winning, the point is why don't others? If you and I know how it's done why don't / can't other teams? Or rather why do they keep trying to beat donkeys with racehorses if that's not the optimum rider to win with?

 

[thehog]

Re:

My point is not how Sky are winning, the point is why don't others? If you and I know how it's done why don't / can't other teams? Or rather why do they keep trying to beat donkeys with racehorses if that's not the optimum rider to win with?

You appear to be asking yourself this question as you come through a period known as ‘denial’. I’ll leave you to your journey.

 

[samhocking]

I'm not in denial, I simply see a team winning and everyone asking how can they win with donkeys, they must be doping them. To me that is illogical unless you believe every other team is clean, or somehow in terms of doping, there is an advantage to using riders with less natural anaerobic and aerobic ability. Maybe this is true, but then that would suggest doping riders like Pantani, Hinault, Merckx, Indurain, Armstrong etc were also actually donkeys which I don't see being claimed at all. Maybe Armstrong , but he's seen as US Froome anyway.

 

[Merckx index]

Climbers don't win Tour de France, all-rounders that can TT well do.

Where in my post did I say that climbers win the TDF? Can you point that out? If you can’t, and you can’t, why are you introducing this straw man? If you want to claim, over and over and over, that climbers don’t win the Tour, be my guest, but please don’t do it in the guise of responding to a post that never said they did. It suggests great insecurity in a view when one has to express that view even when it’s not the topic of discussion.

But since you’re obsessed with this question (apparently because answering it any way other than your way might threaten the notion that Sky is clean), it’s sort of like the old nature vs. nurture arguments. Now we appreciate that both are important. If you’re a poor TTer, you will have trouble winning the Tour (though Pantani did, once, and Rasmussen might have). If you’re a poor climber, you will have even more trouble winning the Tour (Martin and Cancellara never even tried, obviously). The evidence shows very clearly that a great climber who is a poor TTer has at least a fighting chance of winning the Tour, depending on the stages. A great TTer who is a poor climber has virtually no chance at all. The best positioned riders are those who can do both fairly well, but most Tours are more forgiving of poor TTng than of poor climbing. No one bonks and loses ten minutes on a TT. (Not even the Chicken in 2005 was quite that bad).

Just ask yourself, how does a doped donkey beat a doped racehorse to win Tour de France?

There are different kinds of doping, and they have a wide variety of effects on different riders. You seem to think that doping is strictly additive, so if two riders start out at different abilities, doping will not change that relationship. That isn’t necessarily the case at all. We know that there are genes for various kinds of athletic talent, and also genes that enhance the ability to improve that talent with training. The two types are not closely correlated, there's certainly no reason to think that the ability to respond to doping would necessarily be correlated with either talent or responsivity to training.

Also ask yourself, why doesn't Brailsford simply sign a rider with proven GT success and give him the magic stuff?

In the first place, he has signed riders with some proven GT success. In the second place, maybe the most promising riders don’t want to play Brailsford’s game? Why would a rider with designs on winning the TDF want to be Froome’s dom?

 

[samhocking]

Climbers don't win Tour de France, all-rounders that can TT well do.

Where in my post did I say that climbers win the TDF? Can you point that out? If you can’t, and you can’t, why are you introducing this straw man? If you want to claim, over and over and over, that climbers don’t win the Tour, be my guest, but please don’t do it in the guise of responding to a post that never said they did. It suggests great insecurity in a view when one has to express that view even when it’s not the topic of discussion.

But since you’re obsessed with this question (apparently because answering it any way other than your way might threaten the notion that Sky is clean), it’s sort of like the old nature vs. nurture arguments. Now we appreciate that both are important. If you’re a poor TTer, you will have trouble winning the Tour (though Pantani did, once, and Rasmussen might have). If you’re a poor climber, you will have even more trouble winning the Tour (Martin and Cancellara never even tried, obviously). The evidence shows very clearly that a great climber who is a poor TTer has at least a fighting chance of winning the Tour, depending on the stages. A great TTer who is a poor climber has virtually no chance at all. The best positioned riders are those who can do both fairly well, but most Tours are more forgiving of poor TTng than of poor climbing. No one bonks and loses ten minutes on a TT. (Not even the Chicken in 2005 was quite that bad).

Just ask yourself, how does a doped donkey beat a doped racehorse to win Tour de France?

There are different kinds of doping, and they have a wide variety of effects on different riders. You seem to think that doping is strictly additive, so if two riders start out at different abilities, doping will not change that relationship. That isn’t necessarily the case at all. We know that there are genes for various kinds of athletic talent, and also genes that enhance the ability to improve that talent with training. The two types are not closely correlated, there's certainly no reason to think that the ability to respond to doping would necessarily be correlated with either talent or responsivity to training.

Also ask yourself, why doesn't Brailsford simply sign a rider with proven GT success and give him the magic stuff?

In the first place, he has signed riders with some proven GT success. In the second place, maybe the most promising riders don’t want to play Brailsford’s game? Why would a rider with designs on winning the TDF want to be Froome’s dom?

1. You said there was no size advantage. There is. TdeF winners are nearly always close to, or above 70kg so suit the heavier all-rounder., Size is statistically an advantage to winning Tour de France given that trend that stretched back to the 70's and beyond even.

2. If doping is subjective and not always additive, why did everyone in EPO's heydey use it and require it to be competitive with each other and the clinic claim it makes donkeys into race horses continually if false?

3. Promising riders don't want to play Brailsfor'ds game? What is this, think of a reason off the top of my head day lol? Cycling and cyclists have a history of doping, why do they refuse only Brailsford? What changed between Festina and 100's of vials of EPO in a car and Brailsfords unknown jiffy bag being refused, that good riders don't want to win Tour de France by doping anymore even if undetectable it seems?

 

[aphronesis]

Sam are you saying that Indurain and Armstrong were natural GT winners from the outset? EPO didn’t shift the overall parameters of the peloton? Some European riders may not want to be internalised to Sky?

 

[Saint Unix]

I hope Sam is being deliberately obtuse, because this is getting frustrating.

 

[Merckx index]

1. You said there was no size advantage. There is. TdeF winners are nearly always close to, or above 70kg so suit the heavier all-rounder., Size is statistically an advantage to winning Tour de France given that trend that stretched back to the 70's and beyond even.

Sam, can you read? I said there was no size advantage to climbing. Repeat, CLIMBING! Second, I said there was no such advantage from physics. There is an advantage from physiology, and it goes to the smaller riders. But I said nothing about a size advantage to winning GTs. You are so obsessed with that issue that you read it into discussions where it doesn't exist.

2. If doping is subjective and not always additive, why did everyone in EPO's heydey use it and require it to be competitive with each other and the clinic claim it makes donkeys into race horses continually if false?

I didn't say doping was subjective! Subjective is not the opposite of non additive. How can you possibly jutapose those two adjectives? Subjective is another parameter completely. To say that doping is subjective is saying that there is a placebo effect. There may well be, but I wasn't commenting on that.

Just because some riders get more of an advantage from doping than others doesn't mean that there are riders who get no advantage. During the 90s, when you could take EPO with impunity, and it would have some effect, why wouldn't you take it? Just because it didn't give you as big a boost as it gave someone else is no reason not to use it. Better something than nothing. And again, if a donkey gets a bigger boost that a thoroughbred, possibly the donkey on EPO will be better than the thoroughbred. Not necessarily, but certainly possible.

3. Promising riders don't want to play Brailsfor'ds game? What is this, think of a reason off the top of my head day lol? Cycling and cyclists have a history of doping, why do they refuse only Brailsford? What changed between Festina and 100's of vials of EPO in a car and Brailsfords unknown jiffy bag being refused, that good riders don't want to win Tour de France by doping anymore even if undetectable it seems?

Again, you don't seem capable of reading my posts. One of the reasons I gave is that promising riders may not want to play second fiddle to Froome. But yes, they may also not want to play the TUE marginal gains game, either.

 

[samhocking]

Fine by me MI, you seem to agree with most of what i've said in fact?
EPO and doping doesn't necessarily turn donkeys into race horses or turn race horses into better race horses either as you say ""an advantage only from physiology""
Size doesn't matter to winning Tour de France as weight/size doesn't matter to climbing you say "there was no size advantage to climbing", "no such advantage from physics", "an advantage only from physiology"
Some riders don't win Tour because they don't want to be second fiddle to Froome and/or don't want a TUE to be better. All riders benefit from doping though, but donkeys physiology sometimes benefit so much from it they rise above doped race horses not benefiting so much. No reason for racehorses not to dope too though they get some benefit at least if not caught, but won;t be better than those with the correct doping phsiology who are donkeys necessarily.

However you are basically arguing better physiology regardless of rider size and doping wins Tour de France mostly, but not necessarily due to doping alone because doping can affect donkeys of any size beyond the performance level possible of race horses of any size who are equally doping too where it isn't so effective, but maybe not taking a TUE by the race horse might explain a donkey winning who did have a TUE?