• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

Page 62 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Tony Martin was included in one of the lists earlier in this thread as an example of a track rider with a good result in a prologue on the road. I wasn't aware that Martin had been a track rider, but regarding the TT rider-->GC rider transformation, Martin is an interesting example of a failed attempt.

Back in 2009, riding his second GT ever, Martin was sitting in 8th place after the second rest day in the Tour de France. On stage 16, he lost 16 minutes. Two years later, Martin won Paris-Nice and there was again talk of him as a TDF contender: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tony-martin-ready-to-target-the-tour-de-france/. This time, he was in 6th place after 11 stages, before losing 9 minutes on stage 12. That was the end of talk about Martin as a GT GC contender.

The transformation that didn't work with Martin apparently did, however, with Thomas.
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
The Hegelian said:
I think we can quite reasonably infer - on the basis of what has emerged through the parliamentary inquiry, fancy bear leaks and an AAF - that corticosteroids, salbutomuol and testosterone patches are likely to be have been used.

We can also infer, on the basis of the first inference, that other substances are highly likely to have been utilised, although clearly we have no basis for stating precisely what.

The logical form for the argument is: if a, then b. i.e. if one is prepared to use one illegal method, one will also be prepared to utilise another illegal method.

Following the recent history of the sport and the CIRC report which came out a few years ago, micro dosing epo + blood doping are both highly probably methods that GT utilised.

https://pelotonmagazine.com/racing/circ-report-cycling-doping-uci-armstrong/

And then there is the weight loss stuff - for mine, a speculative judgement can be made about this, but I think this is less concretely justified than the other things, if only because although we can see many in the peloton looking super skinny, facts are that there is no concrete evidence that riders are using illegal weight loss drugs. Closest is Clebutoral traces found on Contador and Rogers.
I agree ... we can be, quite reasonably ... suspicious. Somewhere between ‘vigilant doctor suspicious’ and ‘ ‘neurotic Othello suspicious.’ As you observe... there’s a lot we don’t know. What, how much, for how long, to what effect?

So what do we do with that uncertainty? Cheap inferences are a dime a dozen.
Well, cheap inferences can run both ways.

True knowledge generally only emerges from the subject (i.e. the rider), and this - if it ever emerges - usually entails a confession at some later date, far from the immanence of the victory.

Lacking that, there actually isn't a neutral space; assuming cleaniness on the basis of a lack of true knowledge is not a neutral or objective position - it entails many inferences too (not necessarily cheap though). So, the only available road is epistemic uncertainty.

The point about GT is that quite a lot has already emerged about practices at Team Sky, which lend very considerable weight to the probability of doping. It's not 2012 anymore; the water under the bridge has already been revealed to be dirty.
 
Re: Re:

Dan2016 said:
samhocking said:
mrhender said:
Then why the comparisons you just performed above?
You can't have it both ways.
I am viewing Thomas as a doper in order to maintain my point, what's so complicated. If you're comparing Thomas the doper, to rider x in the past who was a doper, then any 'believable rider' is rather pointless. As Armstrong said, without doping for the Worlds he would never have won it and today if that race was ridden today, he said he wouldn't stand a chance as that level of cheating isn't possible today to make the difference anymore, so looking at riders palamares doping from the moment they entered the peloton and winning at a young age is pointless as Armstrong's Worlds proved. ie none of it is based on natural ability in reality, it's based on doping, even in their 20's.
(Sorry for the off topic)

Just curious, when did Armstrong admit that he doped for his Worlds win? Do you have a source for this please?

After he confessed everything I've only ever heard him maintain that he was completely clean for his Worlds win and that was proof of how naturally talented he really was. Never believed him of course, just curious as to when he admitted it.
In one of his podcasts, he was asked about his Worlds win and he was adamant the level of doping it took wouldn't be possible today. Iirc correctly he said "times were very different back then, let's just leave it at that"!
 
Jan 11, 2018
130
0
0
Alpe73 said:
Mamil said:
Alpe73 said:
So ... why not cut to the chase, here?

What’s was G’s “regimen” approaching and during the Tour?

Names of methods, names of drugs, frequency, duration, effect?

And why no positive tests? Who is protecting him? Why?
The lack of positive tests is almost meaningless. Drug testing in pro sport is largely a sham and a front to make the federations and WADA look like they're doing something about it, or a stick to beat countries who fall into the bad books like Russia. It's not meant to catch cheats unless they're too blatant or too stupid.

Watched any tennis lately? Obvious signs of serious doping everywhere, but almost no-one tests positive. How can this be?
Thanks for addressing the last point of my query. Let’s set that aside for further debate later, then.

Since you’re convinced that GT is doping ... can you please have a go at the first two questions, please?

Thanks, in advance.
Hegelian got in before me, and I pretty much agree with what he has suggested, so I won't repeat it. I'd probably just add that during the Tour a third week blood bag is likely to still be pretty standard, and recovery drugs are really important, be they legal or not. Must admit I'm not fully up on these, but peptides are highly likely to be be part of the story. Either way, you only have to look at a range of sports, from cycling to football to tennis, to see that super-human recovery abilities are widespread, and highly unlikely to be all achieved just with ice baths.

Other than that, again like Hegelian I'd point to what we already know about Sky, particularly in the context of the sport's extensive doping history, which points to a willingness to at the very least push the grey areas as far as they'll possibly go, and say as well that almost all past performances like Thomas' in the Tour have been proven or well-known to have been done by dopers. Really the odd and surprising thing would be if Thomas weren't doping, not if he was.
 
Kerrison is in Telegraph a couple of days ago, explaining how he did it with Thomas. Some key things he discussed between pursuit numbers and tour numbers were:

2007 - 73kg
2008 - 75kg
2009 - 72kg
2011 - 71kg
2012 - 72kg
2013 - 69kg
2014 - 70kg
2015 - 68kg
2016 - 68kg
2017 - 67.8kg
2018 - 67.6kg

2012 Pursuit weight to 2018 Tour weight = 4.4kg weight loss over 6 years.

2012 - 30s power 834W
2018 - 30s power 774W

2012 - 4min power 513W
2018 - 4min power 508W

2012 - 20min power 413W
2018 - 20min power 428W

2012 - 4 Hour power 282W
2018 - 4 Hour power 304W

So basically this tallies up with what we know of Wiggins numbers too. Basically you loose 5-10W power for 5kg of upper body and overall muscle loss which for the pursuit compared to the road matches Wiggins numbers too. This is why GC winners today would need a period of adaptation in the gym to gain the upper body and leg power to find that 5-10W by gaining 5kg in muscle mass to reach the required 4min power.
Clearly the key to Thomas's transformation is his 4 hour power which unsurprisingly is vastly better between a 4km pursuit rider and GC winner. He's gained 22W over 4 hours and 15W over 20 mins and sacrifices his shorter numbers which are not so critical to be a GC rider. Basically Kerrison has simply pushed his training power curve from short endurance to longer endurance. Interestingly he says Thomas doesn't stay at Tour weight longer than necessary. The calorie count to the demands of each stage so Thomas doesn't gain weight during 3 weeks and before and after Tour he returns to being 70-71kg in order be robust enough for the demands of training without getting sick,
 
Mamil said:
Alpe73 said:
Mamil said:
Alpe73 said:
So ... why not cut to the chase, here?

What’s was G’s “regimen” approaching and during the Tour?

Names of methods, names of drugs, frequency, duration, effect?

And why no positive tests? Who is protecting him? Why?
The lack of positive tests is almost meaningless. Drug testing in pro sport is largely a sham and a front to make the federations and WADA look like they're doing something about it, or a stick to beat countries who fall into the bad books like Russia. It's not meant to catch cheats unless they're too blatant or too stupid.

Watched any tennis lately? Obvious signs of serious doping everywhere, but almost no-one tests positive. How can this be?
Thanks for addressing the last point of my query. Let’s set that aside for further debate later, then.

Since you’re convinced that GT is doping ... can you please have a go at the first two questions, please?

Thanks, in advance.
Hegelian got in before me, and I pretty much agree with what he has suggested, so I won't repeat it. I'd probably just add that during the Tour a third week blood bag is likely to still be pretty standard, and recovery drugs are really important, be they legal or not. Must admit I'm not fully up on these, but peptides are highly likely to be be part of the story. Either way, you only have to look at a range of sports, from cycling to football to tennis, to see that super-human recovery abilities are widespread, and highly unlikely to be all achieved just with ice baths.

Other than that, again like Hegelian I'd point to what we already know about Sky, particularly in the context of the sport's extensive doping history, which points to a willingness to at the very least push the grey areas as far as they'll possibly go, and say as well that almost all past performances like Thomas' in the Tour have been proven or well-known to have been done by dopers. Really the odd and surprising thing would be if Thomas weren't doping, not if he was.
Also, it's been mentioned before, but the 2010 UCI suspicion index had Thomas in the 'worst' 10% of the peloton regarding doping. "Circumstantial evidence of possible doping was 'overwhelming". He was deemed more suspicious than Armstrong, Contador, Vinokourov, Wiggins, Schleck, Horner and a whole host of other confirmed dopers.

So there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence he was doping in 2010, and he has improved exponentially since then as a GT rider. Combined with the evidence of Sky abusing TUEs and painkillers, and ordering testosterone, it is anything but a 'cheap inference' to believe that he is still doping.
 
UCI suspicion index, Testosterone, TUEs, Painkillers, Corticosteroids, EPO and blood bags applies and is easily available to pretty much any rider in any team that might want to transform to a GC winner so doesn't explain anything with Wiggins or Thomas. Clearly if you believe all that is still going on in the peloton 7 years later, none of that explains Thomas this year, something else must.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
UCI suspicion index, Testosterone, TUEs, Painkillers, Corticosteroids, EPO and blood bags applies and is easily available to pretty much any rider in any team that might want to transform to a GC winner so doesn't explain anything with Wiggins or Thomas. Clearly if you believe all that is still going on in the peloton 7 years later, none of that explains Thomas this year, something else must.
I'm not really sure what this means. Of course it explains a lot. It shows there is 'overwhelming evidence' that he dopes, which was not the case for the vast majority of other WT riders at the time.

The point is not that Thomas is winning now by doing what he was doing eight years ago. It's that there is overwhelming evidence he was doping eight years ago when he wasn't very good, and overwhelming evidence that Sky have used PEDs. So the logically inference is that he is also doping now, when he is putting in much better performances.

From that inference we can begin to speculate as to what exactly he is doing. But its not a cheap inference to believe he is still doping. It's the only rational starting point for the discussion based on his and Sky's history.
 
samhocking said:
Kerrison is in Telegraph a couple of days ago, explaining how he did it with Thomas. Some key things he discussed between pursuit numbers and tour numbers were:

2007 - 73kg
2008 - 75kg
2009 - 72kg
2011 - 71kg
2012 - 72kg
2013 - 69kg
2014 - 70kg
2015 - 68kg
2016 - 68kg
2017 - 67.8kg
2018 - 67.6kg

2012 Pursuit weight to 2018 Tour weight = 4.4kg weight loss over 6 years.

2012 - 30s power 834W
2018 - 30s power 774W

2012 - 4min power 513W
2018 - 4min power 508W

2012 - 20min power 413W
2018 - 20min power 428W

2012 - 4 Hour power 282W
2018 - 4 Hour power 304W

So basically this tallies up with what we know of Wiggins numbers too. Basically you loose 5-10W power for 5kg of upper body and overall muscle loss which for the pursuit compared to the road matches Wiggins numbers too. This is why GC winners today would need a period of adaptation in the gym to gain the upper body and leg power to find that 5-10W by gaining 5kg in muscle mass to reach the required 4min power.
Clearly the key to Thomas's transformation is his 4 hour power which unsurprisingly is vastly better between a 4km pursuit rider and GC winner. He's gained 22W over 4 hours and 15W over 20 mins and sacrifices his shorter numbers which are not so critical to be a GC rider. Basically Kerrison has simply pushed his training power curve from short endurance to longer endurance. Interestingly he says Thomas doesn't stay at Tour weight longer than necessary. The calorie count to the demands of each stage so Thomas doesn't gain weight during 3 weeks and before and after Tour he returns to being 70-71kg in order be robust enough for the demands of training without getting sick,
What exactly is the point of measuring 4 hour power? How many TTs or climbs involve a four hour effort? Its almost impossible to test for objectively and, even if it would have been tested on an identical course, with identical conditions 6 years apart, there is not going to be a big enough sample size to mean anything.

Essentially, its a completely pointless and meaningless stat - and implying that a supposed 22w improvement over four hours is relevant in any way, suggests that you don't really understand the numbers that you are referencing.

It's just marketing by Sky to sucker in those who want to believe in miracles. :rolleyes:
 
does anyone of the thread inhabitans seriously contemplate about possibility of G riding clean? :) Or we are discussing how ridiculously far he went doping-wise after being joined to Sky high-scale programme?

DFA123 said:
Btw, determination is a completely different factor. Froome for example has incredible mental strength which has undoubtedly contributed to his prolonged period of success - and he is a worthy champion in that respect.
yes, determination is a different factor, but pure talent is not worth much without proper determination as well as determination should necessarily be fed up with talent in order to produce an extraordinary rider. plants must get a great watering to grow and produce fruits. and which is why froome, armstrong and thomas remain big worthy champions.
 
OK, DFA123, so you believe he is doping with something completely unknown to any other rider and their team then? Something that improves his performance even more than when he was taking EPO, Testosterone, Corticosteorids and blood bags as a domestique? That's not overwhelming evidence of doping, that's actually having no evidence to explain his transformation other than assuming there is a miracle substance that either does more than all of the above 7 years ago or adds something, not even EPO & Blood provided him 7 years ago?
 
samhocking said:
Kerrison is in Telegraph a couple of days ago, explaining how he did it with Thomas. Some key things he discussed between pursuit numbers and tour numbers were:

2007 - 73kg
2008 - 75kg
2009 - 72kg
2011 - 71kg
2012 - 72kg
2013 - 69kg
2014 - 70kg
2015 - 68kg
2016 - 68kg
2017 - 67.8kg
2018 - 67.6kg

2012 Pursuit weight to 2018 Tour weight = 4.4kg weight loss over 6 years.

2012 - 30s power 834W
2018 - 30s power 774W

2012 - 4min power 513W
2018 - 4min power 508W

2012 - 20min power 413W
2018 - 20min power 428W

2012 - 4 Hour power 282W
2018 - 4 Hour power 304W

So basically this tallies up with what we know of Wiggins numbers too. Basically you loose 5-10W power for 5kg of upper body and overall muscle loss which for the pursuit compared to the road matches Wiggins numbers too. This is why GC winners today would need a period of adaptation in the gym to gain the upper body and leg power to find that 5-10W by gaining 5kg in muscle mass to reach the required 4min power.
Clearly the key to Thomas's transformation is his 4 hour power which unsurprisingly is vastly better between a 4km pursuit rider and GC winner. He's gained 22W over 4 hours and 15W over 20 mins and sacrifices his shorter numbers which are not so critical to be a GC rider. Basically Kerrison has simply pushed his training power curve from short endurance to longer endurance. Interestingly he says Thomas doesn't stay at Tour weight longer than necessary. The calorie count to the demands of each stage so Thomas doesn't gain weight during 3 weeks and before and after Tour he returns to being 70-71kg in order be robust enough for the demands of training without getting sick,
are these numbers before or after his morning 2Kg dump?
 
Re:

samhocking said:
OK, DFA123, so you believe he is doping with something completely unknown to any other rider and their team then? Something that improves his performance even more than when he was taking EPO, Testosterone, Corticosteorids and blood bags? That's not overwhelming evidence of doping, that's actually having no evidence to explain his transformation other than assuming there is a miracle substance that either does more than all of the above 7 years ago or adds something, not even EPO & Blood provided him 7 years ago?
No. So the rest of your post is just a pointless straw man rant. :rolleyes:

I suspect that he is using something for weight loss, which is readily available, but which works better on bigger riders. Same reason we are seeing Dumoulin and rise to the top. It might even be one of those grey area things like TUE abuse or sabutamol. Probably not much secret about it - just that you need a certain type of physique to benefit the most. Then having the best doctors and a lot of money to pay for top lawyers to shut down any case against you, ensures you are more or less untouchable.

Because even if the same products are available to everyone, doping isn't and never will be a level playing field. We've seen in the history of cycling - it's not so much about the availability of doping products - it's about having the financial clout and expertise to get away with using them.
 
Well, Movistar are financially 4x bigger than Sky UK. If any company had the access to the most funds to pay for protection for a sponsors ROI, it would be Movistar, assuming UCI sells the best protection to the highest bidder like most rackets do.
Also, I would argue, If was Sky paying for UCI protection, how UCI handled my top rider, I would not be impressed with what I got for my money this year!
 
Re:

samhocking said:
Well, Movistar are financially 4x bigger than Sky UK. If any company had the biggest access top funds to pay for protection, it would be Movistar.
Also, I would argue, I was Sky paying for protection, how UCI handled my top rider, I would not be impressed with what I got for my money this year!
I'm not saying they are paying for protection. I'm saying that they are protected by the amount of money they can throw at defending any case against them. Both what we have seen in the open (Froome's case) and undoubtedly what we haven't seen with maneuverings and threats behind the scenes. And also protected in the amount of money they can pay for expertise (who is the current Leinders on their payroll I wonder) in use of nefarious substances.

The size of the company is irrelevant. Movistar (or Telefonica) don't commit anywhere near the budget to their cycling team as Sky do to theirs. Sky is by far the biggest budget team and is more than prepared to throw its financial clout around. To get the best return on their investment they want a British winner, and will speculate to accumulate in that respect.
 
I really can't agree that the financial legal ability to fight a theoretical AAF at the point of just a small handful of options to use mildly performance enhancing substances that cross the prohibited and specified/TUE line at some point in the future is the difference between a rider winning and not winning Tour de France. Contador used the same lawyer for example, and is worth $17 million dollars, Froome is currently worth $14.6 million. I can't see that Froome beating Contador was down to more money in order to dope with more impunity than him and Tinkoff for example? There is very little evidence for that being the state of pro cycling today and if the state of winners, is those taking Salbutomol, then that would imply the peloton is significantly cleaner bothering with relatively poor performance enhancers like that.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
I really can't agree that the financial legal ability to fight a theoretical AAF at some point in the future is the difference between a rider winning and not winning Tour de France. Contador used the same lawyer for example, and is worth $17 million dollars, Froome is currently worth $14.6 million. I can't see that Froome beating Contador was down to money in order to dope with more impunity than others. There is very little evidence for that being the state of pro cycling today?
Well obviously that's not the only factor in deciding who wins. But it is one of many. Some of them are undoubtedly sporting, and Sky do have some legitimate advantages - i.e. the strength of team, robust training programme, rider motivation and psychology, natural talent. But some of them are not sporting - doping, lawyers covering up scandals, TUE abuse, 'altitude' training camps. And, while Sky don't have a monopoly on any of these, they have the financial clout to execute them better than the rest. Which is why they are almost universally loathed.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
Well, Movistar are financially 4x bigger than Sky UK. If any company had the access to the most funds to pay for protection for a sponsors ROI, it would be Movistar, assuming UCI sells the best protection to the highest bidder like most rackets do.
Also, I would argue, If was Sky paying for UCI protection, how UCI handled my top rider, I would not be impressed with what I got for my money this year!
He was cleared and he continued to race in the time leading up to that decision. What is the complaint?
 
Re:

samhocking said:
I really can't agree that the financial legal ability to fight a theoretical AAF at the point of just a small handful of options to use mildly performance enhancing substances that cross the prohibited and specified/TUE line at some point in the future is the difference between a rider winning and not winning Tour de France. Contador used the same lawyer for example, and is worth $17 million dollars, Froome is currently worth $14.6 million. I can't see that Froome beating Contador was down to more money in order to dope with more impunity than him and Tinkoff for example? There is very little evidence for that being the state of pro cycling today and if the state of winners, is those taking Salbutomol, then that would imply the peloton is significantly cleaner bothering with relatively poor performance enhancers like that.
it wasn't a theoretical AAF...it was an AAF

anyway....the difference is that one was strict liability and one wasn't...with so many grey areas, that's where the money goes.....pushing every one...as we saw that is exactly what they did...Contador only had one angle...the steak...
 
Jul 30, 2009
1,554
0
0
Re: Re:

simoni said:
F

Since this is largely about Thomas, just a bit on his own weight loss (if the figures can be believed)

2011 - (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/8606668/Tour-de-France-2011-Geraint-Thomas-QandA.html) - 71kg

2013 - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraint_Thomas (but ultimately from Sky own website at that time) - 70kg

2018 - (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/29/geraint-thomas-seals-tour-de-france-title-paris-team-sky-chris-froome) - 67.6kg

So clearly he's lost a bit over the years but I doubt he was ever 85kg!
OK my bad if those are true, I knew that Wiggo was low-mid 80s when pursuiting and just assumed Thomas would be similar as he didnt look Tour winner thin, but well, like a healthy trackie.

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/olympics/bradley-wiggins-gains-over-11kg-as-he-prepares-for-olympic-team-pursuit-205328
 
the issue isn't the difference in weight but how it was achieved....whilst making it up :) I'm pretty sure that those trotted out as being pursuit and GT winners historically pretty much did it concurrently and at the same roughly the same weight...sky seem to have the ability to have their riders yo yo in manner some might call both highly suspicious and unhealthly..............

Edit to add the wise (and still unanswered) words of our great leader:

To illustrate the point, Paul Kimmage asked Brailsford precisely how Peter Kennaugh had managed - by his own admission - to lose five kilograms since he lined up at the Tour de Romandie in late April.

"Through calorie deficit," Brailsford said bluntly, before then expanding slightly on his answer. "Why not speak to Nigel our nutritionist? It's a good question to ask. That is a lot of weight to lose and I totally agree with you. What do we do to get to that kind of weight loss? They're the types of questions that would be legitimate to answer. I don't think there's any great secret in that."
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS