Re: Re:
Well this is all massively obvious. What's also obvious is that there are numerous prohibited substances floating around cycling which can facilitate this 'weight adjustment' and 'tipping of the odds in their favour'. And that doing 'weight adjustment' without resultant power loss has been the holy grail of cyclists for over 100 years - with almost no success until things like Clen and Aicar came onto the scene.
samhocking said:dacooley said:the issue is that a lot of fans are desperately willing to search for some kind of bike racing fairness which is actually senseless, because the whole world is unfair by its nature. the model "the earlier talent is evident - the more credible and well-deserved champion" is valid to a certain extent, but clearly has multiple flaws, coming down more to the idealist attitude. nobody has a clue what would have happened in a completely clean cycling, the sport, that has histrorically been one of the hardest and dirtiest. so would you have a faith in valverde / quintana, had they won the tour by crushing thermonuclear sky?DFA123 said:The issue is that it's so blatant. It's impossible to suspend disbelief - to imagine that the most talented riders in the world are actually winning the race. If some guy like Valverde or Sagan wins a race then - looking at their youth results and progression - you can believe its plausible that they would be there or there abouts in a clean peloton. If someone suddenly transforms mid (or late) career to win the Tour - you know its not that much to do with talent any more. It feels like the Armstrong era all again - where having a huge budget, the best lawyers and friends in the right places is deciding races. Thomas is a bit different to Froome/Dumoulin I think because he's clearly talented, even by pro standards, but he's so tainted by the Sky brand right now, that it's difficult to have any faith in him.dacooley said:how comes that being a talented track rider, joining high-scale doping programme, losing weight and as a result becoming a great climber is far less OKish than being a talented little climber by nature and winning big races with an assistance of doping? why super elite racing should allegedly be a direct reflection of what took place in tour de l'avenir. damn, it doesnt make any sense imo.
The point i'm making is not that the 4km effort itself and of itself is indicative of Grand Tour success, it's that the training effort required in order to put such a high 4km effort onto, only comes from a very strong, basic aerobic threshold over much longer periods and why pursuit riders at least in man 2,3 & 4 also make great ITT riders too. Basically the 4km pursuit identifies riders with very good sustained power over an hour or so ,mbecause if you don't have that, you are not able to bolt on the numbers required to win a pursuit. The pursuit naturally selects those riders who, with weight adjustment and race tactics up climbs in Grand Tours can then tip the maths into their favour. All rider types have basic endurance to get around France, that's not the point.
The riders that are not very good at sustained power over an hour or so are guess who? Pure climbers. As discussed when the road goes uphill the 'maths and physics' tip in their favour as discussed above, so how do you negate that favour? You ride at sustained threshold from the bottom of the climb, so when you get to the more decisive last 3-4km the pure climbers can't then make the difference over a shorter effort and typical of where the Tour de France time is won and lost. The 'maths and physics' have been tipped into the favour of the heavier riders like Doumilin, Wiggins, Thomas, Indurain etc.
Well this is all massively obvious. What's also obvious is that there are numerous prohibited substances floating around cycling which can facilitate this 'weight adjustment' and 'tipping of the odds in their favour'. And that doing 'weight adjustment' without resultant power loss has been the holy grail of cyclists for over 100 years - with almost no success until things like Clen and Aicar came onto the scene.