• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

Page 61 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

rick james said:
Says who?? any proof of that?

Riders with pursuit experience that have top 10'd a GT prologue in the last 10 years:

Tour: (2 prologues total, 2010 and 2012)
Bradley Wiggins - 2nd, 2012
Sylvain Chavanel - 3rd 2012
Brett Lancaster - 6th 2012
Patrick Gretsch - 7th 2012
Tony Martin - 2nd 2010
David Millar - 3rd 2010
Geraint Thomas - 5th 2010
Tyler Farrar - 6th 2010

Giro: (1 prologue total, 2012)
Taylor Phinney - 1st
Geraint Thomas - 2nd
Alex Rasmussen - 3rd
Brett Lancaster - 7th
Jesse Sergent - 9th

Vuelta: (1 prologue total, 2009)
Tyler Farrar - 3rd
Jens Mouris - 4th

Then there's guys like Patrick Bevin, Victor Campenaerts, Luke Durbridge, Manuel Quinziato, Rohan Dennis, Alex Dowsett, Alex Edmondson, Vasil Kiryienka, Tom Bohli, Mark Cavendish, Leigh Howard, Mark Renshaw, Greg Henderson and Michael Rogers who have top 10 results in prologues from other World Tour stage races.

I don't know... it's almost as if being the among the fastest in the world in a 4km TT on a flat track makes riders extremely well suited for the shortest TTs found in road cycling. Who knew?

Oh, and would you look at that... Out of that entire list, only three have been top 10 in a GT. One is Mick Rogers the doper. The others are our favourite British boys. I bet there's less than a handful of even top 25s between the rest of them. Because the pursuit is such a great indicator of GT talent.
 
I was under the impression that this discussion was around team pursuit riders? If we are talking about individual pursuit medalists who have gone on to be good TT riders or GC riders there are a few names missing from these lists. Notably:

Fausto Coppi (GT winner)
Hugo Koblet (GT winner)
Jacques Anquetil (GT winner)
Albert Bouvet
Knut Knudsen
Francesco Moser (GT winner)
Ferdinand Bracke (GT winner)
Ole Ritter
Roy Schuiten
Ercole Baldini (GT winner)
Charly Grosskost
Stefan Kung, although still young he's looking good.


I'm sure I've missed some.
 
Re:

King Boonen said:
I was under the impression that this discussion was around team pursuit riders? If we are talking about individual pursuit medalists who have gone on to be good TT riders or GC riders there are a few names missing from these lists. Notably:

Fausto Coppi (GT winner)
Hugo Koblet (GT winner)
Jacques Anquetil (GT winner)
Albert Bouvet
Knut Knudsen
Francesco Moser (GT winner)
Ferdinand Bracke (GT winner)
Ole Ritter
Roy Schuiten
Ercole Baldini (GT winner)
Charly Grosskost
Stefan Kung, although still young he's looking good.


I'm sure I've missed some.
Most of those guys, and the GT winners especially, were primarily road racers their entire career and did pursuits on the side because they were good enough to medal at Olympics and Worlds without specializing. Speaking of specialization, apart from Küng all of those riders are from decades ago, before riders pretty much had to specialize in one particular discipline to be the very best at it.
 
Re: Re:

Saint Unix said:
King Boonen said:
I was under the impression that this discussion was around team pursuit riders? If we are talking about individual pursuit medalists who have gone on to be good TT riders or GC riders there are a few names missing from these lists. Notably:

Fausto Coppi (GT winner)
Hugo Koblet (GT winner)
Jacques Anquetil (GT winner)
Albert Bouvet
Knut Knudsen
Francesco Moser (GT winner)
Ferdinand Bracke (GT winner)
Ole Ritter
Roy Schuiten
Ercole Baldini (GT winner)
Charly Grosskost
Stefan Kung, although still young he's looking good.


I'm sure I've missed some.
Most of those guys, and the GT winners especially, were primarily road racers their entire career and did pursuits on the side because they were good enough to medal at Olympics and Worlds without specializing. Speaking of specialization, apart from Küng all of those riders are from decades ago, before riders pretty much had to specialize in one particular discipline to be the very best at it.

I get the feeling that this whole conversation is just an exercise in goal-post shifting and one true Scotsmanism.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
I get the feeling that this whole conversation is just an exercise in goal-post shifting and one true Scotsmanism.
The argument is that riders whose main focus is on the track can go from the track to doing well on the road, but historically speaking, successful road racers that founded their careers on their big engines used to be able to go to the track and win medals in pursuits, rather than the other way around.

Rather than goal post-shifting and one true Scotsmanism, using Coppi, Anquetil and Moser to argue that pursuit riders can do well in GTs is a strawman. The fact is that GT riders used to do well in pursuits, at least 50-60 years ago. Cycling has changed a hell of a lot since then, so in reality it's not really a discussion worth having either way.
 
Jan 11, 2018
260
0
0
Visit site
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?
 
Re: Re:

Saint Unix said:
King Boonen said:
I get the feeling that this whole conversation is just an exercise in goal-post shifting and one true Scotsmanism.
The argument is that riders whose main focus is on the track can go from the track to doing well on the road, but historically speaking, successful road racers that founded their careers on their big engines used to be able to go to the track and win medals in pursuits, rather than the other way around.

Rather than goal post-shifting and one true Scotsmanism, using Coppi, Anquetil and Moser to argue that pursuit riders can do well in GTs is a strawman. The fact is that GT riders used to do well in pursuits, at least 50-60 years ago. Cycling has changed a hell of a lot since then, so in reality it's not really a discussion worth having either way.


I wasn't arguing that those guys doing both is proof of future GT winners, I provided several examples of riders who have done well in both, pursuit and ITT, and included the info on GT winners. I'm sure the original question was to name pursuit riders who have done well in ITT. There are long lists on here showing that many rider have done this.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Re:

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.
 
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
260
0
0
Visit site
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?
 

TRENDING THREADS