Thank you. I'll start sending questions!Benotti69 said:
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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Thank you. I'll start sending questions!Benotti69 said:
hrotha said:Too soon to say that era has ended, or to say when it ended (why 2009?). We still lack historical perspective to know if it's true that clean riders can truly win the biggest races, particularly the GTs.
I Watch Cycling In July said:Ok, I think it probably is possible at the moment for super talented clean riders to occasionally win a race. But IMO that is because of the unexpected progress the passport has made and some resulting risk aversion. That progress will be short lived if the UCI continues with reduced monitoring and fails to monitor those high on the suspicion index. The current quiet patch will be just that, a quiet patch. Until the pockets of highly sophisticated doping Ashenden talks about set the arms race off all over again.
By all means start the "dark era" in 1991, that coincides with the start of Hein's presidency nicely. He completely failed to manage the problem. Just don't close the dark era off yet. Don't close it till the UCI makes the changes needed to prevent it happening all over again.
Fowsto Cope-E said:I'm sorry, but Team Sky didn't sandbag and still drop everyone else. That's ridiculous. And if you only derived that calculation from speed, height, and the fact that there was a headwind, that doesn't seem particularly accurate.
Dear Wiggo said:How do you explain the massive difference in the final TT times then? If they weren't sandbagging? If they were able to push 420W at 100-110rpm uphill? If noone else could stay with them bar Nibali and the odd hanger-on every now and then? Yes it is ridiculous - it certainly looked ridiculous, and to explain it away we have "it was a weak tour", etc trotted out as excuses.
As for a model not being accurate - you seem to have no respect for what we can use to calculate power required to TT. What should we be using instead? I suggested:
speed & atmospheric conditions.
The other variable they used was elevation - ie the actual elevation of the course, for its duration.
Check it out for yourself: http://www.cyclingpowermodels.com/ProRaceAnalysis.aspx
If you have something constructive to add other than "that's ridiculous" and "not particularly accurate", I am all ears. Krebs Cycle has a PhD and offers that sort of input as well, so you're in fine company.
Fowsto Cope-E said:Yes, it did look ridiculous. They were ridiculously stronger than the rest of the feild. And yet, you claim that they were holding and could do much more. And according to the model on that site, Maxime Bouet produced 6.14W/kg. Where was he on the climbs? That model, for whatever reason (ex. the wind wasn't as strong as reported), overestimated the power outputs. If Wiggo and Froome were sandbagging the climbs and then went 6.9W/kg on the TT, then everyone was sandbagging until the TT.
Dear Wiggo said:Just look at the actual TT times - forgetting margin of errors and model accuracy.
Froome was 2% slower, requiring 6% more power to match Brad's time. Everyone slower than Froome required more than 6% additional power to match Brad's time. By 5th place you need 10% more power.
So if Porte is putting out 420W on the climb, and Wiggins is on his wheel, but Porte needs to generate 10% more power for an hour+ to match Brad in the TT, I believe most definitely Brad could have ridden uphill faster than he did.
Brad was riding at the acceptable physiological limit. Any faster could only be explained "by another couple of blood bags". ie he couldn't ride any faster or it would look too suspect. They were counting on everyone else respecting this simple fact.
Fowsto Cope-E said:See, this is my problem with it. If everyone else is just making sure that they don't exceed the acceptable physiological limit, then why couldn't they keep up with Wiggins and Froome who were riding right at that limit?
Fowsto Cope-E said:See, this is my problem with it. If everyone else is just making sure that they don't exceed the acceptable physiological limit, then why couldn't they keep up with Wiggins and Froome who were riding right at that limit?
sittingbison said:because the "acceptable physiological limit" is in dispute, given the last time we know a GT winner won without O2 vector doping was in 1990. And because there is a presumption that yes, teams were actually dialling it back the past few years. Just like in 1999 post Festina. Then along comes a team juiced to the eyeballs, and wham!! the rest are sitting ducks.
The evidence for the 1999 presumption is the 1999 samples being re-tested in 2005. Off the top of my head, 13/97 had EPO, six positives being Armstrongs with another two being his but having inconsistencies that prevent them being "positive". We do not know if any of the other 5 were individual riders, or from the same rider. Doesn't really matter, as it indicates that a maximum of 5% of the peleton were taking EPO in 1999.
This is the reason why the domestiques are queried. Porte and Dodger (and Vroome) sticking it to the GT contenders day after day. Because it is so reminiscent of USPS.
Fowsto Cope-E said:...I just find it hard to believe that they were using power meters in order to restrain themselves while everybody else just let them go...
sittingbison said:the issue is that nobody "let them go", it is that they were right on the rivet and everybody else could barley keep up let alone make an attack. The various quotes have been posted in the Sky threads numerous times, basically Basso said at 420W sitting behind Porte he struggled to keep up and nobody could attack, Wiggo himself said Dodger was pumping out 450W so nobody could attack unless they could hold 500W for 30 mins, and Dodger said he was putting out his best ever power at 480W - a 7% gain (from his days with Telekom )
Vroome Dodger and Porte prevented any attacks by GT contenders, when Evans tried he busted his boiler, when Nibali tried he busted his boiler the first time and the second time was ridden down like an amateur by none other than Wiggo himself. Each time an attack was made, Rogers upped the power and shredded the yellow jersey group. Each time there was the four Sky riders plus two or three stragglers, thats it. The rest blew straight out the back.
Fowsto Cope-E said:No, no, I understand that. That's not what I meant. I meant that what you guys are saying (I think) is that people are doping in less effective ways just so that they can avoid looking suspicious. Meanwhile, Team Sky is doped to the gills but backing it off a notch so that they fall just under what would be considered the accepted limit of clean performance. So what I am saying by "letting them go" is that other teams could have come into the Tour better prepared but chose not to and decided to let the better prepared team stomp all over them. Do I have this right?
Dear Wiggo said:Not at all.
Meeting with ASO pre-tour + good relationship with UCI = cart blanche Tour de France access to results for Team Sky. $$$ talks.
I believe everyone else was doping as per usual since the passport was introduced. Micro dosing, smaller transfusions perhaps, all the usual pre-race prep like EPO / HgH / steroids. 3-4 days total at the tour where they can shine.
I believe Sky had access to priviledges not available to other teams / riders, allowing them to shine for all 3 weeks. Just like Lance + USPS.
Basically the winners are chosen and allowed to win. As long as you are on board with the UCI, and have the go ahead from ASO, things will be fine.
British Cycling and UK in general = massive untapped cycling market, in an Olympic year.
Tibet? Not so much. Cadel won't win again.
Dear Wiggo said:Brad was riding at the acceptable physiological limit. Any faster could only be explained "by another couple of blood bags". ie he couldn't ride any faster or it would look too suspect. They were counting on everyone else respecting this simple fact.
Dear Wiggo said:Sky managed to do the whole Tour at a good level, and preempted the few good days most doping riders could get, with a "couple of blood bags" threat played out in the media.
Fowsto Cope-E said:Okay. Though, that is kind of what you said.
They were afraid of the suspicion brought about by going faster than Wiggins and Froome, so they instead chose to get dropped by them.
Dear Wiggo said:I think all 3 quotes line up. It's clear in my head and I am not changing the theory mid-thread to try and agree with myself.
The days when they could attack - Rogers tells everyone they can't stay away. Noone did. Mission accomplished. They had only a few days in which they could do this. Then they are back to "normal", and "abnormal" Sky drop them - not because they chose to get dropped, but because Sky could and did drop them.
July 11, 2012, Pat McQuaid, "No I won't be going to the Sky part- er the winner's party at the end of the Tour".
Fowsto Cope-E said:Okay. But all of the basic principals behind your idea are contradictory. First you say, Sky's performance at the Tour was incredible. So, they must be doped at exraordinary levels. But then, when explaining how they got away with it, you say they rode at levels that are considered possible to do clean, in otherwords, nothing we haven't seen before. So, was the performance incredible or not? You seem to be accusing them of using way more dope than was necessary and then backing off to a believable level. How can you really say that based on their extraordiinary performance, they must not have been pushing that hard?
Fowsto Cope-E said:So, you're saying that everyone is, at least mostly, off the juice except for Team Sky, who just keeps it at tempo up the climbs and drops everyone by making sure to stay within the accepted power output of a clean cyclist? That seems a little far-fetched to me.
Dear Wiggo said:If you can point out a single post of mine where I say, "Sky's performance was possible clean" I will eat thehog's hat.
They were doped. Pure and simple.
No offense but is English your second language, or am I really expressing myself that poorly? Or are you a Krebs Cycle clone, come to haunt me?
I've already said the performance that is "physiologically possible" is based on a superman with 85-90 VO2max and 22-23% efficiency.
In case you missed that, I have said it again.
Brad road like a superman for 2 weeks straight. Impossible. One day, maybe, but not for 2 weeks. And not even one day for Brad, who showed NO ABILITY on the road - not in the hills, not on the flats and not even in the TTs before 2009.
Nowhere do I say, "Sky used more dope than necessary". If you are interpreting what I have written in that way, then fine, but those words do not appear in anything I have ever posted. Primarily because it makes no sense.
hrotha said:Too soon to say that era has ended, or to say when it ended (why 2009?). We still lack historical perspective to know if it's true that clean riders can truly win the biggest races, particularly the GTs.
Mishrak said:I won't accept that the Dark Era has ended until we get have an upheaval of UCI leadership and a truth and reconciliation where everything is laid bare. That quite possibly means we'll never get it and stay in the Dark Era. Especially when you have dudes like Vino and Ekimov taking over team management positions. It's just going to continue if everyone is happy with the status quo. Here's to hoping the USADA has some unbelievably serious dirt on the UCI.