• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. 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!

I think Vaughters really wants to sign Contador:

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
2
0
JV1973 said:
Ok, I know I'm nuts for even bothering here, but here goes:

My major point had to do with the percentage of anearobic work done in a 20 minute efforts vs a 40 min effort. The bike weight, etc etc, probably does only account for 20 watts assuming a perfectly steady effort (which is an invalid assumption if you've ever watched a bike race). However, the amount of power produced beyond what is produced aerobically in a 20 minute effort is considerable, it is not in a 40 minute effort - in my experience!

So, that was my point. If you fellows would like to keep going on about how we dope Brad and Christian, then have at it. It's really silly, as they aren't, but whatever, I've spent enough time trying to fight windmills for today. Have at it boys.

Sorry that I no longer have your respect - JV
don't think you dope Wiggins and Vande Velde. But I think you know they are doing transfusions. You never finished a Tour. You know how the body responds after five days at the Tour.

Vande Velde has said, on the first big mtn finish in 08 where Peipoli, Cobo, and Schleck went away, and Kohl followed later, he should have gone, and he could have.

He also said he could have followed moves in later mtn stages in the third week.

JV, you know those guys are charged. Frank Schleck was charged, Peipoli was controlled positive, and Cobo was not controlled positive, but he was charging.

It is indeed a false syllogism to say, 1,2,3 doped, ergo, 4th doped. Not all the peloton are charged, so you cannot stick them all in the $hit.

Vande Velde has said he needs to along time to prepare for a GT, and he said he had 3 weeks proper training for the Tour this year. Again, a little tough to reconcile.

Wiggins hemoglobin went up 0.8 and Ashenden has said before, that this is unlikely to occur in a GT and would be suspicious. OK, so this is simplifying things out of all scientific realm. How much did his crit go up, it went up by a point too, during the Tour?

You have said you would have signed Landis, if he was not sanctioned. But his crit went up a couple of points in '06.

You wanted to sign Contador. But Werner Franke said he had compelling evidence from Puerto. Again, cannot be sumbitted, but this is a forum, and we need to open our eyes.

My problem is, a little like those guys at Domina Vacenze I think, did they call you guys (Garmin) "a pack of arseholes". My concern is, not so much the doping, I don't like that, but it is being sold a bill of goods. "We are clean" ergo, a differentiation. An exceptionalism. Why are you exceptional? I see riders I do not believe in. I did, I assumed you were running a rigorous program, and believed your riders. But I can't accept those performances, and reconcile the conflicts.

1. Landis and Contador.
2. The Tour can be won clean. This is pure fantasy.

The message has changed now, to "you can win clean". Which is less differentiation, and throwing the peloton in the $hit. But, if I was a clean rider, perhaps I was a clean rider on a team which was pretty dirty, and you were saying "we are clean" but I know you are not, but I am riding clean, and getting a bad rep for riding on a murky squad, yet your big hitters and the A team, are also compromised. Not all, and not the first rider, thru the 28th man. I am not inferring a team wide or systemic program. I think you are smart enough to have a few degrees of separation and plausible deniabilty. I want to know what Prentice Steffan and Allen Lim think.

What Boardman says still holds, "if it is too good to be true, it probably is".

This may seem a little mob hue and cry, and lynching. I am angry because I believed and hoped it was true.

I want Joe Lindsey and Paul Kimmage to do their job, and hold you to account, not spin. I know what Walsh thinks, but I want to see him come out in the Times with it. It is not for me on a messageboard to try and tell you what alot think, you can read the French, German and Flemish boards, and see their opinions on your hitters. I want someone in the Anglophone press to pull the trigger. Kimmage was the only one with guts to confront Armstrong, but everyone is seduced by your team at the moment, but to me, this is more egregious, but it is not real. And there is an orchestrated campaign to indoctrinate us with your clean program. Either quit the holier than thou, we are clean, ergo... and quit telling us you can win the Tour clean, or you will have that blowback, from the constituency like mine or Domina Vacenze. Someone has to say they feel betrayed, that cycling forces on us the same ol' $hit, year after year, year after year. I am fed up.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Regarding the Vayer report - quite simply there is no way of recreating the correct numbers unless they have access to the PowerTap.

Wiggins didn't use a PT hub on Verbier, so as much as people want to keep asking for his power numbers, they aren't going to get them.

I've actually raced up Verbier in a different race and I can tell you that the rolling resistance, tail wind and grade all make it a very fast climb, and one where drafting helps because of the high speeds. The pavement is like glass, and there's either a tail wind or no wind. Even the switchbacks where you'd expect wind are sheltered. Lastly, as Jonathan mentioned there's a huge difference in the anaerobic component to a 20 minute climb versus a 40 minute climb.

The VAM metric is total BS by a quack doping doctor (Ferrari), and those hanging their hat on the VAM need to do a little more due dilligence.

After all, look at just how many riders climbed up Verbier with crazy-high VAM? Is everyone now on better dope than the guys in the 90's. Comparing rate of ascension on a pool table smooth tailwind climb to something like Ventoux, which is nearly on off-road climb with a straight headwind is ridiculous.

Obviously, though, it suits the agenda of a bunch of Cat 7 dudes who spend all of their time posting on the internet, and would like everyone to believe that the only reason people are better than they are is because the other guys are all on drugs.
 
Jun 9, 2009
403
1
0
I had the opportunity to attend a lecture by one of the team physicians for Garmin. He stated that the team had a strict 'no needle' policy, even for the administration of non-controlled substances such as vitamins and saline.

I suppose none of us would be overly impressed by that comment. I wasn't either, until the physician started to discuss many of the other efforts the staff made during the tour to help the athletes recover after each day of racing so that they would be as fresh as possible for the next day's stage.

Be assured that the members of the squad got plenty of help during the tour. The help that they received was based on the sciences of biochemistry, physical therapy, chiropractic, nutrition, sport psychology, and physics. The help they received was rooted deeply in ethics and sportsmanship.

Certainly, no representative of a team would lay out specifics or even vague generalities of an illegal doping protocol and a lack of admission is in no way solid proof that a team is innocent, but the fact that none of them tested positive for a controlled substance is compelling. Being suspicious or skeptical is human nature. Making accusations based on suspicion alone is petty.

It was interesting to see the legal and ethical advantages top level pros have over recreational riders and racers. Advantages that come in the form of top professionals administering the best recuperative care they know how in an ethical and legal manner. The expense must have been quite significant for the equipment they utilized. Based on the results, the expense was worth it.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
131313 said:
Wiggins didn't use a PT hub on Verbier, so as much as people want to keep asking for his power numbers, they aren't going to get them.....

Obviously, though, it suits the agenda of a bunch of Cat 7 dudes who spend all of their time posting on the internet, and would like everyone to believe that the only reason people are better than they are is because the other guys are all on drugs.

Ooops, you are correct about Wiggins and the PT, I meant to write access to instead of the!

On your final point though I do not agree - there is still doping going on within the peloton, even with the Bio-Passport. Di Luca Colom, Landeluze, Serrano etc although I don't believe it is as widespread as even 3 years ago.

And yes, I raced but there are many posters here who are involved in cycling either as coaches, riders or even from the administration - imo anyone in the cycling community who want a clean sport do have a right to question and debate these issues.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Ooops, you are correct about the Wiggins and the PT, I meant to write access to instead of the!

On your final point though I do not agree - there is still doping going on within the peloton, even with the Bio-Passport. Di Luca Colom, Landeluze, Serrano etc although I don't believe it is as widespread as even 3 years ago.


And yes, I raced but there are many posters here who are involved in cycling either as coaches, riders or even from the administration - imo anyone in the cycling community who want a clean sport do have a right to debate these issues.

I'm certainly not stupid. I know there's doping going on. While I wouldn't attempt to put a number on it I would also guess that the sport is much cleaner than it's been in a long time. I know that it's possible to get results without being doped.

I also know the passport is FAR from perfect. I think it's value is in what is COULD be versus what it is right now, but it's in it's infancy. I think it's a promising start, and that it has a lot of holes in it right now. Calling it 'worthless' though is silly.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
2
0
David Suro said:
I had the opportunity to attend a lecture by one of the team physicians for Garmin. He stated that the team had a strict 'no needle' policy, even for the administration of non-controlled substances such as vitamins and saline.

I suppose none of us would be overly impressed by that comment. I wasn't either, until the physician started to discuss many of the other efforts the staff made during the tour to help the athletes recover after each day of racing so that they would be as fresh as possible for the next day's stage.

Be assured that the members of the squad got plenty of help during the tour. The help that they received was based on the sciences of biochemistry, physical therapy, chiropractic, nutrition, sport psychology, and physics. The help they received was rooted deeply in ethics and sportsmanship.

Certainly, no representative of a team would lay out specifics or even vague generalities of an illegal doping protocol and a lack of admission is in no way solid proof that a team is innocent, but the fact that none of them tested positive for a controlled substance is compelling. Being suspicious or skeptical is human nature. Making accusations based on suspicion alone is petty.

It was interesting to see the legal and ethical advantages top level pros have over recreational riders and racers. Advantages that come in the form of top professionals administering the best recuperative care they know how in an ethical and legal manner. The expense must have been quite significant for the equipment they utilized. Based on the results, the expense was worth it.
I know that is how they do it. I want to know how they rein in the renegades, when performances do not meet credibility. Credibility should be a factor in their controls. Yeah, it is nearly impossible to quantify. But when Ashenden has gone on record that he can tell you how to dupe the passport, on the back of a post it note. Blood transfusions are still endemic in the pointy end of the peloton. It is not what happens intra-tour, it is what occurs in preparation, are all the riders coming in at natural red cell capacity, or 500ml over? Do they have any new experimental stuff working on O2 delivery, or O2 uptake. The Fuji doc said there was new stuff coming out of the UK, and I don't doubt that.

You want to see a team really cracking down, I reckon Milram told Gerdemann and Ciolek, in no uncertain circumstances, they can keep their rich contracts of one million euro per, for multiple years, but they have to be clean. So Ciolek and Gerdemann are cleaner than they have ever been, perhaps even completely clean, though I would be sceptical of that. Fothen has gone backwards, since he held the white jersey all the way until the chrono when Cunego overtook him. Would have finished about 12th or 13th on GC.

Those teams, going clean, or cleaner, go backwards and backwards fast. On all the technology, there are diminishing returns, I think the only major value add is the wind tunnel. The rest can be a good placebo fillup, dialing in every intangible. And that is sound strategy, to suggest to your riders every thing is being done for them.

Wiggins and Vande Velde oughta be able to compete on a level playing field versus the Schlecks, Contador, Armstrong, Leipheimer, and Kloden. I don't deprive them that. Just don't tell me you are clean.

I would like to know, if JV makes room in his budget to pay Vande Velde or Wiggins, for winning the Tour. This would be instructive. If you pay them to be clean, ie, reward them for being the first clean rider, over the line. IE. give them a wage equivalent to the Tour winner. So is Wiggins and Vande Velde, on 2 million US per? Do you rate them as the first clean rider in the Tour, and compensate them as such? And was not this Doug Ellis' vision? A clean and ethical team, so should not they be compensated, for being the first clean rider, in the Tour, equivalent to a hypothetical winner?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
131313 said:
I'm certainly not stupid. I know there's doping going on. While I wouldn't attempt to put a number on it I would also guess that the sport is much cleaner than it's been in a long time. I know that it's possible to get results without being doped.

I also know the passport is FAR from perfect. I think it's value is in what is COULD be versus what it is right now, but it's in it's infancy. I think it's a promising start, and that it has a lot of holes in it right now. Calling it 'worthless' though is silly.

Firstly - I did not say or was not suggesting that you are stupid.

I also never said the Bio-Passport was 'worthless'- far from it, I believe it is one of the best tools going forward in the fight against doping.

However at present there is still too broad an interpretation of values - while I would hope that this will narrow over time as they get more data but my faith in the UCI to do this is at present low.
 
Jul 16, 2009
230
0
0
blackcat said:
Fothen has gone backwards, since he held the white jersey all the way until the chrono when Cunego overtook him. Would have finished about 12th or 13th on GC.

Those teams, going clean, or cleaner, go backwards and backwards fast. On all the technology, there are diminishing returns,?



THIS, is the money shot for me.

IF, individual riders were clean, how do they go backwards with all this rehab that David Suro tells us about? That is counter-intuitive. Suggests these ones ARE going clean

IF, they are going cleaner, then how is the Pointy End going faster?

The watts don’t lie? Or is it the Crit? Or the hemaglobin? Etc (forgive spelling)
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
2
0
Ozzie2 said:
THIS, is the money shot for me.

IF, individual riders were clean, how do they go backwards with all this rehab that David Suro tells us about? That is counter-intuitive. Suggests these ones ARE going clean

IF, they are going cleaner, then how is the Pointy End going faster?

The watts don’t lie? Or is it the Crit? Or the hemaglobin? Etc (forgive spelling)
ok, but the devil's advocate v my supposition.

Where are their base lines? How do you know where their natural level is/was. (The ex-Gerolsteiner and ex-TMob riders come Milram riders)

And on Vande Velde and Wiggins. Neither had been given GC leadership. Riis mooted it for the 2007 Giro, and suggested he thought Vande Velde could come top 10.

So neither got an opportunity to ride for themselves, nor a DS/manager who believed in them, and put stock in them, and supported them.

OK, back to me. Wiggins never did a thing on the road. If he thought he could win the Tour, he would have been there with bells on. A Tour contender is about one million euro per, base salary. A gold medal winner in the pursuit, might be 150k euro if the management is being generous. And Wiggins has an eye to compensation. It just does not make sense, to only see this manifestation of Tour winning calibre, in 2009, 10 years after Linda MacCartney signed him.

Wiggins tt results were nothing special, he made up the numbers in the u23 worlds, he had a good result in the 2005 worlds, and the 2006 Tour, came 4th or 5th in the first chrono, behind Vino, Evans, Kash, Contador. Where was this brilliant tt talent, when he had more power, and more weight? He won a Dunkirk chrono, and a l'Avenir prologue, but nothing else. If he really was as talented as we are now told, that he can "win the Tour clean" then why could not he juggle the pursuit and the road. In fact he did leave the track in 2006, and applied all efforts to winning on the road. And was decidedly mediocre. The proof is in the pudding, Wiggins is not credible, weight loss or no weight loss.
 
David Suro said:
The following article suggests that hematocrit can be elevated by as much as 1% for every week spent at altitude, with this rate of increase being possible for as many as 12 consecutive weeks.

http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol24/wolski.htm

With that in mind, the slim improvements measured in Wiggins (prior to the TDF are well within the possibility of a normal adaptation to stresses placed on the athlete by either high altitude training or sleeping in a hypoxic tent.

The Danish scientisis who were quoted as saying the values were suspicious are incorrect. Denmark, at its highest point, is 173 meters above sea level. It makes sense that these scientisis might not be the best in the world when it comes to understanding the effects of altitude training on hematocrit. I mean no insult toward the Danes, their beer is awesome.

JV and his team physiologist live at about 2000 meters and train their athletes as high as 6000+ meters.

And, by the way, who wouldn't want to sign Contador? If Contador were on Garmin, JV would have have a much better shot at achieving his goal of a podium finisher for the TDF from his squad. JV has stated that as a goal, so it makes sense to try to sign the talent that gives him the best chance of success.


You are talking about two different things here. His HCT increased in the third week which is certainly not consistent with what normally happens in a three week race.
 
I initially believed in Vaughters and Slipstream. On another forum that I post to, people were immediately dismissive of the team's claims to be clean. Vaughter's background and his sincerity sucked me in. There were always things that bothered me. The unwillingness to come clean about the doping at Postal was worrisome. Worse was his cowardice in dismissing the chat session between him and Andreu as idle speculation. When it came time to act on his professed convictions when there might be consequences, he does not have a good track record. At first, I overlooked those situations because it was understandable. Most people will wuss out when it comes time to put their head, or even a finger, on a chopping block, no matter how big they have talked beforehand.

Words do not mean much in a system where lying is a way of life, but the performances of the Slipstream riders seemed to support the team's anti-doping stance. All the top riders came from suspicious teams. In interviews they had alluded to what was going on at their previous teams. They also were not performing at the levels they did around 2004 or 2005. For me that was the biggest piece of evidence that the team might be legit.

It has been a cynical joke that the best way to improve a cycling team was to put the team on an anti-doping program. CSC, High Road, and Astana all had much publicized anti-doping programs, but they their race results were better than ever. The odd team out was Slipstream. Their results, quite frankly, sucked. The most they could hope for was a team time trial or a prologue. In 2008 that changed.

Vande Velde was not that far off from Sastre, a man who raced all through the "EPO era" and always performed about at the same level. I find it ludicrous to think that Sastre was not manipulating his blood with either drugs or transfusions when everyone else was doing it; and with no dip in performance, it has to be assumed that he was still jacked in 2008. Yet there was Vande Velde keeping up with him. That was a giant red flag.

Now in 2009 WIggins has had a Vande Velde-like transformation. There are still some questions about just how well Wiggins performed at the Tour. The course was extremely weak. It is hard to imagine a more tame or lame TdF route. Judging by what happened on the stage to Le Grand-Bornand, Wiggins would lose much time on a true queen stage that features difficult climbing to soften the legs and ends with an uphill finish. Still Wiggins performance was surprising, and now Tommy D. has found his form after three years of barely being able to finish a race. For me the coincidences and suspicions were starting to pile up.

Making matters more suspicious is the ridiculous explanations for the team's new found ability to place in the top ten of a GT. A gluten free diet for Vande Velde could be overlooked. Maybe he really did have a problem with gluten. But Wiggins also benefits from the new diet? And Tommy D.? When does the Z-Man start eating rice?

David Suro above posted a load of B.S. about non-doping recovery techniques that does not pass the smell test. The efficient market theory can be used to explain more than the stock market. It is the reason I dismiss the ridiculous claims made for products like Power Cranks. If the benefits were even a fraction of what was claimed, a pro would have reaped a huge windfall from their use. Everyone else would have followed suit and switched to Power Cranks. Since all the pros are not using them, the maker's claims are likely B.S. Using a similar logic, if Garmin's non-doping recovery techniques were so effective then all the other teams would be using them or using them in addition to drugs.

Vaughters' latest excuse is insulting. We cannot compare the performances from the mid 90s to performance's now because of ceramic bearings and fabrics that hold less sweat? That is so ridiculous that it shatters whatever faith I had left in Vaughter's team.
 
BroDeal said:
I initially believed in Vaughters and Slipstream. On another forum that I post to, people were immediately dismissive of the team's claims to be clean. Vaughter's background and his sincerity sucked me in. There were always things that bothered me. The unwillingness to come clean about the doping at Postal was worrisome. Worse was his cowardice in dismissing the chat session between him and Vaughters as idle speculation. When it came time to act on his professed convictions when there might be consequences, he does not have a good track record. At first, I overlooked those situations because it was understandable. Most people will wuss out when it comes time to put their head, or even a finger, on a chopping block, no matter how big they have talked beforehand.

Words do not mean much in a system where lying is a way of life, but the performances of the Slipstream riders seemed to support the team's anti-doping stance. All the top riders came from suspicious teams. In interviews they had alluded to what was going on at their previous teams. They also were not performing at the levels they did around 2004 or 2005. For me that was the biggest piece of evidence that the team might be legit.

It has been a cynical joke that the best way to improve a cycling team was to put the team on an anti-doping program. CSC, High Road, and Astana all had much publicized anti-doping programs, but they their race results were better than ever. The odd team out was Slipstream. Their results, quite frankly, sucked. The most they could hope for was a team time trial or a prologue. In 2008 that changed.

Vande Velde was not that far off from Sastre, a man who raced all through the "EPO era" and always performed about at the same level. I find it ludicrous to think that Sastre was not manipulating his blood with either drugs or transfusions when everyone else was doing it; and with no dip in performance, it has to be assumed that he was still jacked in 2008. Yet there was Vande Velde keeping up with him. That was a giant red flag.

Now in 2009 WIggins has had a Vande Velde-like transformation. There are still some questions about just how well Wiggins performed at the Tour. The course was extremely weak. It is hard to imagine a more tame or lame TdF route. Judging by what happened on the stage to Le Grand-Bornand, Wiggins would lose much time on a true queen stage that features difficult climbing to soften the legs and ends with an uphill finish. Still Wiggins performance was surprising, and now Tommy D. has found his form after three years of barely being able to finish a race. For me the coincidences and suspicions were starting to pile up.

Making matters more suspicious is the ridiculous explanations for the team's new found ability to place in the top ten of a GT. A gluten free diet for Vande Velde could be overlooked. Maybe he really did have a problem with gluten. But Wiggins also benefits from the new diet? And Tommy D.? When does the Z-Man start eating rice?

David Suro above posted a load of B.S. about non-doping recovery techniques that does not pass the smell test. The efficient market theory can be used to explain more than the stock market. It is the reason I dismiss the ridiculous claims made for products like Power Cranks. If the benefits were even a fraction of what was claimed, a pro would have reaped a huge windfall from their use. Everyone else would have followed suit and switched to Power Cranks. Since all the pros are not using them, the maker's claims are likely B.S. Using a similar logic, if Garmin's non-doping recovery techniques were so effective then all the other teams would be using them or using them in addition to drugs.

Vaughters' latest excuse is insulting. We cannot compare the performances from the mid 90s to performance's now because of ceramic bearings and fabrics that hold less sweat? That is so ridiculous that it shatters whatever faith I had left in Vaughter's team.

Great post.
The way he handled the IM annoyed me, another was how he continuously sidetracked Paul Kimmage's questions about doping with USP. He kept neither denying it or admitting it - just left it hanging. When Floyd tested positive he blamed the test not neing credible. And then there's apparently efforts to sign AC.
 
Jul 10, 2009
129
0
0
blackcat said:
OK, back to me. Wiggins never did a thing on the road. If he thought he could win the Tour, he would have been there with bells on. A Tour contender is about one million euro per, base salary. A gold medal winner in the pursuit, might be 150k euro if the management is being generous. And Wiggins has an eye to compensation. It just does not make sense, to only see this manifestation of Tour winning calibre, in 2009, 10 years after Linda MacCartney signed him.

Wiggins tt results were nothing special, he made up the numbers in the u23 worlds, he had a good result in the 2005 worlds, and the 2006 Tour, came 4th or 5th in the first chrono, behind Vino, Evans, Kash, Contador. Where was this brilliant tt talent, when he had more power, and more weight? He won a Dunkirk chrono, and a l'Avenir prologue, but nothing else. If he really was as talented as we are now told, that he can "win the Tour clean" then why could not he juggle the pursuit and the road. In fact he did leave the track in 2006, and applied all efforts to winning on the road. And was decidedly mediocre. The proof is in the pudding, Wiggins is not credible, weight loss or no weight loss.

So since you seem to be in the know, please explain me one thing that I haven't understood yet. Was Wiggins clean while riding track (does it mean then that it is possible to win clean on track)? Did he start doping this year only? Why only now, why not earlier? If he was doping back in his track days, what was the change in doping that saw the improvement on road? More juice? Different juice? Better quality juice?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
2
0
BroDeal said:
I initially believed in Vaughters and Slipstream. On another forum that I post to, people were immediately dismissive of the team's claims to be clean. Vaughter's background and his sincerity sucked me in. There were always things that bothered me. The unwillingness to come clean about the doping at Postal was worrisome. Worse was his cowardice in dismissing the chat session between him and Vaughters as idle speculation. When it came time to act on his professed convictions when there might be consequences, he does not have a good track record. At first, I overlooked those situations because it was understandable. Most people will wuss out when it comes time to put their head, or even a finger, on a chopping block, no matter how big they have talked beforehand.

Words do not mean much in a system where lying is a way of life, but the performances of the Slipstream riders seemed to support the team's anti-doping stance. All the top riders came from suspicious teams. In interviews they had alluded to what was going on at their previous teams. They also were not performing at the levels they did around 2004 or 2005. For me that was the biggest piece of evidence that the team might be legit.

It has been a cynical joke that the best way to improve a cycling team was to put the team on an anti-doping program. CSC, High Road, and Astana all had much publicized anti-doping programs, but they their race results were better than ever. The odd team out was Slipstream. Their results, quite frankly, sucked. The most they could hope for was a team time trial or a prologue. In 2008 that changed.

Vande Velde was not that far off from Sastre, a man who raced all through the "EPO era" and always performed about at the same level. I find it ludicrous to think that Sastre was not manipulating his blood with either drugs or transfusions when everyone else was doing it; and with no dip in performance, it has to be assumed that he was still jacked in 2008. Yet there was Vande Velde keeping up with him. That was a giant red flag.

Now in 2009 WIggins has had a Vande Velde-like transformation. There are still some questions about just how well Wiggins performed at the Tour. The course was extremely weak. It is hard to imagine a more tame or lame TdF route. Judging by what happened on the stage to Le Grand-Bornand, Wiggins would lose much time on a true queen stage that features difficult climbing to soften the legs and ends with an uphill finish. Still Wiggins performance was surprising, and now Tommy D. has found his form after three years of barely being able to finish a race. For me the coincidences and suspicions were starting to pile up.

Making matters more suspicious is the ridiculous explanations for the team's new found ability to place in the top ten of a GT. A gluten free diet for Vande Velde could be overlooked. Maybe he really did have a problem with gluten. But Wiggins also benefits from the new diet? And Tommy D.? When does the Z-Man start eating rice?

David Suro above posted a load of B.S. about non-doping recovery techniques that does not pass the smell test. The efficient market theory can be used to explain more than the stock market. It is the reason I dismiss the ridiculous claims made for products like Power Cranks. If the benefits were even a fraction of what was claimed, a pro would have reaped a huge windfall from their use. Everyone else would have followed suit and switched to Power Cranks. Since all the pros are not using them, the maker's claims are likely B.S. Using a similar logic, if Garmin's non-doping recovery techniques were so effective then all the other teams would be using them or using them in addition to drugs.

Vaughters' latest excuse is insulting. We cannot compare the performances from the mid 90s to performance's now because of ceramic bearings and fabrics that hold less sweat? That is so ridiculous that it shatters whatever faith I had left in Vaughter's team.

+1 BroDeal, one of my favourite posters on Anglophone boards.

Your efficient market theory, is what I have been promulgating. We will now have Jenning Huizenga, Hayden Roulston, losing 7 kgs, and winning the Tour. We will have Cancellara losing 7 kgs and winning the Tour, Roubaix, worlds tt, worlds rr, and the Giro.

Advantages that can be neutralised, will be neutralised.

And if Vande Velde knew Wiggins' crit was rising one point in the final week, would he work for Wiggins if Vande Velde was clean. I can bet if I was clean, and a rider who was charging usurped my position of team leadership, I would be doing everything like Armstrong versus Contador to undermine him... unless I was on the same program.

Boonen is about the same height as Wiggins. I wonder what comparison their prologue efforts were, circa 2004-2007. Boonen always used to bust out a top 5 in Paris Nice, and he was probably top 10 in Dauphine, and top 20 in the Tour prologue. Would anyone buy Boonen transforming into a GT rider, if he lost 8 kgs? And he flys up the bergs in Flanders like none other, I concede that is anaerobic and power climbing.

The weight loss pre-justification, is straight out of central casting in Austin. And Wiggins threw in atleast one attack, well, Schleck or Contador might have been away, but, for Wiggins to be leading and trying to gap the others, in a bridging attempt.

And on the final tt, Millar said Wiggins would pump the competition, and win by alot. Hmmm, why such confidence. What did he know. Last year Bruyneel was adament Cadel Evans was going to lose to Sastre. And if you have a look at the first tts over the last years, Evans would always gap a rider like Sastre by around three seconds per kilometre. Winning the final tt is all about recovery. And your O2 medical program, really sustains this. Millar had confidence in Wiggins. Millar is a part owner. I assume he has one of those clauses in his contract, which requires him to notify management, if he has knowledge of any rider charging.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
2
0
_frost said:
So since you seem to be in the know, please explain me one thing that I haven't understood yet. Was Wiggins clean while riding track (does it mean then that it is possible to win clean on track)? Did he start doping this year only? Why only now, why not earlier? If he was doping back in his track days, what was the change in doping that saw the improvement on road? More juice? Different juice? Better quality juice?
NB. I am not in the know. But I am not willing to let managers like Vaughters come and control the message and people defer to his authority and prestige, if I do not think he deserves it.

re: your question, I have no idea. I had previously assumed he was clean, probably an ashamedly Anglophone bias, and willingness to believe him. He went on about how he was asked by teammates what he was on when he won gold in the pursuit, and he had to tell them he was not on anything. I should not have been so believing in his unctuous exposition. I think this compromises his entire palmares. I do not believe him now, would not trust him. One thing is for certain, his program had altered, if my supposition is well founded.
 
Aug 6, 2009
1,901
1
0
blackcat said:
+1 BroDeal, one of my favourite posters on Anglophone boards.

Your efficient market theory, is what I have been promulgating. We will now have Jenning Huizenga, Hayden Roulston, losing 7 kgs, and winning the Tour. We will have Cancellara losing 7 kgs and winning the Tour, Roubaix, worlds tt, worlds rr, and the Giro.
Not sure if this has any bearing on the doping discussion, but Cancellara actually has a stated intention of dropping X kilos and going for a tour win.
 
Jun 9, 2009
403
1
0
Interesting points, BroDeal.

but...

If Vaughters' explanation that new and improved equipment can make as much of a difference as he claims really is B.S., then the real insult comes from the price the manufacturers ask for the stuff.

If every team had access to the recovery techniques used by Garmin at the Tour, then how could their physiologist justify his salary? That guy (I think his name is Lim) brings a lot of fresh ideas to the sport. He gets results.

When doping was rampant, individual riders from many teams sought out the best handful of doping doctors to help plan their doping for the season. Fuentes has been linked to riders from all over the continent and from many different teams. This occured because he was good at what he did and he was worth the money he demanded.

There is always a lag between innovation of new methods and widespread use of methods. LeMond with his first set of Tour aero-bars is a perfect and obvious example. Fignon had access to the same research and probably had a Nashbar or Performance catalog, but didn't bother with them. He easily would have saved 8 seconds and won had he been more attentive.

It is not safe to assume all of the teams are doing everything that can be done within the rules to give their riders every advantage possible.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
2
0
David Suro said:
Interesting points, BroDeal.

but...

If Vaughters' explanation that new and improved equipment can make as much of a difference as he claims really is B.S., then the real insult comes from the price the manufacturers ask for the stuff.

If every team had access to the recovery techniques used by Garmin at the Tour, then how could their physiologist justify his salary? That guy (I think his name is Lim) brings a lot of fresh ideas to the sport. He gets results.
yeah, Lim has a track record with Landis. And professed his innocence. To me, we now have Lim and Prentice Steffan who are major hypocrites. Certainly they know a calibre of performance that is not credible.

They need to be accountable. Liggett and Sherwen will not do jack $hit. And Lindsey and Kimmage are reticent to pull the trigger. It behoves Walsh to point some fingers. It is just as egregious to dope, yet brand yourself as clean, than to act like Armstrong thru his reign. Walsh's integrity is at stake too. I know what he thinks of some performances. You can't just go after Armstrong, then when homegrown talent (UK, tho Walsh is Irish) take up the same practice as Armstrong, you conveniently do not go there.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
2
0
David Suro said:
When doping was rampant, individual riders from many teams sought out the best handful of doping doctors to help plan their doping for the season. Fuentes has been linked to riders from all over the continent and from many different teams. This occured because he was good at what he did and he was worth the money he demanded.

cost is one barrier to entry. It reinforces the top group, by making the purchase price for a blood doping program, not feasible for riders on low salaries.

There is always a lag between innovation of new methods and widespread use of methods. LeMond with his first set of Tour aero-bars is a perfect and obvious example. Fignon had access to the same research and probably had a Nashbar or Performance catalog, but didn't bother with them. He easily would have saved 8 seconds and won had he been more attentive.

It is not safe to assume all of the teams are doing everything that can be done within the rules to give their riders every advantage possible.

not sure if apocryphal, but there was one view, that Lemond's position and kit, actually was not as aero as Fignon. Go figure...

There are different classifications of teams. If you look at a French team with a stagehunter constitution, they will have less resources allocated to dialing in those enth factors.

But if you are looking for a GC tilt, and you have a big budget squadra like Saxo, Columbia, Garmin, RadioShack, Astana, Caisse, they will allocate resources, and get those divisions and programs refined.
 
Jul 13, 2009
4
0
0
blackcat said:
Walsh's integrity is at stake too. I know what he thinks of some performances. You can't just go after Armstrong, then when homegrown talent (UK, tho Walsh is Irish) take up the same practice as Armstrong, you conveniently do not go there.
In Walsh's defence he has a track record of going after "home-grown" dopers, ie Michelle Smith, even when it was very unpopular with the Irish public.
 
brodeal said:
...
Making matters more suspicious is the ridiculous explanations for the team's new found ability to place in the top ten of a gt. A gluten free diet for vande velde could be overlooked. Maybe he really did have a problem with gluten. But wiggins also benefits from the new diet? And tommy d.? When does the z-man start eating rice?

David suro above posted a load of b.s. About non-doping recovery techniques that does not pass the smell test. The efficient market theory can be used to explain more than the stock market. It is the reason i dismiss the ridiculous claims made for products like power cranks. If the benefits were even a fraction of what was claimed, a pro would have reaped a huge windfall from their use. Everyone else would have followed suit and switched to power cranks. Since all the pros are not using them, the maker's claims are likely b.s. using a similar logic, if garmin's non-doping recovery techniques were so effective then all the other teams would be using them or using them in addition to drugs.

vaughters' latest excuse is insulting. We cannot compare the performances from the mid 90s to performance's now because of ceramic bearings and fabrics that hold less sweat? That is so ridiculous that it shatters whatever faith i had left in vaughter's team.
+1.
...............
 
JV1973 said:
Ok, I know I'm nuts for even bothering here, but here goes:

My major point had to do with the percentage of anearobic work done in a 20 minute efforts vs a 40 min effort. The bike weight, etc etc, probably does only account for 20 watts assuming a perfectly steady effort (which is an invalid assumption if you've ever watched a bike race). However, the amount of power produced beyond what is produced aerobically in a 20 minute effort is considerable, it is not in a 40 minute effort - in my experience!

So, that was my point. If you fellows would like to keep going on about how we dope Brad and Christian, then have at it. It's really silly, as they aren't, but whatever, I've spent enough time trying to fight windmills for today. Have at it boys.

Sorry that I no longer have your respect - JV
Hi JV,

I am trying hard to look at the numbers for a 8.7 Km climb but I can not find them anywhere. I only got a 6 W/kg reference point from Science of the Sport. We all know that for climbs like the Huatacam and Alpe de Huez that would be very hard to do. But do you have any reference points for these type of short climbs?

I know that "Time to Exhaustion" plays a big role in longer climbs, but we need more information on the shorter climbs.

Thanks.

I'd apreciate your feedback.
 
I Watch Cycling In July said:
I saw an estimate that anaerobic work could make an average 30W difference on a 20min climb....do you have an estimate of the anaerobic component? This topic has received surprisingly little attention, possibly due to the amount of time spent debating what else was wrong with Vayer's numbers.
I actually made that point in the original thread of "Power Outputs Contador & Wiggins". I noted about the importance of having a shorter climb versus a longer climb. But Little info or data I have received about it. Charts on the internet don't even go that high. The only people who would have those w/kg charts for "Time to Exhaustion" would be maybe Ferrari and Co.
 
Jun 21, 2009
847
0
0
David Suro said:
The following article suggests that hematocrit can be elevated by as much as 1% for every week spent at altitude, with this rate of increase being possible for as many as 12 consecutive weeks.

http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol24/wolski.htm

With that in mind, the slim improvements measured in Wiggins (prior to the TDF are well within the possibility of a normal adaptation to stresses placed on the athlete by either high altitude training or sleeping in a hypoxic tent.

The Danish scientisis who were quoted as saying the values were suspicious are incorrect. Denmark, at its highest point, is 173 meters above sea level. It makes sense that these scientisis might not be the best in the world when it comes to understanding the effects of altitude training on hematocrit. I mean no insult toward the Danes, their beer is awesome.

JV and his team physiologist live at about 2000 meters and train their athletes as high as 6000+ meters.

And, by the way, who wouldn't want to sign Contador? If Contador were on Garmin, JV would have have a much better shot at achieving his goal of a podium finisher for the TDF from his squad. JV has stated that as a goal, so it makes sense to try to sign the talent that gives him the best chance of success.

i'm sure the scientists don't mind you tossing their results in the bin based on an obviously much much more scientifically proven ground (them being danish) than their results. also your inclusion of beer is a nice touch, alcohol haha you're so funny and cute you :rolleyes:

Escarabajo said:
Blackcat, I think you made an important point here. He is giving way too many explanations. Why? Is he reading our forums or is he just hiding something?

Well I have made the calculations for Contador and Wiggins again changing the 4 Kgs (Which I believe is way too much). These are my results:

Contador (Tailwind Case): 415 Watts to 449 Watts. 34 Watts increase
Wiggins (Tailwind Case): 443 Watts to 475 Watts. 32 Watts increase.

Just remember that we are assuming the same times, otherwise what’s the point of making the calculations. IMHO the actual weight gain, comparing to the nineties would be half the number that I calculated, which is around 15 Watts. I just don't see that much weight improvement from the nineties.

I currently working in a probabilistic model using all errors involved in the calculations on the Power Outputs. That way we will evaluate and cover all the ranges of possibilities of their performance in Verbier: wind, rolling resistance, weight, drafting time, etc. I’ll put those results in the other thread about the Power Calculations by the Critics are Wrong.

:eek::eek: well played kid :cool: