Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[weeniebeenie]

From racing?

All of them.

Fair enough.

 

[martinvickers]

Pre-91? GT winners caught doping?

Can I have a go?

Ummmm let me see...

Fignon (twice)
Delgado
Merckx
Zoteomelk
Kelly

After '91

Pantani
Ullrich
Landis
Armstrong
Contador

5-a-piece!

Seems like doping is right up there and still a prevailing theme.

At what point does an answer become so facetiously dishonest that it becomes trolling or baiting?

1. I asked how many were disqualified. You know that full well.

2. If we want to look at it your way - post 91 the following GT winners have been caught doping at some stage, there may well be more

Indurain - salbutemol
Bjarne Riis
Jan Ullrich
Marco Pantani
Lance Armstrong
Floyd Landis
Alberto Contador
Tony Rominger
Di Luca
Basso
Valverde
Jalabert
Heras
Zulle
Olano
Vinikourov

It is hard to have a sensible discussion in the face of dishonesty.

now on that subject, where's the link to
a) the 'real study'
b) the conference.

No more delay tactics, hog.

 

[thehog]

At what point does an answer become so facetiously dishonest that it becomes trolling or baiting?

1. I asked how many were disqualified. You know that full well.

2. If we want to look at it your way - post 91 the following GT winners have been caught doping at some stage, there may well be more

Indurain - salbutemol
Bjarne Riis
Jan Ullrich
Marco Pantani
Lance Armstrong
Floyd Landis
Alberto Contador
Tony Rominger
Di Luca
Basso
Valverde
Jalabert
Heras
Zulle
Olano
Vinikourov

It is hard to have a sensible discussion in the face of dishonesty.

now on that subject, where's the link to
a) the 'real study'
b) the conference.

No more delay tactics, hog.

Thanks.

All I presented was pre-91 tested positive. GT winners.

Of the list just provided by you whom tested positive;

Landis, Contador, Vino, Heras - Di Luca only in 2013, not Oil for Drugs.

If anything despite enhanced testing, OOC etc. just as many GT winners are testing positive. ie not many and nothing's changed.

Plenty or admissions years down the line after police investigations etc.

I'm just not seeing any difference between "now" and "then".

No cleaner and certainly not slower as you state.

 

[martinvickers]

Thanks.

All I presented was pre-91 tested positive. GT winners.

Of the list just provided by you whom tested positive;

Landis, Contador, Vino, Heras - Di Luca only in 2013, not Oil for Drugs.

If anything despite enhanced testing, OOC etc. just as many GT winners are testing positive. ie not many and nothing's changed.

Plenty or admissions years down the line after police investigations etc.

I'm just not seeing any difference between "now" and "then".

No cleaner and certainly not slower as you state.

Except it is, and i showed the evidence.

Where's yours, Hog?

no more deflecting, no more delay, no more pretending.

Links.

 

[thehog]

Except it is, and i showed the evidence.

Where's yours, Hog?

no more deflecting, no more delay, no more pretending.

Links.

Let's be rational and have a discussion rather than being so accusatory.

Ball not man. Remember.

I said I'd provide some more detail per the discussion on climbing times and I will.

I think it's a valid discussion and I'd not berated you into a response so I ask you extend me the same courtesy.

So please drop the tough guy act.

I think it's interesting that in reality no more and no less riders are testing positive than before.

There is no deterrent from drug testing. Or very little from pre-1991 to present day.

And that's despite enhanced testing.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I can't even figure out who hates who anymore...

 

[Cyivel]

I hate everyone.

 

[martinvickers]

Let's be rational and have a discussion rather than being so accusatory.

Ball not man. Remember.

I said I'd provide some more detail per the discussion on climbing times and I will.

I think it's a valid discussion and I'd not berated you into a response so I ask you extend me the same courtesy.

So please drop the tough guy act.

I think it's interesting that in reality no more and no less riders are testing positive than before.

There is no deterrent from drug testing. Or very little from pre-1991 to present day.

And that's despite enhanced testing.

The discussion bit's done. We're at the put up or shut up bit now, Hog.

You're not beating me into a response, because I've already responded.

It's very simple.

You claim to have been at a doping conference.

Details, please. Links, dates. No discussion necessary. Either you have the back up or you don't. You either telling the truth, or your not.

You claim knowledge of a 'real study' saying top ten climbing times are faster than ever.

Details, please. links, authors. No discussion necessary. Either you have the back up or you don't. You either telling the truth, or your not.

Any further deflection can only be taken as a tacit admission that you made it up, which would render the original post a blatantly dishonest bait. and you only back from a ban.

But since I'm sure you're not dishonest, you will of course now be able to link to them.

So please do. now. Thanks

 

[thehog]

The discussion bit's done. We're at the put up or shut up bit now, Hog.

You're not beating me into a response, because I've already responded.

It's very simple.

You claim to have been at a doping conference.

Details, please. Links, dates. No discussion necessary. Either you have the back up or you don't. You either telling the truth, or your not.

You claim knowledge of a 'real study' saying top ten climbing times are faster than ever.

Details, please. links, authors. No discussion necessary. Either you have the back up or you don't. You either telling the truth, or your not.

Any further deflection can only be taken as a tacit admission that you made it up, which would render the original post a blatantly dishonest bait. and you only back from a ban.

But since I'm sure you're not dishonest, you will of course now be able to link to them.

So please do. now. Thanks

Thanks.

Be with you when I've completed my analysis.

Feel free to talk with yourself.

 

[martinvickers]

Thanks.

Be with you when I've completed my analysis.

Feel free to talk with yourself.

You don't need to analyse a link. you never did.

It's a clear and clearly dishonest baiting attempt.

Again, we're done, hog.

 

[Ferminal]

I can't even figure out who hates who anymore...

A post that makes sense

 

[thehog]

You don't need to analyse a link. you never did.

It's a clear and clearly dishonest baiting attempt.

Again, we're done, hog.

You do realise that you've not provided a link or source that climbing times are slower from pre-Festina to present day?

You punched in some data without links.

Compelling Martin. Compelling

 

[martinvickers]

You do realise that you've not provided a link or source that climbing times are slower from pre-Festina to present day?

You punched in some data without links.

Compelling Martin. Compelling

You're done here, Hog. You'e nothing further to add.

Having got to the bottom of that nonsense, anybody want to help us back on topic re Walsh? thanks

 

[thehog]

AVERAGE climbing speeds are down from the Festina heights. That's a simple verifiable fact.

Now you said speeds. Not placings. Speeds not placings.

Lets be clear here.

My argument is the speeds are not down. They may be for the bottom end of the field, I've not verified, only because racing is much different these days. One leader and 8 riders riding hard prior then coming in several minutes down.

However.

The Top 5. The Top 10 on climbs are climbing as fast if not faster than 1994-1998. They are also the same as 1999-2005. 2006 and 07 with 08 bring an anomaly until the riders worked out the passport and how to beat it.

The speeds are faster than the pre-Festina period. Fact.

I'd be happy for you to provide a link that they are slower? But you haven't.

Links per my claim?

Sure.

Average speed of the entire Tours year by year.

http://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats_tourdefrance_vitesse.htm


The tour is just as fast if not faster than Roche in 87 but to be fair they shortened the distance from 88 onwards. It's still much fast than those days.

Right though EPO-era the Tour hasn't slowed down by any stretch.

Notably "the Sky era" - 2011 onwards speeds are well and truly on the increase.

Since 2010, the average speed of the Tour winner resumed its ascending trend, approaching the long-term linear trend (red line in the chart). One may suspect the doings of illegal sports medical practices to be responsible for such high level performances.

It should also be noted that about 10% more riders finish the Tour today than in 1996-2003.

Better recovery on doping products maybe?

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/07/news/186088_186088

74 1987 36.645 Stephen ROCHE
75 1988 38.909 Pedro DELGADO
76 1989 37.487 Greg LEMOND
77 1990 38.621 Greg LEMOND
78 1991 38.747 Miguel INDURAIN
79 1992 39.504 Miguel INDURAIN
80 1993 38.709 Miguel INDURAIN
81 1994 38.383 Miguel INDURAIN
82 1995 39.193 Miguel INDURAIN
83 1996 39.227 Bjarne RIIS ¹
84 1997 39.237 Jan ULLRICH
85 1998 39.983 Marco PANTANI
86 1999 40.276 Lance ARMSTRONG ²
87 2000 39.569 Lance ARMSTRONG ²
88 2001 40.070 Lance ARMSTRONG ²
89 2002 39.920 Lance ARMSTRONG ²
90 2003 40.940 Lance ARMSTRONG ²
91 2004 40.553 Lance ARMSTRONG ²
92 2005 41.654 Lance ARMSTRONG ²
93 2006 40.784 Oscar PEREIRO ³
94 2007 39.228 Alberto CONTADOR
95 2008 40.492 Carlos SASTRE
96 2009 40.316 Alberto CONTADOR
97 2010 39.590 Andy SCHLECK ⁴
98 2011 39.788 Cadel EVANS
99 2012 39.826 Bradley WIGGINS
100 2013 40.547 Christopher FROOME

Speed increase since 1903 : 57.9%
Average speed change per Tour : 0.42%

Further of note.

Number or Tour de France rider sanctioned at some point as follows:

34% of all group riders;
60% of 10-top ranked riders;
72% of 3-top ranked riders;
85% of all winners.

http://stats.areppim.com/archives/insight_dopingtour2908.htm

So to the climbs. What's interesting d'Huez aside 1994-1998 climbing times just don't appear anywhere. Average either.

Which tells you it's not fact at all.

There is no evidence that othe whole climbing times are down.

In fact it's too the contrary courtesy of Chris Froome.

Alpe d'Huez -

1994 - 1994:13,8 km@8%---37:15---average speed 22.23 km/h(Marco Pantani)
---40:43---average speed 20.34 km/h(Roberto Conti)
1995 - 1995:13,8 km@8%---36:40---average speed 22.58 km/h(Marco Pantani)
1997 - 1997:13,8 km@8%---36:53---average speed 22.45 km/h(Marco Pantani)
2004 - 2004:13,8 km@8%---37:36---average speed 22.02 km/h(Lance Armstrong)
2006 - 2006:13,8 km@8%---38:35---average speed 21.46 km/h(Landis-Kloden)
---40:45---average speed 20.32 km/h(Fränk Schleck)
2011 - 2011:13,8 km@8%---41:25---average speed 19.99 km/h(Samuel Sanchez)
---42:02---average speed 19.70 km/h(Pierre Rolland)
2013 - 2013:13,8 km@8%---39:48---average speed 20.80 km/h(Nairo Quintana)
---43:02---average speed 19.24 km/h(Christophe Riblon)

Bonascare

The Top 20 are from 2000 onwards. Much faster than 1994-1998

1. 2001: 22:55 Roberto Laiseka 23.56 km/h
2. 2001: 22:57 Lance Armstrong 23.53 km/h
3. 2013: 23:12 Chris Froome 23.28 km/h
4. 2003: 23:18 Jan Ullrich 23.18 km/h
5. 2001: 23:20 Jan Ullrich 23.14 km/h
6. 2003: 23:20 Haimar Zubeldia 23.14 km/h
7. 2003: 23:25 Lance Armstrong 23.06 km/h
8. 2003: 23:35 Alexander Vinokourov 22.90 km/h
9. 2003: 23:37 Ivan Basso 22.87 km/h
10. 2005: 23:40 Lance Armstrong 22.82 km/h
11. 2005: 23:42 Ivan Basso 22.78 km/h
12. 2001: 23:43 Oscar Sevilla 22.77 km/h
13. 2001: 23:43 Joseba Beloki 22.77 km/h
14. 2010: 23:46 Denis Menchov 22.72 km/h
15. 2010: 23:46 Samuel Sánchez 22.72 km/h
16. 2005: 24:00 Jan Ullrich 22.50 km/h
17. 2010: 24:00 Andy Schleck 22.50 km/h
18. 2010: 24:00 Joaquim Rodriguez 22.50 km/h
19. 2010: 24:00 Robert Gesink 22.50 km/h
20. 2010: 24:00 Alberto Contador 22.50 km/h
21. 2010: 24:00 Jurgen Van Den Broeck 22.50 km/h

Ventoux:

Same with Ventoux - mind you ITT times, only doper-head Vaughters from 1999 ITT makes the list from Festina sorta days:

1. 2004: 55:51 Iban Mayo 23.10 km/h
2. 2004: 56:26 Tyler Hamilton 22.86 km/h
3. 1999: 56:50 Jonathan Vaughters 22.70 km/h
4. 2004: 56:54 Oscar Sevilla 22.67 km/h
5. 1999: 57:33 Alexander Vinokourov 22.42 km/h
6. 1994: 57:34 Marco Pantani 22.41 km/h
7. 1999: 57:34 Wladimir Belli 22.41 km/h
8. 2004: 57:39 Juan Miguel Mercado 22.38 km/h
9. 1999: 57:42 Joseba Beloki 22.36 km/h
10. 2004: 57:49 Lance Armstrong 22.31 km/h
11. 1999: 57:52 Lance Armstrong 22.29 km/h
12. 2004: 58:14 Inigo Landaluze 22.15 km/h
13. 1999: 58:15 Kevin Livingston 22.15 km/h
14. 1999: 58:31 David Moncoutie 22.05 km/h
15. 2004: 58:35 José Enrique Gutierrez 22.02 km/h
16. 2009: 58:45 Andy Schleck 21.96 km/h
17. 2009: 58:45 Alberto Contador 21.96 km/h
18. 2009: 58:48 Lance Armstrong 21.94 km/h
19. 2009: 58:50 Fränk Schleck 21.93 km/h
20. 1999: 58:51 Unai Osa 21.92 km/h

Ax 3 Domains -

Expert Scientist Ross Tucker predicted the following:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/ax-3-domaines-history-vams-and-performance-predictions/

In terms of a prediction, I mentioned that the pVAM method predicts a 24:17. I expect it will be faster than that, because we’re only in the first week of the Tour so riders are fresh, it’s the first mountain finish so motivation will be higher, and the model prediction is based on three GC riders anyway – the best will be faster. If I had to gaze into my crystal ball, I’d predict a time between 23:40 and 23:50, corresponding to between 6.2 and 6.3 W/kg.

And post stage, one minute faster. Yikes!

It was fast, very fast. The 23:14 ascent of Ax-3-Domaines puts Froome in third on the all-time list for the climb, behind only Laiseka and Armstrong in 2001. The VAM of 1715 m/h converts to a power output of 6.3 W/kg (Ferrari method) and about 6.5 W/kg with other models (CPL, rst). Very fast.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/froomes-first-mountain-performance-cue-debate/

Ax3 times are all the same as the rest.

 

[sittingbison]

OK, thats enough.

thehog, you have made a claim to refute another post. Nothing wrong with that. However such claims can require a source especially if asked for...which is the case now. Pay attention to this guideline:

Proof of point, opinions, and common knowledge: You have to provide some proof using linked sources or verifiable material. Or, you can just state "in my opinion". If, on the other hand, it is in the realm of "common knowledge", then it is acceptable to make an unverified statement.

It wasn't your opinion, and its not common knowledge. So ante up.

matinvickers, you are not a mod. If you want to be a mod I'm sure there is a vacancy. In the mean time I suggest you pay attention to these rules:

• Chasing / harassing / flaming other users, regardless of who instigated it.
• Harassing other users by having a continuous negative or bitter attitude towards them.
• Cruising the boards looking for a fight.

thehog has made a claim, and will either back it up...or not. Give him the opportunity to do so without hounding him.

Now on to another matter. This is now veering wildly off topic (Walsh/Bandwagon). If you want to discuss it further jump into the Sky etc threads to do so. Back on track please

cheers
bsion

 

[martinvickers]

Hog.

you've just made yourself look very stupid in the first couple of lines of your response.

now be a good chap and post those links - the conference,and the 'real study' and I'll show exactly why you were stupid.

good boy.

 

[thehog]

Hog.

you've just made yourself look very stupid in the first couple of lines of your response.

now be a good chap and post those links - the conference,and the 'real study' and I'll show exactly why you were stupid.

good boy.

Sure Martin. Just after you post your link that Tour times are slower in pre-Festina.

I rest my case.

Big fail Sir. Big fail.

Now be a man and at least discuss the issue even if you can't back up your claims with a link.

I welcome you to dissect my post with you're own links.

Telling. Most telling.

 

[the sceptic]

 

[martinvickers]

Sure Martin. Just after you post your link that Tour times are slower in pre-Festina.

I rest my case.

Big fail Sir. Big fail.

Now be a man and at least discuss the issue even if you can't back up your claims with a link.

I welcome you to dissect my post with you're own links.

Telling. Most telling.

That's a no then, you won't provide verification for your claims. Just like the last time.


You're done.

P.S. For the record, you'll find i did name my source for the times. right at the start. Unlike you.

 

[thehog]

That's a no then, you won't provide verification for your claims. Just like the last time.


You're done.

P.S. For the record, you'll find i did name my source for the times. right at the start. Unlike you.

I rest my case.

Be good if you were open to discussion.

Clearly not.

Disappointing.

 

[the sceptic]

That's a no then, you won't provide verification for your claims. Just like the last time.


You're done.

P.S. For the record, you'll find i did name my source for the times. right at the start. Unlike you.

Ball, not man.

Where is your link Martin?

I cant see it, perhaps it got buried in one of your essays. Do you mind posting it again?

Its put up or shut up time. No more deflections or stalling tactics.

Details please, right now.

 

[martinvickers]

Ball, not man.

Where is your link Martin?

I cant see it, perhaps it got buried in one of your essays. Do you mind posting it again?

Its put up or shut up time. No more deflections or stalling tactics.

Details please, right now.

Please learn to read, Sceptic. I didn't say link, i said source. and I've named it. Now away you go, and stop baiting for a ban. thank you.

 

[thehog]

Ball, not man.

Where is your link Martin?

I cant see it, perhaps it got buried in one of your essays. Do you mind posting it again?

Its put up or shut up time. No more deflections or stalling tactics.

Details please, right now.

Clearly there's no link or source.

You'd think if it was FACT there would be a link or reference.

Sadly not.

Dissapponting as it looked like an interesting discussion. I would have been up for learning more about the climbing times.

 

[sittingbison]

FYI I have deleted some further flaming and baiting etc mentioned prior in the interests of fair play as there is often a delay I will refrain from any other action ATM.

Please desist.

 

[the sceptic]

FYI I have deleted some further flaming and baiting etc mentioned prior in the interests of fair play as there is often a delay I will refrain from any other action ATM.

Please desist.

Sorry Bison. Since one poster had made similar aggressive posts for quite a while I thought it was within the rules.

Would it be ok to create a "speeds are up/down" thread so the topic could be discussed further?