JV talks, sort of

[blackcat]

^

just keep on posting pics of colombian grimpeurs with eugenics asides

 

[Parrot23]

What a load of utter nonsense.

Schizo musing passing as insight.

 

[blackcat]

What a load of utter nonsense.

Schizo musing passing as insight.

would not say insight.

my glimpse is what would be similar to what JV's junior school aged sons would be.

my appreciation is but a decade long advance of the intuition you get from the sport cleaning itself up year, to next year, repeat rinse ad infinitum.

i think you are allowed to express your opinion on the fora on the continent like velo-club

they know where their bread is buttered, lashings of fat, but keep telling it like it is from the consumers pov.

we always see a bunch of newbs turning up to parrot talking points and defend their heroes before they inevitably fall. which then is always good for a laff.

your contingent, project doping as (if it is) inherently bad, and ricco as evil incarnate.

i dont.

when i express my opinion one could be doping, or likely to be on peds, you would think the naif fanboy so common in this subforum, is having their grandma strung up.

it aint. its just cycling.

 

[Parrot23]

Barely coherent and inane drivel passing as supreme insight is fooling no one. If it does, pity for them.

Carry on, Blackcat.... Poor forum.

 

[Parrot23]

Tyler Hamilton wrote about Vaughters in The Secret Race that "Jonathan was known....[for] his even more incredible gas, caused by the protein shakes he was constantly drinking".

Hot air, lots of it here tonight.

 

[JV1973]

I proposed this to jonny vee years back. I assume it was in here.

I also proposed the 24hour chaperones during GTs (just for this top dogs) to prevent recovery doping and transfusions.

jonny was against this ayn rand type of tyrannical control.

i am not sure the definition i read in the last few days of his version of chaperones. but if you read my posts with him a few years back, he was stridently against this policy.

simple. just a policy for no mrs rumsas, motoman, rob hayles or max sciandri or cioni or whovever sky r using. whatever new myocera boost that is not showing up.

but i said it, 3, 4? years back. with jonny.


i really think all the uci anti doping monies are wasted. they are just a pr scam. there are much simpler ways to have a better operation. to start, a cogent and coherent manifesto on why anti-doping. I dont like the soccer mom pr. its risible.

yesalis, hoberman, savulescu, mazanov, hardie

No, no. I proposed the chaperone idea, very publicly, to WADA.

 

[blackcat]

No, no. I proposed the chaperone idea, very publicly, to WADA.

are we talking the 24 hour watch?

you responded in here, I will find the thread, with denial on libertarian grounds.


which I fully understand and concede.

but, there is a libertarian agument tension, right to privacy v right for christopher bassons (cypher) to compete on a more level playing field. Temper doping, and peformance boost, so Bassons competes for the spoils.

is your chaperone contention or policy now, a 24hr chaperone during the GT.

yes, ofcourse there is the liberty denial. But this stands in tension, with the barrier to entry that doping is.

 

[blackcat]

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=3001&highlight=supervision&page=3

I still assert, that is not an excessive price on libertarian grounds,

because it is a double bind where doping is a prohibitive barrier to entry for those that wish not to dope. this can temper doping, with 20 odd in july, having supervision at their door.

putting it in perspective, keirin riders in japan are under 24hour watch to ride like tellietubbies on bikes.

if it is ONLY to contravene liberty. yes. that would be too stringent. but it is not, and this grover norquist type bat$hit crazy talking point, falls pretty quick on logic grounds.

i dont even wanna do away doping, just dismantle the barrier to entry, and share the spoils to more that are willing to play russian roulette with hypodermix.

this is what you are for too.

 

[uphillstruggle]

I could be wrong, but prior to this year (and nic's move to the dark side), i was always under the impression Nic and Dan had very good reps re doping - somewhat to the irritation of Nic's Da, oddly enough, who felt nic didn't 'prepare' enough...

Nothing in Roche's performances this year show me he is doing anything differently. Yet at least.

 

[webvan]

Nothing in Roche's performances this year show me he is doing anything differently. Yet at least.

True, but you have to wonder what it feels like racing for that GM and that leader...do they talk about it? Must dread "getting the talk" each time he's alone with Mr. 60...

 

[uphillstruggle]

True, but you have to wonder what it feels like racing for that GM and that leader...do they talk about it? Must dread "getting the talk" each time he's alone with Mr. 60...

It is worrying, him moving there but I don't necessarily buy the rider is on team X so therefore IS doping. Tondo, Moncoutie being obvious examples of survivors. And Saxo Tinkoff riders must be on a very cheap program as they are one of the weaker teams at the moment

Maybe Nick just makes sure he's never alone with Riis constantly making excuses to leave the room

 

[will10]

I'm sure I read that Martin had ridden the final climb at the same speed as Rodriguez and Quintana. Why can't I find that anywhere now...

EDIT: Aha!

Port Aine
2013:18,4 km@6,6%---49:29---average speed 22.31 km/h(Daniel Martin)
---49:29---average speed 22.31 km/h(Rodriguez-Quintana)


http://climbing-records.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/impressive-feat-by-dan-martin.html

 

[del1962]

I'm sure I read that Martin had ridden the final climb at the same speed as Rodriguez and Quintana. Why can't I find that anywhere now...

EDIT: Aha!

Port Aine
2013:18,4 km@6,6%---49:29---average speed 22.31 km/h(Daniel Martin)
---49:29---average speed 22.31 km/h(Rodriguez-Quintana)


http://climbing-records.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/impressive-feat-by-dan-martin.html

Can't have cycled it at the same speed or the gap at the end would have been same at bottom, he lost about the same time on the climb as he lost on the previous stage.

 

[J-King]

Patrick Lefevre in a Belgian Newspaper this weekend in reply to the statement that professional cycling isn't doing too well:

"Sad to say: the collegues that did have a vision have left [professional cycling]. Johan Bruyneel and Manolo Saiz. They thought in a businesslike way. With the others I am in a meeting and all I am thinking is: what am I doing here?"

Do you agree? Are people like Bruyneel and Saiz what professional cycling needs at this point?

Later in the interview the journalist compares Lefevre to someone that has fought a war, but has never raped anyone, nor shot anyone in the back. Lefevre agrees with that metaphor.

Do you believe that as long as people from the past keep running the show, there can be a level playing field for teams like Garmin?

 

[webvan]

Lefevere needs to go too!

It is worrying, him moving there but I don't necessarily buy the rider is on team X so therefore IS doping. Tondo, Moncoutie being obvious examples of survivors. And Saxo Tinkoff riders must be on a very cheap program as they are one of the weaker teams at the moment

Maybe Nick just makes sure he's never alone with Riis constantly making excuses to leave the room

That sounds like a plan !

 

[del1962]

I doubt Riis is getting his riders to dope

 

[jens_attacks]

Can't have cycled it at the same speed or the gap at the end would have been same at bottom, he lost about the same time on the climb as he lost on the previous stage.

bingo! that was the case

 

[frenchfry]

Patrick Lefevre in a Belgian Newspaper this weekend in reply to the statement that professional cycling isn't doing too well:

"Sad to say: the collegues that did have a vision have left [professional cycling]. Johan Bruyneel and Manolo Saiz. They thought in a businesslike way. With the others I am in a meeting and all I am thinking is: what am I doing here?"

Do you agree? Are people like Bruyneel and Saiz what professional cycling needs at this point?

Later in the interview the journalist compares Lefevre to someone that has fought a war, but has never raped anyone, nor shot anyone in the back. Lefevre agrees with that metaphor.

Do you believe that as long as people from the past keep running the show, there can be a level playing field for teams like Garmin?

It seems to me that Bruyneel and Saiz were kicked out of the sport, they didn't leave volontarily.

Their vision centered around doping their riders and indeed they did this in a very businesslike way.

They are still scum and deserve more to be in prison than running cycling teams. Same for Lefevre.

 

[Fatclimber]

are we talking the 24 hour watch?

you responded in here, I will find the thread, with denial on libertarian grounds.


which I fully understand and concede.

but, there is a libertarian agument tension, right to privacy v right for christopher bassons (cypher) to compete on a more level playing field. Temper doping, and peformance boost, so Bassons competes for the spoils.

is your chaperone contention or policy now, a 24hr chaperone during the GT.

yes, ofcourse there is the liberty denial. But this stands in tension, with the barrier to entry that doping is.

chaperone = just another person to bribe with a used pair of shoes or jersey

 

[blackcat]

chaperone = just another person to bribe with a used pair of shoes or jersey

like verbruggen and mcquaid

 

[blackcat]

Patrick Lefevre in a Belgian Newspaper this weekend in reply to the statement that professional cycling isn't doing too well:



Do you agree? Are people like Bruyneel and Saiz what professional cycling needs at this point?

Later in the interview the journalist compares Lefevre to someone that has fought a war, but has never raped anyone, nor shot anyone in the back. Lefevre agrees with that metaphor.

Do you believe that as long as people from the past keep running the show, there can be a level playing field for teams like Garmin?

was not lefevre sending boonen nuyens and devolder to italy to bank blood in the off season 6 years back.

quickstep banking prior to gfc

 

[Galic Ho]

tennis has moved beyond laver and these talents.

the future players in the female and male ranks, has moved to more than this laver/federer naturals.

men need to be well over 6 foot, the taller the better, and have brilliant court movement. the top 3 players, are all the best defenders, and can switch to attack. that requires less genes for coordination and fine motor hand eye. and more to explosivity like monfils.

one of the daughters of the pedo from australia gavin hopper won some international jnr tourney as a 12yo, but she was always gonna be 5'3" and not endowed with athleticism like a gymnast. the amanda koetzer era in tennis was over. (note her old man coached koetzer)

genetics as a key plank in future performance in sport, have receded to a degree. with the division of labour in professional sport, imo doping is the number one performance metric.

Your are missing the statistical side again. One still has to perform at first before the dope. That is all about genetics. Sure in a clean sporting world, Roger Federer wins the genetic game for tennis, but the guys behind him still had a chance to at a bare minimum make it.

You make it seem like you can just walk around, look at height and say a player can make it. I've seen tennis camps. In the 90s they'd get all the kids there Down Under. They were picky and IMO moronic. Very myopic view and outlook on finding talent. The ones they asked back were always the solid ones. They had technique and the least amount of skills needed to develop in the shortest amount of time. Basically the most advanced and closer to completion rate were their aim. Why? Because they were closer to reaching a high competitive level. Does this mean through sheer work rate someone with less genetic skills that translate to easier/quicker adoption of a solid game cannot reach a higher level? Of course not. Never has, in any sport. There are always degrees of skill even at pro levels.

But that is the point. Statistically you do have to be very good to make it to pro ranks. There is always room for separating players but your words make it look like any schmuck can pick up a racquet and with the right drugs will be a force. That's no true in a technical sport. I thought you'd remember that from what JV said the other day. It's about where the population falls and your relative position. The pros are all still really good.

But in terms of strength and speed you are right. Tennis is no longer a smaller mans game. Drugs do lower the reliance on technical skills TO A DEGREE. A small degree. It's more a war of attrition. But if you make unforced technical errors, that ain't the drugs fault. It's about minimising that component of your game whilst getting the endurance and extra speed/power. Take Andrew Illie versus The Scud. Junior Aussie rivals. One quite tall at 6'5", the other barely touching on 6 feet. I always thought he was struggling to hit 5'8" but the internet says differently. Either way, Illie's game, like Michael Chang's, was limited by size. Technically all there, but bigger guys like the Scud had the reach and power advantage.

Also look at the age of the tennis players. If you're not playing at a high level before 18 you won't make it to the highest levels. To get to that point the skill base had to be there. From then on in a doping sense, that is what you build on. Doping can raise your game physiologically with extended stamina, more power etc by mitigating the need to commit less errors or actually technically improve by a lot to match someone like Federer etc. Put it this way...no sane person here would make a case for Djokovic being clean would they? But of all the players to be no.1 other than Federer, he is technically the most complete. That is why I think he is world no.1. Yes because he dopes well, but so do Nadal and Murray. However his whole broad spectrum skill set is better.

So is doping the no.1 performance metric? Yes because Tennis has a doping problem and it's allowed guys like Nadal to make a mockery of the sport. But to get there you need skill. No doubt. In tennis at least because people start young the skill has to be there. Say what you want about Agassi but at 15 he was always going to make it. Take Australia's no.1 male Bernard Tomic. I heard he was packing on a lot of muscle at the end of 2012. Will take the Murray route. Get on the gear, get the extra power and boosts to up his current game and then use his superior technical skills to beat the guys who are now stopping him. Actually he is a junior Djokovic. Potential only limited by willingness to dope. Contrast with someone like Del Potro. Can win a random Slam by a technical player having issues, but won't win consistently. Big guy, gets a lot from his size BUT is limited. The technically gifted guy who is 6'-6'3" will be the long term winner.

So yes your points were good, but only in the sense that doping has only eliminated one genetic sample. That being the guys 5'10 and under. A Michael Chang type player would never make it anymore. Then again that would be obvious by 18 given the lack of height. With women? They're all over the place. So many female world no.1s the last decade. Henin was 5'6 maybe 5'7'. She still flogged the 6 foot tall women. The mens game definitely has a barrier to entry determinate on genetics...height and reach. Faster shorter guy can't do enough. Doping stopped that because it made the bigger guys faster, upped their power and above all INCREASED their stamina/endurance.

 

[thehog]

JV can you call someone in the UCI and stop this Sky BS?

It's getting absurd now.

At least Dan Martin looks real.

Thanks.

 

[pmcg76]

Is it not time that Garmin started adopting the SKY methods, seriously Garmin have almost as deep a climbing roster as SKY.

Ryder Hysdejal
Dan Martin
Tom Danielson
Andrew Talansky
Peter Stetina
Chrisitian Vandevelde

Why can Garmin not do what SKY are doing every race? They have the guys to do so on paper.

 

[hrotha]

Is it not time that Garmin started adopting the SKY methods, seriously Garmin have almost as deep a climbing roster as SKY.

Ryder Hysdejal
Dan Martin
Tom Danielson
Andrew Talansky
Peter Stetina
Chrisitian Vandevelde

Why can Garmin not do what SKY are doing every race? They have the guys to do so on paper.

No, they have a smaller budget, which apparently means equally talented riders can't perform as well.