JV talks, sort of

[hrotha]

Blood doping is curtailed right now because of the biological passport (there need to be way more tests for it to be truly effective, in my opinion, but at least the tools are already in place to severely limit the effects of blood doping without necessarily detecting any products in a test). It is my understanding that both Aicar and GW-50 are relatively easy to detect right now, but that might change with newer products. Some believe that kind of PED use might have replaced blood doping at the top of the peloton. My question would be: if at one point similar products couldn't be detected directly, would there be a conceivable way to curtail their use indirectly, like the biological passport does with blood doping?

 

[horsinabout]

If you can't call out Sky I certainly get it, but I don't think it's credible to say this (Froome in particular) is complicated. Froome is just preposterous and everyone can see it. There's no credible argument that he's clean. You guys are literally being robbed. I guess from the cheap (or free as the case may be) seats, it's hard to swallow anything less than outrage as a genuine human reaction to what's going on.

Your position is complicated, but I don't see how the situation is. Maybe that's what you meant.

I was deliberating on how to respond to JV's comment. But you have done a good job and I can't add anything here.

 

[Miburo]

JV if you truly wish to save cycling.

Do something.

You know it's not real.

Your Garmin guys are getting killed.

good enough for my sig

 

[the sceptic]

JV cant call out sky, they are his best friends in the new era of clean cycling and it would also cast doubts over Wiggos 2009 tour.

So he will just have to pretend he doesnt notice what is going on with Froome and Porte peaking all year round while his own riders are very inconsistent.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Yep. For Hesjedal and Martin all the stars and everything has to align perfectly for them to win something big once.

While Froome can seemingly peak whenever he wants and is like a machine nowadays.
Something aint right.

 

[red_flanders]

JV cant call out sky, they are his best friends in the new era of clean cycling and it would also cast doubts over Wiggos 2009 tour.

I don't think that is accurate or has much if anything to do with JV's position.

 

[burning]

Yep. For Hesjedal and Martin all the stars and everything has to align perfectly for them to win something big once.

While Froome can seemingly peak whenever he wants and is like a machine nowadays.
Something aint right.

He definitely know (and admit) whats going on as one can understand with his "stars do not align often" post, but I dont think that one man can do anything at all.

I mean, he obviously know much more than anybody here, thats very obvious

 

[Miburo]

I don't think that is accurate or has much if anything to do with JV's position.

I wouldn't say it's completely inaccurate.

If sky falls also wiggins falls, it'll cast doubt on his tour '09 thus also on JV. In that tour he already could follow the bigger guys, in sky he didn't improve that that much so if he's doping in sky people might bring up that he was already a good climber in 2009 and then you would wonder why that is? knowing he was therefore a busdriver.

If wiggins falls, it'll cast a lot of doubt on JV. A guy who is doping at sky didn't dope in the tour (2009) where he finally learned to climb, who'll believe that?

 

[hrotha]

It would certainly be bad news for JV, but 1) JV is on record saying Wiggo pretty much did his own thing, and 2) Wiggo has definitely improved since 2009. Particularly, but not only, his time-trialing skills.

 

[Merckx index]

Blood doping is curtailed right now because of the biological passport (there need to be way more tests for it to be truly effective, in my opinion, but at least the tools are already in place to severely limit the effects of blood doping without necessarily detecting any products in a test). It is my understanding that both Aicar and GW-50 are relatively easy to detect right now, but that might change with newer products. Some believe that kind of PED use might have replaced blood doping at the top of the peloton. My question would be: if at one point similar products couldn't be detected directly, would there be a conceivable way to curtail their use indirectly, like the biological passport does with blood doping?

In principle, the blood passport model can be applied to any kind of PEDs. These alleged drugs du jour like GW50 and various SARMs act by turning on the synthesis of specific proteins. The higher levels of these proteins, or perhaps more easily of the RNA messages that precede them, should be detectable.

But there will be some serious technical problems to over come. As with the blood passport, you have to create a baseline first, which you have to hope represents a clean individual, and you have to allow enough variability to avoid declaring positive levels that might occur naturally. And while gene expression measurements are now done routinely all over the world, the technology is not cheap, and interpretation can be complex. It's a far cry from measuring levels of hemoglobin or reticulocytes.

The most serious obstacle, though, is probably obtaining tissue for measurements. The big advantage of drugs like SARMs is that they are highly specific, acting primarily on muscle and bone, avoiding side effects on other tissues. In order to assay their metabolic effects, it will be necessary to find products in blood. GW50 has been reported to increase synthesis of high density lipoprotein and decrease that of LDL, so measurements of these might constitute part of the passport. But the great natural variation in levels of these as a result of factors like diet might make defining a baseline problematic. I'm not familiar enough with these compounds to know what other substances they upregulate might be found in blood, but that would be where efforts to develop a passport would have to be focussed.

 

[JV1973]

JV cant call out sky, they are his best friends in the new era of clean cycling and it would also cast doubts over Wiggos 2009 tour.

So he will just have to pretend he doesnt notice what is going on with Froome and Porte peaking all year round while his own riders are very inconsistent.

Ok, hardly best friends. The Wiggins "transfer" was probably the nastiest legal cat fight I've ever seen. And I grew up with lawyers.

 

[JV1973]

I wouldn't say it's completely inaccurate.

If sky falls also wiggins falls, it'll cast doubt on his tour '09 thus also on JV. In that tour he already could follow the bigger guys, in sky he didn't improve that that much so if he's doping in sky people might bring up that he was already a good climber in 2009 and then you would wonder why that is? knowing he was therefore a busdriver.

If wiggins falls, it'll cast a lot of doubt on JV. A guy who is doping at sky didn't dope in the tour (2009) where he finally learned to climb, who'll believe that?

Bah, at this point, I wouldn't really care either way. better that it come out, than fester for 10 yrs. I just don't think it will, as i don't think it's there.

but... i have been wrong before in my life. i'm happy to let the cards fall where they may.

 

[red_flanders]

Bah, at this point, I wouldn't really care either way. better that it come out, than fester for 10 yrs. I just don't think it will, as i don't think it's there.

but... i have been wrong before in my life. i'm happy to let the cards fall where they may.

I'm curious if you are referencing Wiggins or all of SKY with these comments.

 

[JV1973]

If you can't call out Sky I certainly get it, but I don't think it's credible to say this (Froome in particular) is complicated. Froome is just preposterous and everyone can see it. There's no credible argument that he's clean. You guys are literally being robbed. I guess from the cheap (or free as the case may be) seats, it's hard to swallow anything less than outrage as a genuine human reaction to what's going on.

Your position is complicated, but I don't see how the situation is. Maybe that's what you meant.

No, the situation.... for example, alps d huez in 2001 38 minute winning time. you plug in the figures to that you get a vo2max of 92-100(assuming fatigue, and sub max power and certain efficiencies), and power outputs of 6.3+ w/kg... very easy to call bull****. I wrote a whole article in 2001 cyclesport basically calling bull****, but no one quite understood the science back then, so my subtleties were lost. Actually, LeMond read it and got it, but that was about it.

Froome isn't there yet, Wiggo no where close. Froome, my guess will be sub 40 mins in the Tour, maybe even low 39... so, vo2max of 86-94 and 6.0 w/kg... more difficult to make a damning assessment there. Not saying it's clean or not clean, saying that I would not be willing to condemn it, without further proof.

That's all.

Sorry, man. I don't go with "I don't like what I saw!"... Im pretty much tied to the math. climbing speed and blood values. The rest is rhubarb.

 

[JV1973]

I'm curious if you are referencing Wiggins or all of SKY with these comments.

yes, i am. sorry, should have made that clearer.

 

[Miburo]

No, the situation.... for example, alps d huez in 2001 38 minute winning time. you plug in the figures to that you get a vo2max of 92-100(assuming fatigue, and sub max power and certain efficiencies), and power outputs of 6.3+ w/kg... very easy to call bull****. I wrote a whole article in 2001 cyclesport basically calling bull****, but no one quite understood the science back then, so my subtleties were lost. Actually, LeMond read it and got it, but that was about it.

Froome isn't there yet, Wiggo no where close. Froome, my guess will be sub 40 mins in the Tour, maybe even low 39... so, vo2max of 86-94 and 6.0 w/kg... more difficult to make a damning assessment there. Not saying it's clean or not clean, saying that I would not be willing to condemn it, without further proof.

That's all.

Sorry, man. I don't go with "I don't like what I saw!"... Im pretty much tied to the math. climbing speed and blood values. The rest is rhubarb.

But didn't you make a tweet "we all knew it about vini and santa".

What santa did was possible on a human way, but still you thought it was suspicious, why then? You focused on one of these things or just a feeling you had? What's the difference with him and sky/Froome then?

Don't you contradict yourself? You say you don't focus on what you see but yet you say "we all knew it about vini and santa"?

 

[red_flanders]

No, the situation.... for example, alps d huez in 2001 38 minute winning time. you plug in the figures to that you get a vo2max of 92-100(assuming fatigue, and sub max power and certain efficiencies), and power outputs of 6.3+ w/kg... very easy to call bull****. I wrote a whole article in 2001 cyclesport basically calling bull****, but no one quite understood the science back then, so my subtleties were lost. Actually, LeMond read it and got it, but that was about it.

Froome isn't there yet, Wiggo no where close. Froome, my guess will be sub 40 mins in the Tour, maybe even low 39... so, vo2max of 86-94 and 6.0 w/kg... more difficult to make a damning assessment there. Not saying it's clean or not clean, saying that I would not be willing to condemn it, without further proof.

That's all.

Sorry, man. I don't go with "I don't like what I saw!"... Im pretty much tied to the math. climbing speed and blood values. The rest is rhubarb.

I think I remember that article, was it about Armstrong's wattage on the Alpe? I've often wished I could find a link to it. I thought I recalled that your thesis was that Armstrong was within believable human limits, if he was a top specimen of everyone ever recorded...just.

For me it rang out as a good analysis that what we were seeing wasn't real, but I don't recall that it was stated as such, one had to really read between the lines. Every Trek-riding, black-sock wearing fanboy I talked to used it as evidence that Armstrong was clean...as that was essentially the conclusion.

I may be talking about another article or recalling incorrectly–your thoughts?

Foome doesn't need a sniff test, he doesn't even pass the sidelong glance test. The sniff test would make me choke.

 

[will10]

But didn't you make a tweet "we all knew it about vini and santa".

What santa did was possible on a human way, but still you thought it was suspicious, why then? You focused on one of these things or just a feeling you had? What's the difference with him and sky/Froome then?

Don't you contradict yourself? You say you don't focus on what you see but yet you say "we all knew it about vini and santa"?

Good post.

A lot were taken aback by Santambrogio's considerable improvements this season. He was still at and around the magic 6w/kg marker. I don't think anyone was surprised when he got caught.

A lot were taken aback by Froome's considerable improvements at the 2011 Vuelta and since then. He has sat at and around the magic 6w/kg marker since then. I don't think many would be surprised if he was to get caught. If he was racing in a high-vis jersey, more would be suspicious.

I could understand someone like Sayer copping a lot more flak than Froome, simply because he isn't tested under the biopassport. But what, really, is the difference between Santa and Froome?

What is humanly possible is not necessarily Froomanly possible.

 

[Pentacycle]

Good post.

A lot were taken aback by Santambrogio's considerable improvements this season. He was still at and around the magic 6w/kg marker. I don't think anyone was surprised when he got caught.

A lot were taken aback by Froome's considerable improvements at the 2011 Vuelta and since then. He has sat at and around the magic 6w/kg marker since then. I don't think many would be surprised if he was to get caught. If he was racing in a high-vis jersey, more would be suspicious.

I could understand someone like Sayer copping a lot more flak than Froome, simply because he isn't tested under the biopassport. But what, really, is the difference between Santa and Froome?

What is humanly possible is not necessarily Froomanly possible.

JV knows Froome's numbers. They're not for us to see, but for JV it's a proof CF has the requierd talent to reach 6W/kg on a MTF in a clean fashion.

 

[The Hitch]

Ok, forget sky, JV do you have any feelings about the fact that Alberto Contador put in the massive turn on the front that pushed Rohan Dennis out of the podium?

 

[BroDeal]

Froome isn't there yet, Wiggo no where close. Froome, my guess will be sub 40 mins in the Tour, maybe even low 39... so, vo2max of 86-94 and 6.0 w/kg... more difficult to make a damning assessment there. Not saying it's clean or not clean, saying that I would not be willing to condemn it, without further proof.

Hold it. Froome with a VO2Max of up to 94? If it was that high then he would have tearing it up in his early career. There would be stories about him just like there are about LeMond when he was a junior.

 

[Benotti69]

You know this is an impossible debate. If they get beat, I should denounce other teams. If they win, then they are doping. That is the general attitude of many here. How is it possible to have logical discourse when this bifurcated position is pre-established and worshipped?

It just isn't that simple. It used to be, I get that, but the equation is more complex these days.

It is time to make it simple.

Time for transparency. Publish your riders numbers. All of them.

If you prove your riders numbers are what is considered clean then when others dont or wont then they will be suspect.

Also LeMond's numbers are considered the maximum of cleanliness, how many LeMonds can there be? So guys like Wiggins, Froome, Hesjedal et al getting to the magic LeMond clean is a joke. These guys are not in the same state never mind fit to ride alongside a guy like LeMond!

 

[Benotti69]

Hold it. Froome with a VO2Max of up to 94? If it was that high then he would have tearing it up in his early career. There would be stories about him just like there are about LeMond when he was a junior.

Exactly why this is all crap. Guys like Wiggins, Froome and others who have the 'magic' LeMond level numbers were not ripping it up like LeMond.

 

[Pentacycle]

Exactly why this is all crap. Guys like Wiggins, Froome and others who have the 'magic' LeMond level numbers were not ripping it up like LeMond.

Is Lemond the current standard for clean cycling champions and the way careers have to develop? Not everyone's got the chance to take the shortest road to the top.

 

[Miburo]

JV knows Froome's numbers. They're not for us to see, but for JV it's a proof CF has the requierd talent to reach 6W/kg on a MTF in a clean fashion.

it still doesn't explain why jv says he knew it all about santa and vini while he just stated in this forum he doesn't base himself on what he sees, just on the numbers and such.