JV talks, sort of

[Wallace and Gromit]

My apologies. I thought you were bashing on Moncoutie.

Here is a link to the top Tour times for Alpe d'Huez. Top 200. Of the list...Luis Herrera and Lemond have clean times. Maybe Fignon...amphetamines only. The rest? Blood doping and epo. All of them...well to varying degrees as the times and years show. Make no mistake...Sastre was a big time doper. 3 sub 40 minute times in the Tour. That's alien territory.

http://www.thehubsa.co.za/forum/topic/126865-alpe-dhuez-all-time-top-200-list/

Wasn't Ventoux in the third week? Take Alpe d'Huez...Luis Herrera arguably has the fastest legit time on that list. 160th for one of the most gifted climbers of all time. He did it in 41'50" which is just behind the times Evans group did in 2008. Naturally I'd say Lemond's 146th placed time is the fastest clean time at 41'42" but that was done with him drafting two EPO dopers in 91. So many times are faster from 91 on that list and from guys who two years before were getting annihilated from Lemond who himself was a minute plus slower.

So let's take a look at Herrera versus Pantani shall we?

Marco managed 36'50" one time back in 1995. I have another record of 36'40" but the first time is fine...don't wanna make Marco look even more absurd do I?

36'50" = 2210 seconds

Herrera did 41'50" = 2510

2510-2210 = 300 seconds. Or 5 minutes exactly.

Note for Froome the difference in time on a longer and harder climb was already LOWER than this shorter climb. Alpe d'Huez is also shielded from the wind. Mt Ventoux is not and Froome rode a lot of that climb with no wind breaker.

So Froome on a longer climb, after a massive stage (note the Alpe d'Huez stages are also rarely over 180-90 km not 220km...it matters despite what some tell you) was 189 seconds off the record or just over 3 minutes. In contrast we have Herrera who was exactly 5 minutes off the record.

So to get the percentage difference we do the following:

300/2210 = 13.57%. Now that is just time, but it's well over double what Froome's time was and this is for a much shorter distance. How about Lemond's times from non epo ball busting years? Well they are on the forum but I can't be bothered to find them. But they were in the 42' minute range, just over from memory, so just outside the top 200 times. Maybe a minute slower in 89 than Delgado and Fignon from memory. Still fast, but over 15% down.

Take the 1986 reported time Lemond and Fignon did after breaking an entire peloton on the previous mountain and riding off alone. Note ENTIRE PELOTON. 48'00". Thus:

48'00" = 2880 seconds or a difference of 670 seconds. So 11 minutes and a bit. No biggie right?

Percentage wise that gives us 670/2210 = 30.1%

Now the analysis part is that was just two men, ridng solo for half a stage. So naturally it will be slower. But note, nobody could go with them and they are still so much slower it isn't funny. They won 8 Tours between themselves and barring a shotgun incident and EPO, they'd have won 10 Tours no sweat and maybe more. I still reckon Lemond could have gotten 7 if he was never shot and epo wasn't invented. But that is wishing.

So taking Heras Ventoux time and let's say a safe estimate of 15% given Herrera was a climbing freak...kind of like what is said about Quintana...and assuming the best all round GC would be slower than Herrera who was a pure climber what does that give us time wise?

Heras Ventoux record in just the Dauphine:

55'51" = 3351 seconds

3351*15% = 502.65 seconds or round up to 503.

Adding the 502 seconds to Heras time, we get 8'23" difference.

So 55'51" plus 8'23" we get 1:4'14". This is a whole 5 minutes and 14 seconds SLOWER than Froome. This isn't even considering a safe estimate for percentage times done above was done using EPO Tour times versus 80 Tour times for Alpe d'Huez. Ventoux is Dauphine versus Tour.

So who was clean? I sure as hell don't think Froome was. How much time did Evans lose this year, when Gilbert and Morabito pulled him up? 8'46". John Gadret did 4'56" slower than Froome and Jan Bakelants did 5'04" slower. They were in 22nd and 23rd place. BTW Gadret bagged the crap out of Froome and Sky. So I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. Plus he rides for a French team and isn't a tool.

Now I'm not saying they were super elite. Granted I just found out this was stage 15...but that is double the race days of a Dauphine Ventoux ascent. So less fatigue at this stage than say in the last 3 days. Let's assume Dan Martin is clean, or relatively so. He was 14th 2'36" so about half the time of Gadret and Bakelants. Martin tanked after this stage. He totally bombed out. Is he the best clean rider in the peloton? I don't think so. I still see WAY TOO MANY guys going way too fast. They're all simply not that good. Check the list here:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tour-de-france/stage-15/results

Take the Alpe d'Huez times. Fignon and Delgado just managed under 42' in 1989 over Lemond. These guys won 6 Tours between them. They were the only riders at the front. The only ones. Everyone else dropped. Yet here we have Richie Porte, faking on Ventoux, less than 10 seconds behind Martin. That's not normal. It was the Chiefs, the Heads of State, the Big Boys only back in the 80s. Now we still have every random making a show of it. Guys who clearly were doped in recent years and yet despite dropping form, like Contador (take your pick why) they're still darn fast despite Froome whooping them.

Make no mistake. Froome could have gone faster. A lot faster. I think he held back. You want a safe number for what might be possible. 10-12% of a doped time. With a qualifier. The remaining guys behind this time get smashed. Just like the 80s. But we still have a lot of riders going under this % and I don't think it's normal given Lemond and Herrera were freaks of nature. Good from the get go.

BTW I like the number RR came up with 12% slower than the record. I'd buy that. Problem is like I said, Froome was under half of that, his history is a joke, his physique is a mockery on common sense, Sky are a joke and we're comparing a week long races chrono with the first stage of the third week of racing that topped 200km. Big difference! Summary...the 12% range seems to me like a good guess for most mountain stages at MINIMUM. Longer climbs like Ventoux should need more IMO. Also, always look at the followers, what they did. Froome was absurd...but so were a lot of others.

As for power meters and wattages...I don't care. General rule of thumb. Time wise, they are still way too fast and most here know it. Anyone doing over 5.7 W/kg on Ventoux is suspect. Anyone. ****** this 6.0 W/kg rule. Also Spencer...check the bragging Tim Kerrison was doing about Froome and Porte's Madone times. So close to Armstrong's it isn't funny. Ridiculously close. LA was doped to the gills when it he did it too.

Couple of points:

1 - Froome did 41 minutes up the Alpe this year, so there's only circa 1 minute not 2 minutes between him and Herrera.

2 - It can be exceptionally windy on Alpe D'Huez. I've ridden up it a few times and the wind from hairpins 4 to 3 and 2 to 1 can almost stop you in your tracks. Or at leastit can me. Maybe I don't pedal hard enough!

3 - Modern bikes, wheels and other kit etc. are a couple of kg lighter than 1980s machines. That equates to a non-trivial couple of % improvement in uphill performance, all other things equal, ie 45 seconds or so up the Alpe.

 

[Alphabet]

Couple of points:
3 - Modern bikes, wheels and other kit etc. are a couple of kg lighter than 1980s machines. That equates to a non-trivial couple of % improvement in uphill performance, all other things equal, ie 45 seconds or so up the Alpe.

Only if you're as good as the big names from the pre-EPO era were. Which would apply to perhaps 0.0000001% of every person to ever ride a bike since 1990 (I mean all cyclists, not just the pro's- I reckon the odds of somebody being as talented as those guys and choosing cycling as their sport and turning pro and specialising as climbers would be 1 to 10,000,000 or greater).

 

[Galic Ho]

I am surprised that someone with your self-proclaimed talent at statistics needed to convert that to seconds and then back to minutes to get the answer.

Still you got there end... so good for you.

So explain to me why the world uses a base 10 number system and yet minutes are comprised of 6 groups of 10 seconds?

Wanna know why I did the conversion? So people won't be confused. Head to your local uni, study business, accounting/finance or some computer science/engineering and the obvious might hit you; most people's mathematical skills suck. You probably use a calculator for simple arithmetic right? Like most people huh!

You probably celebrated the end of the Millennium in 99 also right? I have no doubt Pedro, you know next to NOTHING about number systems. Nothing. I sure would love to hear your scientific theory grounding on them...oh wait, you wouldn't have studied that.

As I said, general rule of thumb. The eyes give it away. The speed. The riding. Which can all be measured by watts and to which one thing does not lie. TIME.

But go on, you ask JV what he thinks of the times Froome did and then ask him why his riders were blown away.

 

[Galic Ho]

Couple of points:

1 - Froome did 41 minutes up the Alpe this year, so there's only circa 1 minute not 2 minutes between him and Herrera.

2 - It can be exceptionally windy on Alpe D'Huez. I've ridden up it a few times and the wind from hairpins 4 to 3 and 2 to 1 can almost stop you in your tracks. Or at leastit can me. Maybe I don't pedal hard enough!

3 - Modern bikes, wheels and other kit etc. are a couple of kg lighter than 1980s machines. That equates to a non-trivial couple of % improvement in uphill performance, all other things equal, ie 45 seconds or so up the Alpe.

Fair points. Do note though on bike weights, we've had this discussion in the past months. Up to I believe it was 2001, Armstrong was riding some really heavy Trek bikes. The 5500 or something model from memory? A lot heavier than the current bikes by more than a few pounds.

I know Pantani's bike was heavier too, but he did get a custome frame setup because he was always riding out of the saddle.

Do note, the faster times are also the result of using lots of team mates. A train if you will. How fast do you think Evans would have been in 2008 with team mates? Then again, just look what Sastre did alone for most of the climb.

My point was not that this is concrete but a general gauging of movements. To get an idea how far the curve has shifted. Times give you that. Power and wattages have been used to 'justify' riders performances with no comparison to any base models. Look at the guys who do it. They're the ones selling a system to everyone. Their expertise. It's fancy advertising. Vayer is the one people should be listening too. He had a clean model to understand...Bassons...and a whole squad of doped monsters who off the juice were no match for Bassons.

So wind, technology advancements, racing strategy improving...I'd say no more than 2-3% gain MAXIMUM.

Take the entire front bunch of the peloton. There should be a very narrow cone. Those who can keep up and those who can't. Too many today are at that point guys in the 80s who were battling for the win were at...guys who aren't in the top 3 or top 5. The whole peloton needs to shift back to the left for me to even contemplate it being clean.

Take Contador. CleanER. Cleaner than he has been. Still doped IMO but cleaner. Can people deal with that level of doped? I think so. Froome and his Ventoux actions against Contador? Nope. The way he dropped Contador, put 30 seconds into him, rode for 8km alone with Quintana and then destroyed him....a complete joke. Cycling deserves better than that crap.

But there lies the problem. People still buy Hein's old crap about the Tour having to be fast to be entertaining. Rubbish. People didn't notice any lack of speed in the post WW2 races till Lemond won. Before blood vector drugs it was fast enough and more entertaining because people did implode and blow up. People who grew up on the old cycling IMO are very lucky and fortunate. Now? I don't think it's going to get better anytime soon.

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

Fair points. Do note though on bike weights, we've had this discussion in the past months. Up to I believe it was 2001, Armstrong was riding some really heavy Trek bikes. The 5500 or something model from memory? A lot heavier than the current bikes by more than a few pounds.

I know Pantani's bike was heavier too, but he did get a custome frame setup because he was always riding out of the saddle.

Do note, the faster times are also the result of using lots of team mates. A train if you will. How fast do you think Evans would have been in 2008 with team mates? Then again, just look what Sastre did alone for most of the climb.

My point was not that this is concrete but a general gauging of movements. To get an idea how far the curve has shifted. Times give you that. Power and wattages have been used to 'justify' riders performances with no comparison to any base models. Look at the guys who do it. They're the ones selling a system to everyone. Their expertise. It's fancy advertising. Vayer is the one people should be listening too. He had a clean model to understand...Bassons...and a whole squad of doped monsters who off the juice were no match for Bassons.

So wind, technology advancements, racing strategy improving...I'd say no more than 2-3% gain MAXIMUM.

Take the entire front bunch of the peloton. There should be a very narrow cone. Those who can keep up and those who can't. Too many today are at that point guys in the 80s who were battling for the win were at...guys who aren't in the top 3 or top 5. The whole peloton needs to shift back to the left for me to even contemplate it being clean.

Take Contador. CleanER. Cleaner than he has been. Still doped IMO but cleaner. Can people deal with that level of doped? I think so. Froome and his Ventoux actions against Contador? Nope. The way he dropped Contador, put 30 seconds into him, rode for 8km alone with Quintana and then destroyed him....a complete joke. Cycling deserves better than that crap.

But there lies the problem. People still buy Hein's old crap about the Tour having to be fast to be entertaining. Rubbish. People didn't notice any lack of speed in the post WW2 races till Lemond won. Before blood vector drugs it was fast enough and more entertaining because people did implode and blow up. People who grew up on the old cycling IMO are very lucky and fortunate. Now? I don't think it's going to get better anytime soon.

Thanks for your extensive analysis, don't know if I agree with all of it, I'll have to look at it in more detail.

Just a few random things spring to mind. I'm fairly sure Pantani didn't ride the Ventoux during his pre-charlie supercharged days, if he did he would no doubt hold the record. The list of times for the Alpe read like a who's who of dopers and I think you may be underestimating the advancements in equipment, training and nutrition which would account for some of the improvement in times, but it is difficult to be objective about that.

Now back to reading the basket-case theories and insults

 

[Benotti69]

Fair points. Do note though on bike weights, we've had this discussion in the past months. Up to I believe it was 2001, Armstrong was riding some really heavy Trek bikes. The 5500 or something model from memory? A lot heavier than the current bikes by more than a few pounds.

I know Pantani's bike was heavier too, but he did get a custome frame setup because he was always riding out of the saddle.

Do note, the faster times are also the result of using lots of team mates. A train if you will. How fast do you think Evans would have been in 2008 with team mates? Then again, just look what Sastre did alone for most of the climb.

My point was not that this is concrete but a general gauging of movements. To get an idea how far the curve has shifted. Times give you that. Power and wattages have been used to 'justify' riders performances with no comparison to any base models. Look at the guys who do it. They're the ones selling a system to everyone. Their expertise. It's fancy advertising. Vayer is the one people should be listening too. He had a clean model to understand...Bassons...and a whole squad of doped monsters who off the juice were no match for Bassons.

So wind, technology advancements, racing strategy improving...I'd say no more than 2-3% gain MAXIMUM.

Take the entire front bunch of the peloton. There should be a very narrow cone. Those who can keep up and those who can't. Too many today are at that point guys in the 80s who were battling for the win were at...guys who aren't in the top 3 or top 5. The whole peloton needs to shift back to the left for me to even contemplate it being clean.

Take Contador. CleanER. Cleaner than he has been. Still doped IMO but cleaner. Can people deal with that level of doped? I think so. Froome and his Ventoux actions against Contador? Nope. The way he dropped Contador, put 30 seconds into him, rode for 8km alone with Quintana and then destroyed him....a complete joke. Cycling deserves better than that crap.

But there lies the problem. People still buy Hein's old crap about the Tour having to be fast to be entertaining. Rubbish. People didn't notice any lack of speed in the post WW2 races till Lemond won. Before blood vector drugs it was fast enough and more entertaining because people did implode and blow up. People who grew up on the old cycling IMO are very lucky and fortunate. Now? I don't think it's going to get better anytime soon.

I thought Armstrong rode litspeed Titanium frames before carbon. Obviously sprayed in trek colours.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

So explain to me why the world uses a base 10 number system and yet minutes are comprised of 6 groups of 10 seconds?

Plenty of people still use Imperial units.

Wanna know why I did the conversion? So people won't be confused. Head to your local uni, study business, accounting/finance or some computer science/engineering and the obvious might hit you; most people's mathematical skills suck. You probably use a calculator for simple arithmetic right? Like most people huh!

You probably celebrated the end of the Millennium in 99 also right? I have no doubt Pedro, you know next to NOTHING about number systems. Nothing. I sure would love to hear your scientific theory grounding on them...oh wait, you wouldn't have studied that.

So you are suggesting if the time was 18:55 and they needed to meet someone at 19:05 most people would need to convert to decimal first to work out the difference? Keep digging.

And the fact that you constantly berate people on the forum for not knowing anything about a given topic (whereas you apparently are an expert on them all) only goes to highlight your own lack of self-worth and confidence. The problem is that there are knowledgable people on this forum so when you try to sound like an expert you come of looking like a fool. Time after time after time.

 

[ultimobici]

Fair points. Do note though on bike weights, we've had this discussion in the past months. Up to I believe it was 2001, Armstrong was riding some really heavy Trek bikes. The 5500 or something model from memory? A lot heavier than the current bikes by more than a few pounds.

The 5500 frameset was not that heavy at all. At most they were a pound over current equivalents. The 5900 took the frame down to the magic kilo mark, which even today is perfectly respectable. Even in 1999 it was perfectly possible to build an OCLV into a 7kg bike without resorting to trick kit.

I know Pantani's bike was heavier too, but he did get a custome frame setup because he was always riding out of the saddle.

Pantani was obsessed with weight and position. I've seen the drawings for his numerous pre-Giro frames. The builder described him as a monumental PITA to build for. As for the weight, sub 7kg in 1998 with stock Record kit,

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/retro-pro-bike-marco-pantanis-1998-bianchi-mega-pro-xl-24877/

 

[Galic Ho]

Plenty of people still use Imperial units.


So you are suggesting if the time was 18:55 and they needed to meet someone at 19:05 most people would need to convert to decimal first to work out the difference? Keep digging.

And the fact that you constantly berate people on the forum for not knowing anything about a given topic (whereas you apparently are an expert on them all) only goes to highlight your own lack of self-worth and confidence. The problem is that there are knowledgable people on this forum so when you try to sound like an expert you come of looking like a fool. Time after time after time.

It's cute that a Skybot thinks they know anything about self worth. Cute.

Free fun fact for the day. Best thing to come out of the French revolution was the METRIC system.

Oh and Pedro...I WAS NOT referring to IMPERIAL vs METRIC. It's a little more DETAILED and COMPLEX than that. But you keep digging champ.

 

[Galic Ho]

The 5500 frameset was not that heavy at all. At most they were a pound over current equivalents. The 5900 took the frame down to the magic kilo mark, which even today is perfectly respectable. Even in 1999 it was perfectly possible to build an OCLV into a 7kg bike without resorting to trick kit.


Pantani was obsessed with weight and position. I've seen the drawings for his numerous pre-Giro frames. The builder described him as a monumental PITA to build for. As for the weight, sub 7kg in 1998 with stock Record kit,

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/retro-pro-bike-marco-pantanis-1998-bianchi-mega-pro-xl-24877/

There you go. That's pretty much what I'd heard about Pantani.

So comparing wattages, times and like things is more than adequate.

Like I wrote...the added extras barely make a difference. It's not like guys are racing mountain bikes.

 

[Galic Ho]

I thought Armstrong rode litspeed Titanium frames before carbon. Obviously sprayed in trek colours.

So did I.

This was brought up in a thread...can't remember which one, a few months ago. Was interesting to read.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

It's cute that a Skybot thinks they know anything about self worth. Cute.

I don't feel the need to go on a racist rants. Can't say the same about you. I am pretty certain you are hiding some underlying issues.

Oh and Pedro...I WAS NOT referring to IMPERIAL vs METRIC. It's a little more DETAILED and COMPLEX than that. But you keep digging champ.

No, number bases are simple. If you struggle with them then it is no wonder you have to show your working when calculating the difference between two times.

I will leave it there as not to derail this thread. I already did that with TDF86Winner and realise that arguing with a fool is not worth it. No, point repeating that mistake with you.

 

[Galic Ho]

I don't feel the need to go on a racist rants. Can't say the same about you. I am pretty certain you are hiding some underlying issues.


No, number bases are simple. If you struggle with them then it is no wonder you have to show your working when calculating the difference between two times.

I will leave it there as not to derail this thread. I already did that with TDF86Winner and realise that arguing with a fool is not worth it. No, point repeating that mistake with you.

So not only do you use your fingers and toes to count, you're illiterate and cannot read properly. Kudos to you Pedro.

It's funny watching your attempts to dodge, dip, dive, duck and dodge your way through this to find anything solid. Racist? Underlying issues? Bahahaha! You mad because I wrote something that makes you go to a sad place? Cheer up sunshine!

Racist towards whom? Anglo Saxons? I'll say it again for you to understand. I am Australian. Guess where most Aussies originate in genetic decent from? Don't think too hard Pedro!

Simple question, which we all know you won't answer. Do you believe Sky and Froome are legit? Because if the answer is yes, you've got ZERO to talk about. ZERO. You should give Dimspace a holler and plan a celebration party.

No number bases are simple

Well when and if I ever have a problem, I know plenty of people who can handle the hard calculations. Right now, I still have no idea what you're moaning about...but it's typical of your ilk. Numbers don't lie. But then again, neither do the eyes. Froome is doped. Fret not Pedro, so are plenty of others...it's just that your boy is the biggest freak show in cycling by a LONG WAY.

Enjoy the doping talk genius!

PS: Do everyone a favour and learn proper forum syntax when quoting!

 

[thehog]

I don't feel the need to go on a racist rants. Can't say the same about you. I am pretty certain you are hiding some underlying issues.


No, number bases are simple. If you struggle with them then it is no wonder you have to show your working when calculating the difference between two times.

I will leave it there as not to derail this thread. I already did that with TDF86Winner and realise that arguing with a fool is not worth it. No, point repeating that mistake with you.

How are you equating imperil units to time?

Time is not based on metric or imperial.

Nevertheless imperial is much easier to understand than metric. Imperial is based on living objects, metric not.

You appear very confused. I'd probably stay out of such topics. Punching above ones weight I fear.

 

[red_flanders]

If your posts have been removed on this thread you're at risk of sanction. Please cease the personal attacks. Thanks.

 

[JRanton]

Quite an effort from Garmin in Colorado! 5 out of an 8 man team! Nice! I'm guessing from Danny Pate's twitter that he's noticed too...

 

[Ferminal]

How good is Millar? Lucky he stopped doping in 2004.

 

[BigBoat]

Couple of points:

1 - Froome did 41 minutes up the Alpe this year, so there's only circa 1 minute not 2 minutes between him and Herrera.

2 - It can be exceptionally windy on Alpe D'Huez. I've ridden up it a few times and the wind from hairpins 4 to 3 and 2 to 1 can almost stop you in your tracks. Or at leastit can me. Maybe I don't pedal hard enough!

3 - Modern bikes, wheels and other kit etc. are a couple of kg lighter than 1980s machines. That equates to a non-trivial couple of % improvement in uphill performance, all other things equal, ie 45 seconds or so up the Alpe.

Fastest on this year's Tour was 39.xx though.... (I think??). Buy yes performances are generally way off what they would have been expected in say 2007 from all GC riders. Apart from Froome, who was about what you would have expected from a climber in 1994-2007. Now that doesn't mean he's any more doped up than the others who are racing now. It could be that he's doping minimally and we've just not seen ANY really truly good riders in a while.

Maybe he's that 24% efficiency guy with the 95 V02 max combined and he's been drug free (and free of his own stored blood).

 

[gooner]

Quite an effort from Garmin in Colorado! 5 out of an 8 man team! Nice! I'm guessing from Danny Pate's twitter that he's noticed too...

It's grand for Danny Pate having another go at the Garmin boys or whatever and coming across on his high horse when how do we know for certain he wouldn't have doped himself if he was put in the US Postal environment. Morals and preconceived ideas went out the window back then it was so widespread.

At least with the Garmin lads they helped get rid of Ferrari, Bruyneel, Del Moral, Marti and Celaya out of the sport. It would have been unforgivable had they done nothing when they had the opportunity to do so. I'm all for riders speaking out but if he wants to speak out against anyone get a real pair of b**** and speak out against the likes of Riis and call for them to be removed from the sport. Maybe a certain Geert Leinders also.

 

[blackcat]

It's grand for Danny Pate having another go at the Garmin boys or whatever and coming across on his high horse when how do we know for certain he wouldn't have doped himself if he was put in the US Postal environment. Morals and preconceived ideas went out the window back then it was so widespread.

At least with the Garmin lads they helped get rid of Ferrari, Bruyneel, Del Moral, Marti and Celaya out of the sport. It would have been unforgivable had they done nothing when they had the opportunity to do so. I'm all for riders speaking out but if he wants to speak out against anyone get a real pair of b**** and speak out against the likes of Riis and call for them to be removed from the sport. Maybe a certain Geert Leinders also.

or... Riis is the most truthful of the lot. Like Jan Ullrich, if you cant put two and two together.

 

[Benotti69]

Hmmm who would've guessed

Jonathan Vaughters ‏@Vaughters

I love messing with people. It's hobby that never stops giving.

Been doing it in here a lot. Clean cycling now there is a mess........

 

[sniper]

At least with the Garmin lads they helped get rid of Ferrari, Bruyneel, Del Moral, Marti and Celaya out of the sport..

one of the last known customers of del moral was a garmin rider.
And its not nesessarily to their credit that they,d be the team spiling beans on armstrong.
they,re simply the team which kept most ex usps employers in the game.
Guys like waltz and ryder are yet to come clean, by the way.

 

[sniper]

Clean Talansky believes in Froome
big eyebrowe raisers right here.

AT: It was a mixed bag. With everything that's come out in the past about cycling, it's completely understandable that people question. It's our job to regain credibility, but in my mind that's what Chris Froome winning the Tour does, that's what Bradley Wiggins winning the Tour does. This system of focusing on details, focusing on training, focusing on thing that in the past have been ignored.

Their coach Tim Kerrison said it blew his mind the knowledge gap there was in cycling. So much of the past was focused on doping programs in that era that they weren't worried about the actual specifics of the training and that's totally shifted now.

I believe Dave Brailsford also said that there may come a day where clean performances surpass past doped performances and that's also possible with the differences in the training, with the differences in equipment, with the differences in race scheduling. It's the same sport but a different world within the sport.

When I posted that on Twitter, it was just frustrating. I have a great deal of respect for Sky, and especially for Richie Porte and Chris Froome, who I know a little bit. My point with that was saying I put in that hard work for the next three years, or five years, and I'm on that Tour podium - or what if I win the Tour one year - I know that there will be questions if that's the case. But the point was we're American - me, Tejay - and a lot of people seem to believe in what we're doing, and they have every reason to as we try to point out, and that was my point in that I don't understand why people don't give the same benefit of the doubt to Chris Froome.

I was essentially trying to say that I believe in what he's doing and I believe in Sky. I think that them winning the Tour and the way they won the race this year is a huge step forward for cycling. That's my personal opinion.

It's hard to see somebody that you respect so much and you draw inspiration from in the amount of work he's put in, not just this year but in the past, to build to this point and the way he's won the races this year and then to be winning the biggest race in the world - I'm sure one of his dreams coming true - and just to be questioned over and over and have people booing him on the course, it's not the right way to treat someone.

Chris Froome's just better, but he's also 28 years old. Tejay and I are 24 years old while Richie Porte came into the sport very late and it's a process.

 

[spetsa]

It's grand for Danny Pate having another go at the Garmin boys or whatever and coming across on his high horse when how do we know for certain he wouldn't have doped himself if he was put in the US Postal environment.

Who really thinks he was clean at Saecco, Prime Alliance or especially HealthNet? Half the US domestic scene was a mess in the early to mid 2000's and he seemed to tear legs quite a bit back in the day.

 

[ElChingon]

Who really thinks he was clean at Saecco, Prime Alliance or especially HealthNet? Half the US domestic scene was a mess in the early to mid 2000's and he seemed to tear legs quite a bit back in the day.

Would be a good question for Creed on his new podcast/ramblings on-line, they rode together early on, I'm sure he knows something on Pate.