Most memorable doped perfomances?

Page 24 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

GuyIncognito said:
Well, I'm sorry for you.

I’m sorry that you can’t dream big.

I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles.

But this is one hell of a race. This is a great sporting event and you should stand around and believe it.

You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people.
Eeeerm... nah.
Sarcasm makes things bearable though.
 
Re:

LaFlorecita said:
I've not seen anything like this before. Mind you I started watching the year after Floyd :)
Not even Landis's ride was quite like this one. On Floyd's ride to Morzine in 2006, there were various breakaway guys ahead of him when he began his surge. He had periodic/brief (very brief) respites coming up behind other riders. But Froome took the race lead from 80K out. I don't think there's anything to compare it with. People might point to Andy Schleck's ride to Galibier in the 2011 TDF, but again, there were breakaway riders in groups ahead of him, including his own teammates, who spelled him for stretches on his way to his solo victory, and he lost a good chunk of time in the final few kilometers, with Cadel Evans pulling back about a minute and a half with his group. Today was just bizarre. How could a guy be this historically dominant on a stage like this while having been so mediocre in other stages on the same tour? The form that it took (or would have taken) to do Froome's ride today is off the charts -- that's if we're talking about non-mechanically-enhanced equipment.
 
It was not just the ride but how unfluttered he looked in his interview after making that effort. Didn't look tired or beat up at all? I mean after Andy Schleck's 60km raid in the 2011 Tour he actually looked pretty tired. Froome? Fresh as a daisy. Considering he has looked less than 100% most of this Giro I think this is what makes me worry.
 
Re: Re:

JosephK said:
LaFlorecita said:
I've not seen anything like this before. Mind you I started watching the year after Floyd :)
Not even Landis's ride was quite like this one. On Floyd's ride to Morzine in 2006, there were various breakaway guys ahead of him when he began his surge. He had periodic/brief (very brief) respites coming up behind other riders. But Froome took the race lead from 80K out. I don't think there's anything to compare it with. People might point to Andy Schleck's ride to Galibier in the 2011 TDF, but again, there were breakaway riders in groups ahead of him, including his own teammates, who spelled him for stretches on his way to his solo victory, and he lost a good chunk of time in the final few kilometers, with Cadel Evans pulling back about a minute and a half with his group. Today was just bizarre. How could a guy be this historically dominant on a stage like this while having been so mediocre in other stages on the same tour? The form that it took (or would have taken) to do Froome's ride today is off the charts -- that's if we're talking about non-mechanically-enhanced equipment.
Everyone behind Landis was not working until the last climb and even then Landis was 4th fastest there. Today it all shattered at 80km to go.
 
Re: Re:

JosephK said:
Not even Landis's ride was quite like this one. On Floyd's ride to Morzine in 2006, there were various breakaway guys ahead of him when he began his surge. He had periodic/brief (very brief) respites coming up behind other riders.
Leading to Stuart O'Grady's contender for most brilliant comment in cycling, after the positive.

"I knew he was doped because he dropped me and I'm not a bad bike rider"

Yes Stuey, dropping a sprinter on a mountain is the litmus test for doping, clearly.
Right up there with Sastre accusing the two breakaway guys of working together to get to the finish first.
 
Re:

Saint Unix said:
This might even usurp Ventoux and PSM as the most disgusting performance ever by Froome. His fluctuating form before today makes it even more unbelievable.

Oh well, time to wait for CAS to do their job and ban the idiot.
Might? 2013 had absolutely nothing on this. Today was a scar on the face of professional sport. The sheer arrogance of doing it while under investigation makes it worse still. Armstrong himself will be laughing in disbelief.
 
I think Armstrong could've done the same if he had wanted to. I think people are forgetting how laughable PSM really was. It was a single climb stage and he beat everybody by over a minute. I would put this effort even behind A3D from his first tour victory.
 
Remember Gabrovski faking the pain as he EPO'd his way up the climb...gotta respect that. He held that pain face for the entire duration even though he kept climbing faster and faster. Had the ES team fooled from the get go.
 
Well the only thing that can top this is Yates winning 40 minutes back tomorrow by attacking on the flat run in to the climbs, gaining 20 minutes, then gaining another 20 in the next mountain and downhills while finally holding this gap in the final climb while waving to the fans and taking a little time to have a good old Dumoshitbreak
 
Re: Re:

Armchair cyclist said:
Frankschleck said:
He didn't even have the decency to fade a bit.
Draw your conclusions about the ride as you will, but at least do so on true evidence. He lost time to all 5 of the following group in the last 10km: 33 seconds to Carapaz. And it was 6 minutes slower than the fastest predicted time.
Time gained/lost by Froome - your starting point is, erm, rather peculiar.

 
Re: Re:

Armchair cyclist said:
Frankschleck said:
He didn't even have the decency to fade a bit.
Draw your conclusions about the ride as you will, but at least do so on true evidence. He lost time to all 5 of the following group in the last 10km: 33 seconds to Carapaz. And it was 6 minutes slower than the fastest predicted time.
Does the fastest time predict a solo for 40% of the stage?
 
Re: Re:

Armchair cyclist said:
Frankschleck said:
He didn't even have the decency to fade a bit.
Draw your conclusions about the ride as you will, but at least do so on true evidence. He lost time to all 5 of the following group in the last 10km: 33 seconds to Carapaz. And it was 6 minutes slower than the fastest predicted time.
:lol:
 
Re: Re:

Jagartrott said:
Armchair cyclist said:
Frankschleck said:
He didn't even have the decency to fade a bit.
Draw your conclusions about the ride as you will, but at least do so on true evidence. He lost time to all 5 of the following group in the last 10km: 33 seconds to Carapaz. And it was 6 minutes slower than the fastest predicted time.
Time gained/lost by Froome - your starting point is, erm, rather peculiar.

Your graph, far from illustrating anything peculiar about my first comment, proves it entirely.

I'm not saying it is clean, and I genuinely mean it: do draw conclusions if you wish to. But the comment I responded to is plainly false.

And if the idea that Froome can take 3 1/2 minutes out of Dumoulin needs to be explained, is the same not true of Dumoulin taking 5 minutes out of most of the rest of the top ten?

I have seen nothing in any comment about yesterday that is not a hardening of previously held positions: the reinforcement of prejudices. Those who have never liked Froome say the same as they always have, those who trust him implicitly consider it a heroic performance by their hero, and those who are sceptical but entertained were royally entertained.
 
I thought it was clear what I meant, namely that you cherry picked a particular point (i.e. the maximum advantage) to 'prove' something. Granted, cherry picking is rife here, but while lecturing others, it's best not to use intellectually dishonest tricks yourself. You can't judge a trend from a random starting point, you have to judge it in its entirety. The graph shows that Froome gained time fast the first 35 km, then at a slower pace the last 45 km.
 
Re:

Jagartrott said:
I thought it was clear what I meant, namely that you cherry picked a particular point (i.e. the maximum advantage) to 'prove' something. Granted, cherry picking is rife here, but while lecturing others, it's best not to use intellectually dishonest tricks yourself. You can't judge a trend from a random starting point, you have to judge it in its entirety. The graph shows that Froome gained time fast the first 35 km, then at a slower pace the last 45 km.
Read the comment I replied to: that is the only element of the thread that I was commenting on. I did nothing dishonest: Frankschleck's comment was erroneous, and I pointed that out.

I have no idea what you think I was trying to prove, or what cherry I was trying to pick. But the graph proves that Froome lost some time in the last 10km, which is exactly what I said happened, and what Frankschleck said had not happened.

Tell me one thing that I have said that is intellectually dishonest, or retract and apologise.
 
Re: Re:

Armchair cyclist said:
Jagartrott said:
I thought it was clear what I meant, namely that you cherry picked a particular point (i.e. the maximum advantage) to 'prove' something. Granted, cherry picking is rife here, but while lecturing others, it's best not to use intellectually dishonest tricks yourself. You can't judge a trend from a random starting point, you have to judge it in its entirety. The graph shows that Froome gained time fast the first 35 km, then at a slower pace the last 45 km.
Read the comment I replied to: that is the only element of the thread that I was commenting on. I did nothing dishonest: Frankschleck's comment was erroneous, and I pointed that out.

I have no idea what you think I was trying to prove, or what cherry I was trying to pick. But the graph proves that Froome lost some time in the last 10km, which is exactly what I said happened, and what Frankschleck said had not happened.

Tell me one thing that I have said that is intellectually dishonest, or retract and apologise.
Picking the maximum as a starting point is a science/statistical no-go; it is considered intellectually dishonest. You have to look a the whole trend, not a hand-picked window which 'proves' a point. Climate change deniers do it all the time, for instance.
 
Re: Re:

GuyIncognito said:
JosephK said:
Not even Landis's ride was quite like this one. On Floyd's ride to Morzine in 2006, there were various breakaway guys ahead of him when he began his surge. He had periodic/brief (very brief) respites coming up behind other riders.
Leading to Stuart O'Grady's contender for most brilliant comment in cycling, after the positive.

"I knew he was doped because he dropped me and I'm not a bad bike rider"

Yes Stuey, dropping a sprinter on a mountain is the litmus test for doping, clearly.
Right up there with Sastre accusing the two breakaway guys of working together to get to the finish first.
I think the actual quote is "I knew he was doped because he dropped me and I've been full of juice for 15 years".
 
If a lead that was constantly increases starts to decrease, the performance of that person relative to his competitors has faded.

You cannot say that it is invalid to identify the maximum as the point of comparison, when the contention that I disagreed with was that there was no point after which he declined.

If a rider loses more than half a minute in 10k to a rider of far poorer general pedigree, he has faded.

There is so much bias confirmation in this thread, it really is not worth my time.

Don't invent arguments that I was not making.
 
I further refer you to any statistical handbook. Not worth discussing this anymore if you don't know how statistics work. There is no trend break in the series depicted above (apart from the drop in time gain rate around 35 km), hence 'fading' cannot be made concrete.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 9
Invicituz The Clinic 0

ASK THE COMMUNITY