Omega Pharma Quick Step: Are you kidding me??

[The Hitch]

I'm still half expecting RCS to announce there was a problem with the timing.

1 minute 17?

 

[del1962]

It's hillarious that Poels, Brambilla and De Gendt weren't even among the riders who finished the TTT together for OPQS.

Brambilla was among the finishers though, and from what I recall De Gent and Poels just botched up a corner towards the end, only dropping 17 seconds, really not sure why this is quite that hilarious

 

[Escarabajo]

His single ITT performance at last year's Giro is the only outlier among all his ITT performances until Romandie this year. Otherwise, yes; he's consistently 4-6 s/km slower than the winner of ITT's. Source: ProCyclingStats

An average increase in performance of ~6 seconds per kilometer at (estimated) 50 km/hr requires ~20% more power (or reduced drag).

Just presenting the facts.

John Swanson

20% against who?

Cancellara, the Panzer, Froome, Wiggins and even Nibali. Where are they??

 

[Escarabajo]

I always had the feeling that Uran was never in the A team in Sky. Even as talented as he looked from the beginning I never understood why he was never taken to the Tour. Last year they decided to take Henao and I told my wife: Another one into the Dark Side (Not that I trusted him before) and that plan blew up in their faces.

Few years back we were predicting a GT from the fabulous five. A lot of people saw that coming if they followed them since a very young age. Now people are acting surprised. I almost gave up on Uran but he has gotten smarter and more experience has helped him a lot. Taking it easy in the first quarter of the year has paid off in the last 3 years. I noticed that the way he approached GT's was different. In TT's he was always decent. Not this good but could see a break out coming.

Disclaimer: During these times we cannot be sure of anything, really. Just that he is naturally talented. That's all. There are stories that prove the natural talent but not that he is clean. Hard to prove anyway. Power numbers are just not enough.

 

[Samson777]

I always had the feeling that Uran was never in the A team in Sky. Even as talented as he looked from the beginning I never understood why he was never taken to the Tour. Last year they decided to take Henao and I told my wife: Another one into the Dark Side (Not that I trusted him before) and that plan blew up in their faces.

Few years back we were predicting a GT from the fabulous five. A lot of people saw that coming if they followed them since a very young age. Now people are acting surprised. I almost gave up on Uran but he has gotten smarter and more experience has helped him a lot. Taking it easy in the first quarter of the year has paid off in the last 3 years. I noticed that the way he approached GT's was different. In TT's he was always decent. Not this good but could see a break out coming.

Disclaimer: During these times we cannot be sure of anything, really. Just that he is naturally talented. That's all. There are stories that prove the natural talent but not that he is clean. Hard to prove anyway. Power numbers are just not enough.

Good post. The problem for me is the time trial today really. I mean Uran being brilliant, gaining a minute on everyone in the mountains, could perhaps be somewhat believable. Again honestly I would still asume he was doping, but perhaps that's just the non dreamer in me. In the mountain case, I would have sympathy with people beliving.

After the time trial today, hmm.. Also when you add the fact that quick step riders today looked like they went all out, partying 90's style.Can we imagine they do this, but don't invite the team leader to the party? Again most people will know/ have a very good idea, about how this team have allways been run. Plus we know what kind of doctors they hire. Plus the history of cycling. All theese factors put together, it just means that beliving is not easy at all.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

With this sauce Kwiatkowski will be a podium contender in Paris.

 

[SafeBet]

Brambilla was among the finishers though, and from what I recall De Gent and Poels just botched up a corner towards the end, only dropping 17 seconds, really not sure why this is quite that hilarious

For some reasons I remembered Brambilla dropping some 5 km from the finish, my bad.

 

[Avoriaz]

I always had the feeling that Uran was never in the A team in Sky. Even as talented as he looked from the beginning I never understood why he was never taken to the Tour. Last year they decided to take Henao and I told my wife: Another one into the Dark Side (Not that I trusted him before) and that plan blew up in their faces..

He was taken to the Tour. In 2011 he wore the white jersey. Not there in 2012 and 2013 because he rode the Giro, and to some success.

 

[Ferminal]

lol the medical crew at OPQS must have some crazy stuff to get people "up" on the day.

Look at the gap to Siutsou and Rogers. Neither are in their absolute best shape but solid TT'ers who know their way around a needle and got pumped by Poels, Brambilla, and Urgawd.

Then there's De Gendt who looks like he stopped more traditional doping after 2012, he can't even get in a breakaway, but all the form he's lost not using EPO is surpassed by some supersource before a TT.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Siutsou and Rogers who both are on the mysterious 'A Teams' on their respective teams, so get access to the super-secret stuff supplied from outer space and who still got creamed.

 

[Ferminal]

Siutsou and Rogers who both are on the mysterious 'A Teams' on their respective teams, so get access to the super-secret stuff supplied from outer space and who still got creamed.

Rogers who has eyes on the Tour.

Siutsou who has been ridiculously up and down (no doubt largely due to doping) since he flashed onto the scene at 25.

But yes, you would not expect them to turn up to a race of this magnitude without a nice EPO assisted base.

 

[Netserk]

Lol Jimmy, you are so transparent...

 

[JimmyFingers]

Lol Jimmy, you are so transparent...

Oh do pray tell, I do enjoy so when words and thoughts are put into my mouth and mind.

 

[del1962]

So up and down = doping, consistent = doping

 

[Ferminal]

So up and down = doping, consistent = doping

Sure, large shifts in form from one season to the next are very indicative of doping.

Having very similar form from one season to the next is also due to maintaining the same level of doping if other signs suggest that person is a doper. There are plenty of clean riders who are consistent throughout their career. Just like there are excellent dopers who are. It's not the consistency, it's the level (does not apply to inconsistency which in itself is an indicator).

Very rarely are there riders who have wild shifts in ability over their careers whose highs aren't the results of doping, unless there are other obvious reasons to explain things.

It's not that hard, but you knew that.

 

[hrotha]

Jimmy, when you mock the concept of an A Team, which has been proven to exist without any doubt (see: US Postal), you just look like an uninformed idiot or a troll. Choose one.

 

[Ferminal]

Funny you're allowed to call everyone a doper and no one listens but if you label ex-Highroad dopers who happened to ride for Sky you get an instant reaction. Why don't you crawl back to the degenerate threads.

 

[del1962]

Someones a bit touchy tday

 

[GuyIncognito]

Very rarely are there riders who have wild shifts in ability over their careers whose highs aren't the results of doping, unless there are other obvious reasons to explain things.

It's not that hard, but you knew that.

I like that you're quoting Brailsford

 

[JimmyFingers]

Jimmy, when you mock the concept of an A Team, which has been proven to exist without any doubt (see: US Postal), you just look like an uninformed idiot or a troll. Choose one.

I'm not mocking that, I'm mocking the confident speculation on who and who isn't in them, and the relative levels of doping you assign to them. But sure just go on the attack and call names, classy.

 

[hrotha]

I'm not mocking that, I'm mocking the confident speculation on who and who isn't in them, and the relative levels of doping you assign to them. But sure just go on the attack and call names, classy.

First off, what you said is in no way any less disrespectful than calling you an uninformed idiot or a troll. You're just more subtle about it.

Secondly, "confident speculation"? I started my post saying it was a theory (in the non-scientific sense of "theory"). What else do you want?

 

[JimmyFingers]

First off, what you said is in no way any less disrespectful than calling you an uninformed idiot or a troll. You're just more subtle about it.

Secondly, "confident speculation"? I started my post saying it was a theory (in the non-scientific sense of "theory"). What else do you want?

I think it just sums up the way that facts can be taken and extrapolated and theorised and then parceled up as something that doesn't contain much logic. I'm sorry if you find it disrespectful, it was more an expression of confusion and bemusement on my part, and I suppose a request for clarification of your thought processes, or whether its just a gut feeling.

I also think we need to move away from referencing everything with the US Postal model, its hardly likely that modern systematic doping copy that, is it? How people dope and what people use has surely changed, anecdotally it certainly seems to have done.

 

[hrotha]

US Postal is just the best documented example, but not the only one. Teams may or may not do things differently now, but I don't see how disregarding the little available data we have is going to improve your theories. Of course you have to take everything with a grain of salt and be ready to reassess everything if new evidence surfaces.

 

[The Hitch]

ure, large shifts in form from one season to the next are very indicative of doping

Having very similar form from one season to the next is also due to maintaining the same level of doping if other signs suggest that person is a doper. There are plenty of clean riders who are consistent throughout their career. Just like there are excellent dopers who are. It's not the consistency, it's the level (does not apply to inconsistency which in itself is an indicator).

Very rarely are there riders who have wild shifts in ability over their careers whose highs aren't the results of doping, unless there are other obvious reasons to explain things.

It's not that hard, but you knew that.

Fantastic summary.

 

[JimmyFingers]

US Postal is just the best documented example, but not the only one. Teams may or may not do things differently now, but I don't see how disregarding the little available data we have is going to improve your theories. Of course you have to take everything with a grain of salt and be ready to reassess everything if new evidence surfaces.

But it also leads to scatter-gun speculation dressed up as strongly evidenced theories. Lance and Postal cast such a long shadow over the sport that I think people forget everyone else.

I can't see why Uran Uran would be out of the 'A Team' at Skywhen he was a key domestique, leader in the hilly classics and also lead the team in the Vuelta and inherited the leadership in the Giro. And I also don't see a leap in performance from his very impressive Giro last year, apart from this stand out TT performance, which was over a hilly course in terrible conditions. I'm not sure how much can be inferred from that, except people seem to be inferring a lot, where he sat in the hierarchy at Sky, what his levels of doping was there, what they are now, what's going on at OPQS etc.

I'll admit it made me raise my eyebrows, as have several OPQS performances, their strength in depth in the classics was at times extreme. But I don't know, I just try hard to relate everything I watch in bike racing back to doping, because then I simply can't enjoy it.