Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

Page 60 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Many riders will actually loose performance above 55%. 50% is a great number and give big gains, that's why the current riders shouldn't be considered "clean" just because climbing speeds have fallen off a bit.

That being said, I can wait for stage 8 of the TDF, we should get some good average speeds up the final, and we can also compare the final to Sastre's 2003 time and Ullrich's 2003 time too!
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Von Mises said:
And where exactly in this link RR says "current teams are clean because they don't work with Ferrari and brunyeel?"
It doesn't.....

It appears they either have reading comprehension issues.....or they are trolling.
 
Froome19 said:
Way to miss the point.
RR's point wasn't that a team has to be working with Ferrari to be likely to dope and you know that.
No I don't know that. He was listing reasons why he thinks a team is clean and gave not working with brunyeel as a reason. Which was ridiculous because plenty of dopers never worked with brunyeel or Ferrari for that matter.

The fact that Rr refused to respond to questions about this in the original thread, gives us, as with his refusal to answer what he means when he says moncoutie was a doper, the right to bring the question up in future threads.

Oh and in future if you think someone is missing the point do try to explain what your interpretation is. You just told me I am wrong. Ok no biggie. You've tripped over your own logic so many times in the prr section and especially here that it doesnt mean anything to me, but I would be interested to hear how you understood the post if you thought my understanding was wrong.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
The Hitch said:
No I don't know that. He was listing reasons why he thinks a team is clean and gave not working with brunyeel as a reason. Which was ridiculous because plenty of dopers never worked with brunyeel or Ferrari for that matter.

The fact that Rr refused to respond to questions about this in the original thread, gives us, as with his refusal to answer what he means when he says moncoutie was a doper, the right to bring the question up in future threads.

Oh and in future if you think someone is missing the point do try to explain what your interpretation is. You just told me I am wrong. Ok no biggie. You've tripped over your own logic so many times in the prr section and especially here that it doesnt mean anything to me, but I would be interested to hear how you understood the post if you thought my understanding was wrong.
Ahh, ok not trolling just reading comprehension issues.

If you actually read that thread, and others, many were questioning why people like Walsh were not questioning SKY with the same force they questioning USPS. The list I gave explained why SKY had not had anywhere close to the elements that led to the questioning of USPS.

It is pretty simple. Everyone else understood it
 
Race Radio said:
Ahh, ok not trolling just reading comprehension issues.

If you actually read that thread, and others, many were questioning why people like Walsh were not questioning SKY with the same force they questioning USPS. The list I gave explained why SKY had not had anywhere close to the elements that led to the questioning of USPS.

It is pretty simple. Everyone else understood it
It was easily understood, its just that most of your points were wrong. As an example, if you want to pretend that one doping doctor is somehow better or worse than another, Ferrari vs Leinders. Go ahead an look foolish.
 
Race Radio said:
Ahh, ok not trolling just reading comprehension issues.

If you actually read that thread, and others, many were questioning why people like Walsh were not questioning SKY with the same force they questioning USPS. The list I gave explained why SKY had not had anywhere close to the elements that led to the questioning of USPS.

It is pretty simple. Everyone else understood it
Are you going to address the Moncoutié thing though?
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
JRTinMA said:
It was easily understood, its just that most of your points were wrong. As an example, if you want to pretend that one doping doctor is somehow better or worse than another, Ferrari vs Leinders. Go ahead an look foolish.
It would be foolish to pretend that lienders is an equal of Ferrari, it would show a limited understanding of the sport
 
Race Radio said:
It would be foolish to pretend that lienders is an equal of Ferrari, it would show a limited understanding of the sport
He doesn't need to be an equal.

He devised and ran a doping program at Rabo.

That's all you need to know.

You're trying to pretend his appointment is insignificant because he's not Ferrari.

He's still a doping Doctor and a big one at that.

Or are suggesting he's clean?
 
May 12, 2010
715
0
9,280
Race Radio said:
It would be foolish to pretend that lienders is an equal of Ferrari, it would show a limited understanding of the sport
How is your comparison useful? Isn't Leinders an abominable creature just by himself?

What about Moncoucou by the way, care to finally elaborate?
 
Jan 20, 2013
897
0
0
Pantani, who for all his sins is no longer with us. So why not turn your attentions to the present day suspicions.

Re RR are you asking questions about the current top performers on Sky. And particularly re transformation in Froome.


Start of Sky




Present day after four/five years on Sky






 
Race Radio said:
Ahh, ok not trolling just reading comprehension issues.

If you actually read that thread, and others, many were questioning why people like Walsh were not questioning SKY with the same force they questioning USPS. The list I gave explained why SKY had not had anywhere close to the elements that led to the questioning of USPS.

It is pretty simple. Everyone else understood it
There was no mention of uspostal in your post so I had no reason to see it as a comparison to us postal. Sorry for misunderstanding though.
 
Race Radio said:
It would be foolish to pretend that lienders is an equal of Ferrari, it would show a limited understanding of the sport
You are right there, Leinders was an employee of SKY, Ferrari was in the employ of Armstrong. Even USPS knew enough not to hire him officially.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
thehog said:
He doesn't need to be an equal.

He devised and ran a doping program at Rabo.

That's all you need to know.

You're trying to pretend his appointment is insignificant because he's not Ferrari.

He's still a doping Doctor and a big one at that.

Or are suggesting he's clean?
The Rabo program was not devised and run by Lienders. Which is why so many of the riders, like Mencov, Boogerd, etc. sought outside help with their program.

Regardless, hiring him was a stupid move....but the same would apply to 70% of team doctors today. He is not on the same level as Ferrari, Fuentes, or Santuccione.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
JRTinMA said:
You are right there, Leinders was an employee of SKY, Ferrari was in the employ of Armstrong. Even USPS knew enough not to hire him officially.
Ferrari was employed by USPS. As was Marti, del Moral, and Celya

Funny, here I am explaining how Pantani, Riis, and Ullrich are chemical inventions, not talking about wonderboy.
 
Race Radio said:
The Rabo program was not devised and run by Lienders. Which is why so many of the riders, like Mencov, Boogerd, etc. sought outside help with their program.

Regardless, hiring him was a stupid move....but the same would apply to 70% of team doctors today. He is not on the same level as Ferrari, Fuentes, or Santuccione.
Yes Leinders was the friendly doping doctor who didn't know what he was doing :rolleyes:

He was good enough for Chicken Rasmussen to smash up the 2007.

Trying to downplay him is foolhardy. Especially when you pass yourself off as an insider.
 
Race Radio said:
Ferrari was employed by USPS. As was Marti, del Moral, and Celya

Funny, here I am explaining how Pantani, Riis, and Ullrich are chemical inventions and you are still hung up on Wonderboy. Your lack of bandwith is showing
Wow, what a stretch this is for you, good on ya. Who would have known they were donkeys without your input.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
JRTinMA said:
It was easily understood, its just that most of your points were wrong. As an example, if you want to pretend that one doping doctor is somehow better or worse than another, Ferrari vs Leinders. Go ahead an look foolish.
Ferrari is a hematologist - Leinders would not even be close to him, which is why most Rabobank guys went to Humanplasma.
But doping teams need a needle man to assist and also for the day to day stuff, USPS had DelMoral, Rabo/sky had Leinders.
 
Race Radio said:
Ferrari was employed by USPS. As was Marti, del Moral, and Celya

Funny, here I am explaining how Pantani, Riis, and Ullrich are chemical inventions, not talking about wonderboy.
Oh dont you understand Pantani and Ullrich were super-talented misunderstood poor fellows whose later career got crushed by the evil Superdoper from the USA and of course they would have dominated cycling in a clean Peloton :eek:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts