QS 2018

Jul 27, 2009
21,532
1
0
The Hegelian said:
The level of domination is extraordinary. I'm finding it increasingly unbelievable. They're literally winning every classic....
MK is a knoggin, he has only raced 2 one day races pre-Flanders. He is going the Geriant Thomas route of 2014 which ended in disaster. Tiede doesn’t equal success in the Classics. GVA and Sagan have been equally disappointing but they don’t have the might of QS team.
 
QS has a whole bunch of really good classics riders, whom this year are actually riding as a team and using tactics to perfection. They have that for the cobbled races. The Ardennes will be another matter entirely, although they are better suited to Amstel than Fleche or LBL.
 
Feb 23, 2014
6,543
0
0
Of course I think they’re all juiced, but right now I just attribute their success to riding as a team. Koronin mentioned it already - this is expected in the cobbleded classics. If they do this in the Ardennes then I’d start being more suspicious.
 
I tend to agree. But nonetheless, given what they've done this season I really think some clinic attention is warranted.

Sure they have a very good classics roster. But in the same breath, Gilbert was basically finished before joining QS last year, Stybar hasn't really won much, Boonen retired, Trentin has left, Kittel has left, Lampart is good but no champion.

That leaves - Terpstra, who has always had loads of class, but I'm not sure anyone had in the superstar classics rider category.
Alaphillipe, well, let's see what he does in a few weeks.
And Gaviria, probably the only one on the books who you look at and think 'multiple monuments.' And he's been out all classics season.

Point is, before the last month, you could look at QS on paper and say they are weaker than previous years.
 
Weaker, but still a classics team that's full focus is on the classics. Also when no one wants to chase when one of your riders attacks, it does help the cause. Also when we get to the Ardennes if Alaphilippe continues to finish 2nd to Valverde there, it won't exactly surprise anyone as he's the only one who's shown he has anything for Valverde to start with. He's also one of the very few riders in the peloton not asking if they can just hand Valverde the trophy and not bother with the race. My expectation is Alaphilippe continues to finish 2nd to Valverde. They've raced in the same race once so far this year, at Abu Dhabi and Alaphilippe did not show anything there that says he can do anything with Valverde in the Ardennes.

With Gilbert, I'm of the opinion that BMC didn't understand how to use him properly.

Don't believe they are any more juiced than any of the other teams out there are.
 
Jul 13, 2016
792
0
0
Their success in the monuments outside the cobbled races is not that remarkable. You'll have to go back to Pozzatto and Bettini which is over ten years ago. If you add Amstel they had Kwiatkowski and Gilbert, but he is a shoe-in at Amstel. They never win GC's or come close in GT's.

They are by far the best team in the cobbled races and are great in stage-hunting in every race they enter, but we shouldn't overrate them. They are not better than Sky or Movistar, they just have different goals.
 
Apr 14, 2010
1,231
0
0
Re:

Koronin said:
With Gilbert, I'm of the opinion that BMC didn't understand how to use him properly.
.
As incompetent as I believe BMC are, I think there was some level of Gilbert (and Hushovd for that matter) getting a huge contract and getting way too comfortable.
 
Jul 6, 2016
187
0
0
Do teams still use riders as guinea pigs for PED use? My guess is it's not like 15+ years ago where riders would let the team doctors inject them with God-knows-what without asking questions. Riders are all a lot more informed about what they're ingesting, or at least a lot more likely to ask questions about it to their team, and find answers online and from other sources.

So IF teams can't dope their riders without the rider knowing a lot of detail about the doping programme they're given, wouldn't it be a big risk to be giving out a good doping program to all their riders? Riders switch teams frequently. Soon enough, every team will know the same doping tricks they have, so they lose any doping advantage they have.

I think that it's a close circle that are given the best doping practices rather than a whole team, youngsters and all. Making it unlikely that doping is the reason why every random young rider for QS potentially gets great results.

I don't know though. It could be that the veterans in the team have the same private doping doctor who isn't employed by the team, and these riders introduce some of the doping methods to their young teammates, if not the doctor as well.

What do you all think about whether there are team wide doping practices today? Especially compared to the days when Manzano was used as a human guinea pig?

(for those that don't remember, my poor memory is that Jesus Manzano nearly died racing for Kelme while given a doping cocktail that he was not informed about)
 
Re:

spiritualride said:
Do teams still use riders as guinea pigs for PED use? My guess is it's not like 15+ years ago where riders would let the team doctors inject them with God-knows-what without asking questions. Riders are all a lot more informed about what they're ingesting, or at least a lot more likely to ask questions about it to their team, and find answers online and from other sources.

So IF teams can't dope their riders without the rider knowing a lot of detail about the doping programme they're given, wouldn't it be a big risk to be giving out a good doping program to all their riders? Riders switch teams frequently. Soon enough, every team will know the same doping tricks they have, so they lose any doping advantage they have.

I think that it's a close circle that are given the best doping practices rather than a whole team, youngsters and all. Making it unlikely that doping is the reason why every random young rider for QS potentially gets great results.

I don't know though. It could be that the veterans in the team have the same private doping doctor who isn't employed by the team, and these riders introduce some of the doping methods to their young teammates, if not the doctor as well.

What do you all think about whether there are team wide doping practices today? Especially compared to the days when Manzano was used as a human guinea pig?

(for those that don't remember, my poor memory is that Jesus Manzano nearly died racing for Kelme while given a doping cocktail that he was not informed about)

I'm under the impression that Kelme was by far one of the absolute worst teams for doping their riders with who knows what along with the whole if you don't dope and don't allow us to do whatever we want you aren't racing for us. I would certainly HOPE we've come a long ways from that idea to where the riders are asking questions and doing research and not being injected with who knows what.
 
Sep 15, 2016
124
0
0
Re: Re:

Koronin said:
spiritualride said:
Do teams still use riders as guinea pigs for PED use? My guess is it's not like 15+ years ago where riders would let the team doctors inject them with God-knows-what without asking questions. Riders are all a lot more informed about what they're ingesting, or at least a lot more likely to ask questions about it to their team, and find answers online and from other sources.

So IF teams can't dope their riders without the rider knowing a lot of detail about the doping programme they're given, wouldn't it be a big risk to be giving out a good doping program to all their riders? Riders switch teams frequently. Soon enough, every team will know the same doping tricks they have, so they lose any doping advantage they have.

I think that it's a close circle that are given the best doping practices rather than a whole team, youngsters and all. Making it unlikely that doping is the reason why every random young rider for QS potentially gets great results.

I don't know though. It could be that the veterans in the team have the same private doping doctor who isn't employed by the team, and these riders introduce some of the doping methods to their young teammates, if not the doctor as well.

What do you all think about whether there are team wide doping practices today? Especially compared to the days when Manzano was used as a human guinea pig?

(for those that don't remember, my poor memory is that Jesus Manzano nearly died racing for Kelme while given a doping cocktail that he was not informed about)

I'm under the impression that Kelme was by far one of the absolute worst teams for doping their riders with who knows what along with the whole if you don't dope and don't allow us to do whatever we want you aren't racing for us. I would certainly HOPE we've come a long ways from that idea to where the riders are asking questions and doing research and not being injected with who knows what.
Yeah i remember Manzano following Virenque and then blacking out and falling on the side of the road, he was given oxyglobin, a veterinary medicine, that day. The worst thing is that the story doesn't stop here, the team doctor botched a blood transfusion later and he had to be hospitalised for two days, he was finally laid off and the end of the Vuelta that year because he was complaining about the team doping practices.
 
Re: Re:

ColonelKidneyBeans said:
Koronin said:
spiritualride said:
Do teams still use riders as guinea pigs for PED use? My guess is it's not like 15+ years ago where riders would let the team doctors inject them with God-knows-what without asking questions. Riders are all a lot more informed about what they're ingesting, or at least a lot more likely to ask questions about it to their team, and find answers online and from other sources.

So IF teams can't dope their riders without the rider knowing a lot of detail about the doping programme they're given, wouldn't it be a big risk to be giving out a good doping program to all their riders? Riders switch teams frequently. Soon enough, every team will know the same doping tricks they have, so they lose any doping advantage they have.

I think that it's a close circle that are given the best doping practices rather than a whole team, youngsters and all. Making it unlikely that doping is the reason why every random young rider for QS potentially gets great results.

I don't know though. It could be that the veterans in the team have the same private doping doctor who isn't employed by the team, and these riders introduce some of the doping methods to their young teammates, if not the doctor as well.

What do you all think about whether there are team wide doping practices today? Especially compared to the days when Manzano was used as a human guinea pig?

(for those that don't remember, my poor memory is that Jesus Manzano nearly died racing for Kelme while given a doping cocktail that he was not informed about)

I'm under the impression that Kelme was by far one of the absolute worst teams for doping their riders with who knows what along with the whole if you don't dope and don't allow us to do whatever we want you aren't racing for us. I would certainly HOPE we've come a long ways from that idea to where the riders are asking questions and doing research and not being injected with who knows what.
Yeah i remember Manzano following Virenque and then blacking out and falling on the side of the road, he was given oxyglobin, a veterinary medicine, that day. The worst thing is that the story doesn't stop here, the team doctor botched a blood transfusion later and he had to be hospitalised for two days, he was finally laid off and the end of the Vuelta that year because he was complaining about the team doping practices.

I don't remember that particular case other than more of an after the fact type of thing. For as much flak as US Postal gets, they at least seemed to be on a higher level and not exactly experimenting on riders with who knows what the way Kelme did. IMO, Kelme should get a lot more grief than US Postal over what they were doing, but I guess because they were a Pro Conti team (and a Spanish team), and Lance didn't ride for them, they get more of a pass. I can't imagine the situation in that team being good for any of the riders, stars or domestiques.
 
Re: Re:

Koronin said:
ColonelKidneyBeans said:
Koronin said:
spiritualride said:
Do teams still use riders as guinea pigs for PED use? My guess is it's not like 15+ years ago where riders would let the team doctors inject them with God-knows-what without asking questions. Riders are all a lot more informed about what they're ingesting, or at least a lot more likely to ask questions about it to their team, and find answers online and from other sources.

So IF teams can't dope their riders without the rider knowing a lot of detail about the doping programme they're given, wouldn't it be a big risk to be giving out a good doping program to all their riders? Riders switch teams frequently. Soon enough, every team will know the same doping tricks they have, so they lose any doping advantage they have.

I think that it's a close circle that are given the best doping practices rather than a whole team, youngsters and all. Making it unlikely that doping is the reason why every random young rider for QS potentially gets great results.

I don't know though. It could be that the veterans in the team have the same private doping doctor who isn't employed by the team, and these riders introduce some of the doping methods to their young teammates, if not the doctor as well.

What do you all think about whether there are team wide doping practices today? Especially compared to the days when Manzano was used as a human guinea pig?

(for those that don't remember, my poor memory is that Jesus Manzano nearly died racing for Kelme while given a doping cocktail that he was not informed about)

I'm under the impression that Kelme was by far one of the absolute worst teams for doping their riders with who knows what along with the whole if you don't dope and don't allow us to do whatever we want you aren't racing for us. I would certainly HOPE we've come a long ways from that idea to where the riders are asking questions and doing research and not being injected with who knows what.
Yeah i remember Manzano following Virenque and then blacking out and falling on the side of the road, he was given oxyglobin, a veterinary medicine, that day. The worst thing is that the story doesn't stop here, the team doctor botched a blood transfusion later and he had to be hospitalised for two days, he was finally laid off and the end of the Vuelta that year because he was complaining about the team doping practices.

I don't remember that particular case other than more of an after the fact type of thing. For as much flak as US Postal gets, they at least seemed to be on a higher level and not exactly experimenting on riders with who knows what the way Kelme did. IMO, Kelme should get a lot more grief than US Postal over what they were doing, but I guess because they were a Pro Conti team (and a Spanish team), and Lance didn't ride for them, they get more of a pass. I can't imagine the situation in that team being good for any of the riders, stars or domestiques.
Probably because Kelme wasn’t involved in fraudulent use of government funds or money laundering and Manzano wasn’t intimidating witnesses or destroying people’s livelihood.
 
Re: Re:

42x16ss said:
Koronin said:
ColonelKidneyBeans said:
Koronin said:
spiritualride said:
Do teams still use riders as guinea pigs for PED use? My guess is it's not like 15+ years ago where riders would let the team doctors inject them with God-knows-what without asking questions. Riders are all a lot more informed about what they're ingesting, or at least a lot more likely to ask questions about it to their team, and find answers online and from other sources.

So IF teams can't dope their riders without the rider knowing a lot of detail about the doping programme they're given, wouldn't it be a big risk to be giving out a good doping program to all their riders? Riders switch teams frequently. Soon enough, every team will know the same doping tricks they have, so they lose any doping advantage they have.

I think that it's a close circle that are given the best doping practices rather than a whole team, youngsters and all. Making it unlikely that doping is the reason why every random young rider for QS potentially gets great results.

I don't know though. It could be that the veterans in the team have the same private doping doctor who isn't employed by the team, and these riders introduce some of the doping methods to their young teammates, if not the doctor as well.

What do you all think about whether there are team wide doping practices today? Especially compared to the days when Manzano was used as a human guinea pig?

(for those that don't remember, my poor memory is that Jesus Manzano nearly died racing for Kelme while given a doping cocktail that he was not informed about)

I'm under the impression that Kelme was by far one of the absolute worst teams for doping their riders with who knows what along with the whole if you don't dope and don't allow us to do whatever we want you aren't racing for us. I would certainly HOPE we've come a long ways from that idea to where the riders are asking questions and doing research and not being injected with who knows what.
Yeah i remember Manzano following Virenque and then blacking out and falling on the side of the road, he was given oxyglobin, a veterinary medicine, that day. The worst thing is that the story doesn't stop here, the team doctor botched a blood transfusion later and he had to be hospitalised for two days, he was finally laid off and the end of the Vuelta that year because he was complaining about the team doping practices.

I don't remember that particular case other than more of an after the fact type of thing. For as much flak as US Postal gets, they at least seemed to be on a higher level and not exactly experimenting on riders with who knows what the way Kelme did. IMO, Kelme should get a lot more grief than US Postal over what they were doing, but I guess because they were a Pro Conti team (and a Spanish team), and Lance didn't ride for them, they get more of a pass. I can't imagine the situation in that team being good for any of the riders, stars or domestiques.
Probably because Kelme wasn’t involved in fraudulent use of government funds or money laundering and Manzano wasn’t intimidating witnesses or destroying people’s livelihood.
True, but their doping level was on par with US Postal in someways, although much more dangerous. However, I'm sure that's the big difference between the two (aside from US Postal being WT and Kelme being Pro Conti.
 
Re:

Alexandre B. said:
That's actually a rather refreshing take on weight loss, as it was a fairly mild amount of weight to jettison (2kg) and the coach dude acknowledges that weight loss can be a slippery slope. It's hard to argue that losing 2kg would not play some role.

That said, I wonder if there's some estimate of the time saved (during solo break) or power savings (all the race up till that point). You can estimate the impact of weight on a rider's climbing times or on rolling resistance. Cobbles would make it more difficult but they aren't actually a large percentage of the course.
 
Re:

Armchair cyclist said:
Competitive sport = determining that one person/team can outperform others.

Competitive cycling = denouncing one person/team for outperforming others.
I wasn't denouncing QS in making this thread, I was simply asking a question: is this believable? Most folks say yes. I'm on the fence.

And we're not talking about a team outperforming others, but rather, dominating. And in cycling, one has to either be a fool or ignorant of history to see one team dominating all the others and not ask the question.

That doesn't imply answering it.
 
Quick Step remind me of CSC circa 2005
I know it was basically an exhibition race, but that team basically TTT'd to win the Tour of Qatar.
It was an amusing spectacle.
Quick Step aren't so obvious, but yeah, there's pressure to win the spring classics.
 
Re: Re:

proffate said:
Alexandre B. said:
That's actually a rather refreshing take on weight loss, as it was a fairly mild amount of weight to jettison (2kg) and the coach dude acknowledges that weight loss can be a slippery slope. It's hard to argue that losing 2kg would not play some role.

That said, I wonder if there's some estimate of the time saved (during solo break) or power savings (all the race up till that point). You can estimate the impact of weight on a rider's climbing times or on rolling resistance. Cobbles would make it more difficult but they aren't actually a large percentage of the course.
Flanders has around 2500m of total climbing between 5-10% average gradient. Loosing 2kg is a significant power saving, similar to the last push GT contenders need to find over their stable weight.

e.g. take say Oude Kwaremont. 2.2km long and 111m elevation around 4% average gradient.

At his 75kg at 500w that's taking him 4:53s and 544 calories burnt
At 73kg at 500w that's taking him 4.48s and 538 calories burnt

However for 250km of the race he's riding at everyone else speed, so he climbs at 4:53 still, but doesn't need to find 500w anymore if 2kg lighter, he only needs to find 492 watts therefore much more efficient.

He's saving that 8 watts all the time up a berg too for 2500m of ascending now, or rather has saved more energy for the final.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS