QS 2018

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
The whole Martin-left-the-team-and-now-he-sucks-so-they-have-to-be-doping-argument is pretty weak imo. He had several health issues and a good bit of misfortune in other races this season. And more decisively, he won both of his monuments riding for Cannondale, so it's not like he was bad before and after QS while being a world beater in between...
 
I don't think the argument is Martin-left-the-team-and-now-he-sucks-so-they-have-to-be-doping. It's Martin-left-the-team-and-now-he-sucks-so-that-reinforces-the-pre-existing-notion-that-they-have-one-of-the-most-effective-doping-programs-courtesy-of-one-Dr-Ibarguren. I agree that Martin's level doesn't necessarily tell us much in isolation, but be fair.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
Red Rick said:
DFA123 said:
Netserk said:
DFA123 said:
Of course. You just have to look at Indurain or Ullrich to see how they can take you to the next level. One thing Jungels has though, which is very difficult (maybe impossible) to fully creae using drugs, is that rounded power profile. I always think riders who have excellent aerobic, anaerobic and sprint power are the biggest natural talents. While my suspicion of 'donkey to racehorse' falls mostly on those who just have huge aerobic engines and not much else.
whatever you need to tell yourself
I'm not telling myself anything. It's a hypothesis based on several observed factors. Well done for the great contribution to the discussion though as usual. :eek:
It's a hypothesis based on not verifying if talent is actually natural before claiming someone who's a bit allround is a natural talent
Wrong. At least I think what you said is wrong, it's a pretty clunky sentence you've written there. It's based on observing that doping vastly enhances aerobic power more than it does anaerobic or sprinting. Riders who only have strong aerobic power could be absolute donkeys who are massively doped up. Riders who have good all round power are much less likely to be donkeys.

You just need to look at the stories of riders in their youth career - i.e. when they were 12 or 13 and very unlikely to be doping. The ones who you hear about dominating everyone are those with the all round power profiles. The one dimensional aerobic beasts, tend to make big leaps after turning professional - with all which that entails.
Junior races are vastly different, great endurance is somewhat useless in races under 2 hours
Juniors have a lot less exposure to big climbs than pro's
Everyone matures at a different rate
Everything benefits from doping
There's a huge trade off between different qualities, so you can just train differently on doping and focus on other qualities rather than on the strictly aerobic ones.
Even purely aerobic abilities require talent. Gaps in that talent don't go away if riders dope and respond equally.
 
Re:

hrotha said:
I don't think the argument is Martin-left-the-team-and-now-he-sucks-so-they-have-to-be-doping. It's Martin-left-the-team-and-now-he-sucks-so-that-reinforces-the-pre-existing-notion-that-they-have-one-of-the-most-effective-doping-programs-courtesy-of-one-Dr-Ibarguren. I agree that Martin's level doesn't necessarily tell us much in isolation, but be fair.
My post was rather directed to one member who stated that he/she generally liked QS and didn't think they were suspicious after their amazing cobbled camapign but now changed sides after the Ardennes races. One of the main arguments was Martin's week performance this year, which I've given my opinion on. Of course I also noticed that said member is one of the most passionate Valverde-fans on the board, but thats probably only coincidentally..

However, to those of you who believe everyone in the pro peloton is on drugs, my point will naturally be entirely invalid.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

42x16ss said:
rick james said:
If it was sky this thread would be 100 pages already, Hippocrates sadly
Quickstep dont have so many blind or low IQ fans willing to defend the indefensible.

Quickstep have 2 of the dirtiest doctors in the sport. Not a lot to debate or discuss!
 
Re: Re:

Sestriere said:
hrotha said:
I don't think the argument is Martin-left-the-team-and-now-he-sucks-so-they-have-to-be-doping. It's Martin-left-the-team-and-now-he-sucks-so-that-reinforces-the-pre-existing-notion-that-they-have-one-of-the-most-effective-doping-programs-courtesy-of-one-Dr-Ibarguren. I agree that Martin's level doesn't necessarily tell us much in isolation, but be fair.
My post was rather directed to one member who stated that he/she generally liked QS and didn't think they were suspicious after their amazing cobbled camapign but now changed sides after the Ardennes races. One of the main arguments was Martin's week performance this year, which I've given my opinion on. Of course I also noticed that said member is one of the most passionate Valverde-fans on the board, but thats probably only coincidentally..

However, to those of you who believe everyone in the pro peloton is on drugs, my point will naturally be entirely invalid.

I said I'd wait and see if they continued their dominance in the Ardennes. They did and yes it does raise an eyebrow.

As for being a very passionate Valverde fan, yes, however his issues at the Ardennes this year are mostly team related and not QS related. That is highly coincidental in this particular case.
(I'm a she just for future reference. :) ).
 
MartinGT said:
Yesterday I managed to catch up on LBL and whoever said Jungles was a donkey turned race horse or even suggested his win was dodgy either has zero clue about the race or zero clue about BJ. or Both!
He certainly isn't a donkey, but I would say that his performance yesterday was "unusual", at least...
 
Question seems to be if QS are on some kind of USPS type "program" -- if this were, say, the 2002 season, I think we know the answer. So the question is, has cycling changed enough since the LA confession/outing that a team can absolutely dominate not just a few related races but an entire early season (save PR/MSR) with a variety of riders, and not be seriously under suspicion?
 
Blanco said:
MartinGT said:
Yesterday I managed to catch up on LBL and whoever said Jungles was a donkey turned race horse or even suggested his win was dodgy either has zero clue about the race or zero clue about BJ. or Both!
He certainly isn't a donkey, but I would say that his performance yesterday was "unusual", at least...
Especially with how he got dropped in the Fleche Brabanconne.
 
Re:

Bolder said:
Question seems to be if QS are on some kind of USPS type "program" -- if this were, say, the 2002 season, I think we know the answer. So the question is, has cycling changed enough since the LA confession/outing that a team can absolutely dominate not just a few related races but an entire early season (save PR/MSR) with a variety of riders, and not be seriously under suspicion?
Isn't there a middle ground? For example, that some riders could be micro-dosing, some abusing of stuff which isn't techincally banned, and basically doing what most other teams probably do. But they are getting the results mainly thanks to having a lot of talented riders and finally sorting out their tactics? Of course that would be suspicious on one level, but not the main factor in explaining their great results relative to other teams. I think if anything last season was more suspicious in terms of the manner of the wins - nothing this year has come close to what Gilbert was doing last spring.

A USPS type program, with blood bags, regular epo dosing, testosterone and everything else, seems pretty unlikely. Also, all the recovery based stuff isn't going to give such a big edge in the Classics.
 
Sep 15, 2016
230
0
0
Re:

markene2 said:
Ibarguren is worth his weight in gold, not that i mind. At least QS makes the races interesting
I'm wondering if we are not focusing too much on Ibarguren, in the past he was pretty good at doping riders to ludicrous levels, but not so good at keeping them from testing positive, Van Mol is as shady as him and has always been with the team, he's probably the main force behind the 1996 Roubaix triple.
 
Gung Ho Gun said:
Blanco said:
MartinGT said:
Yesterday I managed to catch up on LBL and whoever said Jungles was a donkey turned race horse or even suggested his win was dodgy either has zero clue about the race or zero clue about BJ. or Both!
He certainly isn't a donkey, but I would say that his performance yesterday was "unusual", at least...
Especially with how he got dropped in the Fleche Brabanconne.
It's pretty obvious that he was on a training ride there.
 
As I said two weeks ago, they don't look stronger or weaker as individual riders than last year or the year before. They seem to have mostly stopped making tactical howlers as they did when Boonen was the romantic ageing favourite, a good sprinter who wanted to solo from way out for the glory, and Stijn Vandenbergh ended up in all the crucial moves without being strong or smart enough to win from them.

They have a load of guys who can go from far out (and a few with a jump) so they can deploy one after the other and see what sticks (even though they got caught out at Roubaix because they believed their own hype).

None of this means they aren't doped to the gills, but it's much harder to call it out in the classics than, say, a leg press up the Angliru or Zoncolan.
 
MartinGT said:
Yesterday I managed to catch up on LBL and whoever said Jungles was a donkey turned race horse or even suggested his win was dodgy either has zero clue about the race or zero clue about BJ. or Both!
Question 1 for you: how many race favourites did Jungels put into difficulty on the 11% climb where he attacked after Gilbert? For quite a few the race was done then and there.

Question 2 for you: how often has Jungels done this on any climb before, let alone one of 11%? He's always been a tempo rider limiting his losses to pure climbers.

Question 3 for you: how many people - fans and experts alike - predicted that Jungels would even make the finale of LBL, let alone be strong enough to split the race in that fashion + stay away?

The more I think about it, the more I think the way he shed so many big names on the climb really was a bit dodgy....and it wasn't as if that was his one big sacrificial move for the team (as it was for Gilbert for example) - he had ample strength after that attack to keep attacking on the descent, open up a gap and hold it for 20k

All of that is a phenomenal performance, one that literally no one saw coming.

Now I'd agree that with his pedigree, we could probably say 'ah, he's developed into the champion he was showing signs of before.'

But if you add in - quite reasonably - the history of QS (and previous incarnations) + the history of the sport + the history of QS spring 2018 it's really not clueless to conclude: here's a fella traveling a well known path to cycling success.
 
The Hegelian said:
Question 2 for you: how often has Jungels done this on any climb before, let alone one of 11%? He's always been a tempo rider limiting his losses to pure climbers.
A few weeks ago at the Royal Bernard Drôme Classic, QS backed the wrong horse in Narvaez, for whom Jungels sacrificed himself only for Calmejane to drop the Ecuadorian over the last summit and descent.

Jungels was fiercely strong there, even by his own admission, and he could and probably should have gone and won it himself. He destroyed the short, steep climbs in the finale in the expectation that Narvaez would finish the job.

This is a single example, and an anecdotal one at that, with a lesser field but his performance stuck in my mind enough to mention it here. However I cannot recall seeing something like Sunday from him further in the past than that.
 
L'arriviste said:
The Hegelian said:
Question 2 for you: how often has Jungels done this on any climb before, let alone one of 11%? He's always been a tempo rider limiting his losses to pure climbers.
A few weeks ago at the Royal Bernard Drôme Classic, QS backed the wrong horse in Narvaez, for whom Jungels sacrificed himself only for Calmejane to drop the Ecuadorian over the last summit and descent.

Jungels was fiercely strong there, even by his own admission, and he could and probably should have gone and won it himself. He destroyed the short, steep climbs in the finale in the expectation that Narvaez would finish the job.

This is a single example, and an anecdotal one at that, with a lesser field but his performance stuck in my mind enough to mention it here. However I cannot recall seeing something like Sunday from him further in the past than that.
I suppose the point is: he has a developed a new quality for this spring.

It certainly doesn't scream out: obvious doper!

But in the same breath, it does negate the idea that it's all just QS tactics and defensive riding from the peloton. No, Jungels showed something extraordinary to win LBL.
 
Bob Jungels is 25 and rides for possibly what is consistently the best classic team of the last few generations. Before he rode for QS he was at Trek with guys like Devolder and Cancellara above him. Expecting to find performances exactly indicative of his ability is tough, considering he's obviously played a supporting role for his whole career so far when he has raced the big one-day races.

I seem to remember him doing a lot of work on the front of the group Valverde won his Giro stage from in 2016 and we shouldn't forget that he has twice won the young rider classification in the Giro, beating Adam Yates and Davide Formolo last year, two men who have been championed as future monument winners. Yes, Jungels is massive in the TT, but you don't do well in the Giro on TT ability alone.

Doesn't mean he isn't doping, but I do think a decent result was expected from him.
 
Re:

King Boonen said:
Bob Jungels is 25 and rides for possibly what is consistently the best classic team of the last few generations. Before he rode for QS he was at Trek with guys like Devolder and Cancellara above him. Expecting to find performances exactly indicative of his ability is tough, considering he's obviously played a supporting role for his whole career so far when he has raced the big one-day races.

I seem to remember him doing a lot of work on the front of the group Valverde won his Giro stage from in 2016 and we shouldn't forget that he has twice won the young rider classification in the Giro, beating Adam Yates and Davide Formolo last year, two men who have been championed as future monument winners. Yes, Jungels is massive in the TT, but you don't do well in the Giro on TT ability alone.

Doesn't mean he isn't doping, but I do think a decent result was expected from him.
Decent result would be top 10, or at best something like Bardet and Woods did, escape in the finale and hold on. But he destroyed the field on RaF, with only 10-15 riders remaining in contention, attacked right after that when everybody else was gasping for breath, hold his advantage when Wellens, Valverde and Martin attacked simultaneously, increased his advantage significantly when Vilella was on the front, and then hold off Vanendert and others after St.Nicholas with ease.

That was not decent, that was phenomenal!
 
Sestriere said:
Gung Ho Gun said:
Blanco said:
MartinGT said:
Yesterday I managed to catch up on LBL and whoever said Jungles was a donkey turned race horse or even suggested his win was dodgy either has zero clue about the race or zero clue about BJ. or Both!
He certainly isn't a donkey, but I would say that his performance yesterday was "unusual", at least...
Especially with how he got dropped in the Fleche Brabanconne.
It's pretty obvious that he was on a training ride there.
No. It was only obvious that he was dropped there...
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re:

vedrafjord said:
As I said two weeks ago, they don't look stronger or weaker as individual riders than last year or the year before. They seem to have mostly stopped making tactical howlers as they did when Boonen was the romantic ageing favourite, a good sprinter who wanted to solo from way out for the glory, and Stijn Vandenbergh ended up in all the crucial moves without being strong or smart enough to win from them.

They have a load of guys who can go from far out (and a few with a jump) so they can deploy one after the other and see what sticks (even though they got caught out at Roubaix because they believed their own hype).

None of this means they aren't doped to the gills, but it's much harder to call it out in the classics than, say, a leg press up the Angliru or Zoncolan.
+1

Take Flanders for example, anybody notice how competitive Nibali was? Dude was attacking in the final. Also, their formula is pretty predictable: have 3 or 4 in the final, send the best TT guy up the road with 50kms left and patrol the chase group with guys who can finish.

Again, they could be doped... but it’s an incredibly strong team who race selflessly. They bought in to the concept of “team wins” and they are better without a marginal Boonen.

Also, wrt LBL, I just find it hard to believe guys like Mike Woods are on the program. He was pretty competitive and I’s like to think that’s a bit of a benchmark. Of course I could be wrong.
 
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
vedrafjord said:
As I said two weeks ago, they don't look stronger or weaker as individual riders than last year or the year before. They seem to have mostly stopped making tactical howlers as they did when Boonen was the romantic ageing favourite, a good sprinter who wanted to solo from way out for the glory, and Stijn Vandenbergh ended up in all the crucial moves without being strong or smart enough to win from them.

They have a load of guys who can go from far out (and a few with a jump) so they can deploy one after the other and see what sticks (even though they got caught out at Roubaix because they believed their own hype).

None of this means they aren't doped to the gills, but it's much harder to call it out in the classics than, say, a leg press up the Angliru or Zoncolan.
+1

Take Flanders for example, anybody notice how competitive Nibali was? Dude was attacking in the final. Also, their formula is pretty predictable: have 3 or 4 in the final, send the best TT guy up the road with 50kms left and patrol the chase group with guys who can finish.

Again, they could be doped... but it’s an incredibly strong team who race selflessly. They bought in to the concept of “team wins” and they are better without a marginal Boonen.

Also, wrt LBL, I just find it hard to believe guys like Mike Woods are on the program. He was pretty competitive and I’s like to think that’s a bit of a benchmark. Of course I could be wrong.
Why?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY