• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Quintana??

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Visit site
RownhamHill said:
Is there much evidence of him doping? (Over and above the fact he's a pro cyclist, so by definition is suspicious and will keep some company with past dopers).

I'm happy to give him the benefit of the doubt in the absence of anything substantial to worry about.

Do you really need to ask that question? (;
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
Visit site
How is it possible for Froome to be on high octane, and the guy who beat him in the 3rd week of the Tour only on high altitude? That appears to be the difficulty.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Visit site
Ventoux Boar said:
How is it possible for Froome to be on high octane, and the guy who beat him in the 3rd week of the Tour only on high altitude? That appears to be the difficulty.

I think it's really important that even the most hardline doping accusers need to acknowledge that extraordinary performance can be achieved naturally. There isn't a threshold over which any performance is certainly unatural, hence the need for both the benefit of the doubt towards talented riders, and due process.

I thought this was a thought-provoking read:

Still, technology isn't the only thing pushing athletes forward. While indeed we haven't evolved into a new species in a century, the gene pool within competitive sports most certainly has changed. In the early half of the 20th century, physical education instructors and coaches had the idea that the average body type was the best for all athletic endeavors: medium height, medium weight, no matter the sport. And this showed in athletes' bodies. In the 1920s, the average elite high-jumper and average elite shot-putter were the same exact size. But as that idea started to fade away, as sports scientists and coaches realized that rather than the average body type, you want highly specialized bodies that fit into certain athletic niches, a form of artificial selection took place, a self-sorting for bodies that fit certain sports, and athletes' bodies became more different from one another. Today, rather than the same size as the average elite high jumper, the average elite shot-putter is two and a half inches taller and 130 pounds heavier. And this happened throughout the sports world.

In fact, if you plot on a height versus mass graph one data point for each of two dozen sports in the first half of the 20th century, it looks like this. There's some dispersal, but it's kind of grouped around that average body type. Then that idea started to go away, and at the same time, digital technology -- first radio, then television and the Internet -- gave millions, or in some cases billions, of people a ticket to consume elite sports performance. The financial incentives and fame and glory afforded elite athletes skyrocketed, and it tipped toward the tiny upper echelon of performance. It accelerated the artificial selection for specialized bodies. And if you plot a data point for these same two dozen sports today, it looks like this. The athletes' bodies have gotten much more different from one another. And because this chart looks like the charts that show the expanding universe, with the galaxies flying away from one another, the scientists who discovered it call it "The Big Bang of Body Types."

In sports where height is prized, like basketball, the tall athletes got taller. In 1983, the National Basketball Association signed a groundbreaking agreement making players partners in the league, entitled to shares of ticket revenues and television contracts. Suddenly, anybody who could be an NBA player wanted to be, and teams started scouring the globe for the bodies that could help them win championships. Almost overnight, the proportion of men in the NBA who are at least seven feet tall doubled to 10 percent. Today, one in 10 men in the NBA is at least seven feet tall, but a seven-foot-tall man is incredibly rare in the general population -- so rare that if you know an American man between the ages of 20 and 40 who is at least seven feet tall, there's a 17 percent chance he's in the NBA right now. (Laughter) That is, find six honest seven footers, one is in the NBA right now. And that's not the only way that NBA players' bodies are unique. This is Leonardo da Vinci's "Vitruvian Man," the ideal proportions, with arm span equal to height. My arm span is exactly equal to my height. Yours is probably very nearly so. But not the average NBA player. The average NBA player is a shade under 6'7", with arms that are seven feet long. Not only are NBA players ridiculously tall, they are ludicrously long. Had Leonardo wanted to draw the Vitruvian NBA Player, he would have needed a rectangle and an ellipse, not a circle and a square.


So in sports where large size is prized, the large athletes have gotten larger. Conversely, in sports where diminutive stature is an advantage, the small athletes got smaller. The average elite female gymnast shrunk from 5'3" to 4'9" on average over the last 30 years, all the better for their power-to-weight ratio and for spinning in the air. And while the large got larger and the small got smaller, the weird got weirder. The average length of the forearm of a water polo player in relation to their total arm got longer, all the better for a forceful throwing whip. And as the large got larger, small got smaller, and the weird weirder. In swimming, the ideal body type is a long torso and short legs. It's like the long hull of a canoe for speed over the water. And the opposite is advantageous in running. You want long legs and a short torso. And this shows in athletes' bodies today. Here you see Michael Phelps, the greatest swimmer in history, standing next to Hicham El Guerrouj, the world record holder in the mile. These men are seven inches different in height, but because of the body types advantaged in their sports, they wear the same length pants. Seven inches difference in height, these men have the same length legs.

Now in some cases, the search for bodies that could push athletic performance forward ended up introducing into the competitive world populations of people that weren't previously competing at all, like Kenyan distance runners. We think of Kenyans as being great marathoners. Kenyans think of the Kalenjin tribe as being great marathoners. The Kalenjin make up just 12 percent of the Kenyan population but the vast majority of elite runners. And they happen, on average, to have a certain unique physiology: legs that are very long and very thin at their extremity, and this is because they have their ancestry at very low latitude in a very hot and dry climate, and an evolutionary adaptation to that is limbs that are very long and very thin at the extremity for cooling purposes. It's the same reason that a radiator has long coils, to increase surface area compared to volume to let heat out, and because the leg is like a pendulum, the longer and thinner it is at the extremity, the more energy-efficient it is to swing. To put Kalenjin running success in perspective, consider that 17 American men in history have run faster than two hours and 10 minutes in the marathon. That's a four-minute-and-58-second-per-mile pace. Thirty-two Kalenjin men did that last October. (Laughter) That's from a source population the size of metropolitan Atlanta.

http://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger

I think there is a knee-jerk, default assumption when seeing anything incredible in cycling, we automatically jump to the assumption he must be doping. Look at Quintana's build, his physique: he looks to me to be someone with almost tailor-made physiology to be a great bike rider. Armstrong looked like a bear. What was that quote about EPO, rider's with arses the size of elephants sprinting up hills. Quintana looks like he was shaped by the mountainous roads he grew up on.
 
Ventoux Boar said:
How is it possible for Froome to be on high octane, and the guy who beat him in the 3rd week of the Tour only on high altitude? That appears to be the difficulty.

I think Froome is a no-talent donkey turned racehorse through the miracle of modern medicine. The guy showed zero promise early in his career, unlike Quintana.

But, yes, I think Quintana is doping.
 
JimmyFingers said:
Look at Quintana's build, his physique: he looks to me to be someone with almost tailor-made physiology to be a great bike rider. Armstrong looked like a bear. What was that quote about EPO, rider's with arses the size of elephants sprinting up hills. Quintana looks like he was shaped by the mountainous roads he grew up on.
Not sure if this is trolling or just incredibly stupid.

You do realize there were more people.then Armstrong who just doped right? You do realize that pantani was quintanas size and looked like a natural climber? So was sella, so was rujano, so was Heras. You do realize that there have been plenty of climbers who grew up in the same mountains as Quintana who look shaped by those roads, who still doped to get better.

You mock people who suspect people based on performances, and then offer the far more ludicrous suggestion that you can tell what any riders upper limit is based on how they look. :rolleyes:

Because Armstrong 15 years ago had a big ****
:cool:

If what you said made any sense the giro would have been 200 small Colombian climbers fighting for gc.

But guess what, humans arent all equal. Not all those riders who looked like Quintana and grew up like Quintana were able to become as good as Quintana. So being small and born in boyaca is itself no guarantee to reach the level Quintana has.
And if you think you can make any calculation on what a riders performance level should be, based on their looks you are deluded. And I say the same to the people who try to look at jawlines and **** like that.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
Not sure if this is trolling or just incredibly stupid.

You do realize there were more people.then Armstrong who just doped right? You do realize that pantani was quintanas size and looked like a natural climber? So was sella, so was rujano, so was Heras. You do realize that there have been plenty of climbers who grew up in the same mountains as Quintana who look shaped by those roads, who still doped to get better.

You mock people who suspect people based on performances, and then offer the far more ludicrous suggestion that you can tell what any riders upper limit is based on how they look. :rolleyes:

Because Armstrong 15 years ago had a big ****
:cool:

If what you said made any sense the giro would have been 200 small Colombian climbers fighting for gc.

But guess what, humans arent all equal and if you think you can make any calculation on what a riders performance level should be, you are deluded. And I say the same to the people who try to look at jawlines and **** like that.

Way to miss the point and present your usual strawman. I wasn't saying his physique means he's clean, I meant his physiology means that it is possible he is clean. His nature and nurture means there is a good chance that his is a natural talent. It's not definitive, but it means I DON'T THINK HE SHOULD BE CONDEMNED OUT OF HAND.

Did you read the rest of the post? Or just to pick up on that, twist it and come back as usual with all guns blazing, doing you usual effort to browbeat people into silence with your overbearing, bombastic posts?
 
Ventoux Boar said:
How is it possible for Froome to be on high octane, and the guy who beat him in the 3rd week of the Tour only on high altitude? That appears to be the difficulty.


Moose McKnuckles said:
I think Froome is a no-talent donkey turned racehorse through the miracle of modern medicine. The guy showed zero promise early in his career, unlike Quintana.

But, yes, I think Quintana is doping.

While I agree with Moose, I'd also like to answer Ventoux Boar's point which is: Who did quintana beat in the 3rd week at the tour? A Stage 20 froome that had 5 minutes on the rest of the field? Quintana never beat a competing Froome nor do I think he could.
 
lemoogle said:
While I agree with Moose, I'd also like to answer Ventoux Boar's point which is: Who did quintana beat in the 3rd week at the tour? A Stage 20 froome that had 5 minutes on the rest of the field? Quintana never beat a competing Froome nor do I think he could.

Froome didn't drop on purpose, he was a spent force (by his standards) by the end of the Tour. He might have been able to dig a bit deeper if his advantage was 30 seconds instead of 5 minutes, but still he was not the best climber in the race anymore at that point.
 
jilbiker said:
I was shocked that there was no thread on Quintana. But I think there are major doubts already with riders from Columbia. I agree with that. Strange they all go to Columbia to train, most US pros for instance live in Europe during the season, but Quintana and Uran etc are in Columbia during the season and seem to fly back for races??

Am sure there is very little dope check in Columbia and even where done easy for the cyclists to know well in advance.

When he was "sick" in the first week of the Giro, I was thinking, got a bad BB. And when he suddenly recovered and exploded in the 2nd week, I said fixed his BB issues.

I am sceptically of a 24 year old already a GT winner?? You must be super talented and I don't get that with Quintana. By that way dunno why but he looks 30 to me....

As I was reading your post I got stuck on these bolded words and spilled my coffee. :eek:

Please check cycling history to get the statistics correctly. You can also check what the ages for natural peaks for the athletes are. The fact that the youngsters or young riders are coming to the front of the GC and winning races again is a good sign for clean (or cleaner) cycling among others.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
Visit site
kingjr said:
Froome didn't drop on purpose, he was a spent force (by his standards) by the end of the Tour. He might have been able to dig a bit deeper if his advantage was 30 seconds instead of 5 minutes, but still he was not the best climber in the race anymore at that point.

Precisely. A quite striking decline in relative performance in the third week of a GT.

And if Quintana had not been sacrificed on Ventoux - solo for 12k vs Froome's 7k - Froome's 30s margin may well have vanished.
 
kingjr said:
Froome didn't drop on purpose, he was a spent force (by his standards) by the end of the Tour. He might have been able to dig a bit deeper if his advantage was 30 seconds instead of 5 minutes, but still he was not the best climber in the race anymore at that point.

That's not really a fact is it ... I believe he *did* take it easy (whether that's dropping on purpose or doping less)
 
kingjr said:
What do you base that belief on?

Given that he was being scrutinized because of his climbing times and had a huge margin, it was the logical thing to do
I never had the impression he was really in trouble, also the Alpe d'Huez show didn't make much sense (should have been a lot slower if he had a real fringale imo)

I may be wrong of course, but it is a distinct possibility, no?
 
Interesting thoughts here.

Ventoux Boar said:
How is it possible for Froome to be on high octane, and the guy who beat him in the 3rd week of the Tour only on high altitude? That appears to be the difficulty.

What has struck me as surprising is that he seems stronger in the last week of tough tours. He did this with last years Tdf and it really surprised me at the giro because he was supposedly sick as a dog. I don't know how someone can recover from illness to be in top form while riding a grand tour.

But as others have said his numbers appear just inside the bounds of possible, so maybe he is just a massive natural talent.
 
Gung Ho Gun said:
Given that he was being scrutinized because of his climbing times and had a huge margin, it was the logical thing to do
I never had the impression he was really in trouble, also the Alpe d'Huez show didn't make much sense (should have been a lot slower if he had a real fringale imo)

I may be wrong of course, but it is a distinct possibility, no?

No, I think it's more likely his tank was a bit empty. He noticed that on Alpe d'Huez, he didn't have a fringale.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Visit site
Maybe it does not seem like he is going "full ***" I would argue that his static position on the bike and his stone face makes the visual impression less significant, just compare to Froome or Contador who makes much more of a visual impression when they go full gas.
Also his humbleness and general tranquility (off and on the bike) adds to the impression of a guy which is easier to want to believe in? (Froome the arrogant opposite)
One could argue that maybe he does not look? like a obvious doper but his performances sure as hell are suspicious.
At this stage he is probably the best climber, or at least in top 3 in the world, furthermore he is up against people who are generally believed to be doped (in the Clinic) and some of them for so many years that their recipes are perfected (take chicken for example, took him 5-8 years to fully benefit)

So is his genes, growing up in the environment he has etc. really enough to weigh up the advantages others have/take?

I would say that if he is doping I would prefer him to get busted before he snaps 5-10 GT's and becomes every fan and young cyclist's idol.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
Visit site
hiero2 said:
Antione Vayer and Portoleau seem to think he is clean. Vayer went to Twitter to announce it.

http://t.co/kVIJeiIUPe

Good post. Interesting link. Thanks, bro! ;)

Netserk said:

No, just no? As in Vayer didn't say that? Or, is no, as in "I can't believe it, this contradicts what I think!" Then please tell us what he said.

Anybody else in this thread notice this tweet from Vayer?

BTW, for those of you who haven't read Vayer's tweet, or studied Portoleau's graphic, while Quintana won the Giro, apparently there were no superhuman performances.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
Visit site
mrhender said:
Maybe it does not seem like he is going "full ***" I would argue that his static position on the bike and his stone face makes the visual impression less significant, just compare to Froome or Contador who makes much more of a visual impression when they go full gas.
Also his humbleness and general tranquility (off and on the bike) adds to the impression of a guy which is easier to want to believe in? (Froome the arrogant opposite) . . .

That last bit is interesting. Yeah - young Nairo Quintana really seems to have a solid and steady head on his shoulders. And Froome has turned into one of the most unlikeable characters I've seen in some time. Wiggo is no treasure, especially when he starts going on about ****ers and "fruit 'n" stuff. But at least Wiggo seems honest and to have a basic respect for others - mostly. Nairo Quintana's aplomb was enviable, whether he was being asked about the Stelvio stage, or the pink jersey and winning in general.
 
hiero2 said:
Good post. Interesting link. Thanks, bro! ;)



No, just no? As in Vayer didn't say that? Or, is no, as in "I can't believe it, this contradicts what I think!" Then please tell us what he said.

Anybody else in this thread notice this tweet from Vayer?

BTW, for those of you who haven't read Vayer's tweet, or studied Portoleau's graphic, while Quintana won the Giro, apparently there were no superhuman performances.

Vayers point is that the performances were generally human. In other words based on the performances one cannot say there is doping going on as humans are deemed to be able to perform like that. However, that of course doesn't mean Quintana et al are not doping, they could be doping just to get to what is deemed the upper edge of human possibility. It's just that a talented non-doper would be able to match that and subsequently that it could be Quintana et al are not doping.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
3
0
Visit site
JimmyFingers said:
I think it's really important that even the most hardline doping accusers need to acknowledge that extraordinary performance can be achieved naturally. There isn't a threshold over which any performance is certainly unatural, hence the need for both the benefit of the doubt towards talented riders, and due process.

Correct. But I think it's equally important that even the most statistically uneducated people acknowledge that ceteris paribus performing better means the rider is more likely to dope and that the strength of association increases the better one performs relative to the competition.

Another important insight to be aware of is the difference between what a rational person who considers all the evidence and posts about it in a forum ought to believe, and what an official body such as a doping court, or a criminal court, ought to do.