Richie Porte - what do we know about him?

[Cimber]

In any case there's a rather large margin between being extremely naive (that would apply to all those who believed in Dopestrong after the '99 prologue and/or Sestrières '99) and totally jaded like you seem to be now, which is sad actually, I mean just stop watching cycling if that's where you're at.

On the contrary. I have just accepted that the sport, which I still love, will always be dirty. My hope is that its gonna be less dirty that it was, but I feel certain that it will always be dirty, and to be honest I accept that and am ok with it.

U also point to Armstrong as a driving force for the dirtyness in the 00's. While I think you give him to much credit, I do agree that when one person or team is so much stronger that every one else it will push others to copy his/their methods and cut corners. So even if Sky is clean (which I definately dont think), the teams dominance will still drive others to cut corners.

 

[Cimber]

the bolded describes pretty much the entirety of the sport for the past 20 years since the advent of blood vector doping. So why is it a "distorted view"?

This. And why would Sky be any different? Especially considering they are able to crush all other competition (of which not all are clean for sure)

I do respect that all the "new" British fans really dig their national project and wanan belive that surely Sky's dominance is all about working harder, better planning, better training etc etc. But you know what, in the 00's the same exact argument was made about CSC, and we all know that the CSC imange looks far more shady looking back now.

 

[The_Captain]

Having said that I had the good fortune of spending several of hours next to Millar and Wiggins a few years ago, talked to them and could observe them as much as I wanted up close and I'm not sure I liked what I saw, these guys are "freaks of nature", extremely tall, all muscle and veins (the stockings were a disturbing sight too)...just doesn't look right, "not normal", even if they are not breaking any "anti-doping" rules. This probably applies to most racers these days...I never got that close to Hinault but looking at pictures he seemed to have a "more normal" build.

I think by definition elite athletes aren't normal, but the main problem with this and in fact with most of the clinic arguments is that we don't have any trustworthy non doping baseline to compare to. Even comparisons with different eras, doping or not aren't 100% reliable due to unquantifiable advances in technology and training techniques etc.

I know bikes *feel* different, but I wonder just how faster, if at all bikes are now from even 15 years ago?

 

[Ferminal]

U also point to Armstrong as a driving force for the dirtyness in the 00's. While I think you give him to much credit, I do agree that when one person or team is so much stronger that every one else it will push others to copy his/their methods and cut corners. So even if Sky is clean (which I definately dont think), the teams dominance will still drive others to cut corners.

That would work if Armstrong tried to win the Giro, Vuelta and classics too.

 

[Cimber]

That would work if Armstrong tried to win the Giro, Vuelta and classics too.

Ye its even more evident with Sky, since they target the whole season

 

[webvan]

@The_Captain - Welcome to the forums and all good points, elite athletes can't really be "normal"bikes are definitely better than they were 15 years ago.

On the contrary. I have just accepted that the sport, which I still love, will always be dirty. My hope is that its gonna be less dirty that it was, but I feel certain that it will always be dirty, and to be honest I accept that and am ok with it.

U also point to Armstrong as a driving force for the dirtyness in the 00's. While I think you give him to much credit, I do agree that when one person or team is so much stronger that every one else it will push others to copy his/their methods and cut corners. So even if Sky is clean (which I definately dont think), the teams dominance will still drive others to cut corners.

Definitely ? Why so? Because they use "trains" as that benefits their elite riders that they hired sparing no costs? Instead of chalking everything you see them do down to doping (see my previous post), ask yourself this, assume they are indeed clean, how else would they be riding?

Anyway the BIG difference with Armstrong is that the peloton knew he'd gotten away with the 1999 positive corticoid test, most likely a long time before Walsh broke the news with Emma Reilly's info (that's when we found out right?), so hey...this guy's used to be a crap rider and now he's getting away with stuff, maybe we can too. There has never been anything that points to Sky getting away with anything AFAIK. Did you see the RatShack training video in Corsica, did you see how Sky were training? Since you appear to be a genuine cycling fan, and not deadset on trashing Sky at all costs, like many in the clinic, sadly, do yourself a favor and try to look at all the sides to the story ;-)

 

[JimmyFingers]

That would work if Armstrong tried to win the Giro, Vuelta and classics too.

Sshh, we need someone to blame. Armstrong then, Sky now. Then we can excuse all the riders that we like, 'cos they were forced to do it to compete, like poor Bertie.

 

[hrotha]

Sshh, we need someone to blame. Armstrong then, Sky now. Then we can excuse all the riders that we like, 'cos they were forced to do it to compete, like poor Bertie.

This again goes to show you don't read the Clinic, just the Sky threads. Go read up on the Contador threads, please.

 

[JimmyFingers]

This again goes to show you don't read the Clinic, just the Sky threads. Go read up on the Contador threads, please.

Yes, you got me, I only read the Sky threads.

 

[Cimber]

@The_Captain - Welcome to the forums and all good points, elite athletes can't really be "normal"bikes are definitely better than they were 15 years ago.



Definitely ? Why so? Because they use "trains" as that benefits their elite riders that they hired sparing no costs? Instead of chalking everything you see them do down to doping (see my previous post), ask yourself this, assume they are indeed clean, how else would they be riding?

Anyway the BIG difference with Armstrong is that the peloton knew he'd gotten away with the 1999 positive corticoid test, most likely a long time before Walsh broke the news with Emma Reilly's info (that's when we found out right?), so hey...this guy's used to be a crap rider and now he's getting away with stuff, maybe we can too. There has never been anything that points to Sky getting away with anything AFAIK. Did you see the RatShack training video in Corsica, did you see how Sky were training? Since you appear to be a genuine cycling fan, and not deadset on trashing Sky at all costs, like many in the clinic, sadly, do yourself a favor and try to look at all the sides to the story ;-)

Its not about the "train" approach. Its about how mediocre riders come to Sky and just become sooo much better, and its about how they can peek for like a whole season. It cannot just be brought down to training methods. The same argument was used about CSC and Riis 10 years ago. CSC was revolutionising the sport with incredible team-spirit, new training methods, new diet, better material, i.e. all marginal gains. But now we know that that was not the whole truth (though that certainly helped them too), and now after that team (csc/saxo) have begun to feel the heat, they seem to underperform hugely. Not only compared to Sky but compared to alot of teams and riders.

So feel free to call me a cynic, but emperical evidence just suggest that there is more to it than optimised training etc. when teams dominate to that extend. The word "Definitely" of course reflects my personal perception.

 

[spalco]

And what made it magically disappear around 2011 when Sky started to stamp their authority on every race? The BP has been going since 2008. The longer it exists the more likely workarounds can be achieved. More sophisticated doping protocols.

So something else has magically cleaned up the peloton, where nothing else would.

Like magic.

A miracle.

I'm sorry, I don't believe in miracles.

You could argue, that Sky needed a few years to get their operation running smoothly and everything, get the DSs and trainers etc working well with the cyclists, recruit the appropriate talent and everything.

Not an especially strong argument, but the cutoff doesn't need to be 2011 specifically.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Its not about the "train" approach. Its about how mediocre riders come to Sky and just become sooo much better, and its about how they can peek for like a whole season. It cannot just be brought down to training methods. The same argument was used about CSC and Riis 10 years ago. CSC was revolutionising the sport with incredible team-spirit, new training methods, new diet, better material, i.e. all marginal gains. But now we know that that was not the whole truth (though that certainly helped them too), and now after that team (csc/saxo) have begun to feel the heat, they seem to underperform hugely. Not only compared to Sky but compared to alot of teams and riders.

So feel free to call me a cynic, but emperical evidence just suggest that there is more to it than optimised training etc. when teams dominate to that extend. The word "Definitely" of course reflects my personal perception.

The problem with empirical evidence is it is often anecdotal and conclusions drawn from it are rarely objective, as you yourself acknowledge.

 

[thehog]

Nice photo of Porte Borg in the saddle. Looks calm on the 21% incline whilst everyone else is out of e saddle and struggling.

 

[Cimber]

The problem with empirical evidence is it is often anecdotal and conclusions drawn from it are rarely objective, as you yourself acknowledge.

Empirical evidence can come in large batches or small. One or a few data points make for anecdotal empirical evidence. Once we get many, we might call the evidence scientific.

With regards to cycling I think we have gotten past the point of "a few data". While it is not an analytic fact, it isnt merely anecdotal evidence either with the amount of emperical data we have.

 

[xcleigh]

Nice photo of Porte Borg in the saddle. Looks calm on the 21% incline whilst everyone else is out of e saddle and struggling.

And those skyborgs are able to transmogrify as well now, damn them!!!!!

(Hopefully Hogs Dopedar works better than his Skyriderradar)

 

[spalco]

Its not about the "train" approach. Its about how mediocre riders come to Sky and just become sooo much better, and its about how they can peek for like a whole season. It cannot just be brought down to training methods. The same argument was used about CSC and Riis 10 years ago. CSC was revolutionising the sport with incredible team-spirit, new training methods, new diet, better material, i.e. all marginal gains. But now we know that that was not the whole truth (though that certainly helped them too), and now after that team (csc/saxo) have begun to feel the heat, they seem to underperform hugely. Not only compared to Sky but compared to alot of teams and riders.

So feel free to call me a cynic, but emperical evidence just suggest that there is more to it than optimised training etc. when teams dominate to that extend. The word "Definitely" of course reflects my personal perception.

Technically, the fact that other teams have made the arguments Sky makes now, and turned out to be bull****ting, doesn't necessarily mean it's not true now for Sky, although I don't blame anyone for being suspicious.

 

[webvan]

Yeah but a lot of arguments here fall flat because everything goes towards "Sky Doping", like that picture that just got posted (you know about gears right?) nothing the other way (JC Péraud keeping up, Nibali dropping Froome, etc...), so there's little discussion to be had. On the one side you have people deadset that Sky are doping and on the other side people trying to say, hey maybe you should look at all the sides to the story...bit sad really.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Empirical evidence can come in large batches or small. One or a few data points make for anecdotal empirical evidence. Once we get many, we might call the evidence scientific.

With regards to cycling I think we have gotten past the point of "a few data". While it is not an analytic fact, it isnt merely anecdotal evidence either with the amount of emperical data we have.

Debatable of course: even with a lot of data two different individuals analysing it can and do come to different conclusions, hence not strictly neutral or objective.

Your paradigm is that dominant teams of the past have doped while claiming superior training methods, so a dominant team now claiming the same things are doing the same. Firstly there is an issue with defining dominant, secondly there is clear empirical evidence that point to other reasons why sports team dominate, usually financial. Chuck enough money at any sport and generally you will win. Call it financial doping if you will.

 

[JimmyFingers]

And those skyborgs are able to transmogrify as well now, damn them!!!!!

(Hopefully Hogs Dopedar works better than his Skyriderradar)

Ha! Missed that the first time round. Go to the back of the class Hog

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You could argue, that Sky needed a few years to get their operation running smoothly and everything, get the DSs and trainers etc working well with the cyclists, recruit the appropriate talent and everything.

Not an especially strong argument, but the cutoff doesn't need to be 2011 specifically.

Are you saying the rest of the peloton is still doped then? Because that was my point. Sky are standing out like the proverbials coz noone else is doping now.

Clean peloton and hiring the best riders = natural rise to the top of that team.

If it's just that their system is all up and running smoothly now, then the ejection of significant back office staff is having surprisingly little effect on their multi-stage team's results.

Will certainly be interesting to see how (or where) EBH goes now that his coach has to be internally sourced.

 

[Ripper]

Pretty simple really Porte is on drugs

Fixed that for you, trolly troll troll

 

[thehog]

And those skyborgs are able to transmogrify as well now, damn them!!!!!

(Hopefully Hogs Dopedar works better than his Skyriderradar)

All the borgs look the same to me.

Except the Dawg.

He looks weireeeeeeed!

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Nice photo of Porte Borg in the saddle. Looks calm on the 21% incline whilst everyone else is out of e saddle and struggling.

Oh dear...

 

[Ripper]

 

[Ferminal]

Since when was riding in the saddle = doping? I thought it was always "riding out of the saddle", like Contador = doping.

We really do need a definitive guide on how to tell someone is a doper based on riding style.