Richie Porte - what do we know about him?

[maltiv]

It could be true, of course, but it's most reasonable that those people who made the graph were wrong here. EBH a top WT rider? He was a mediocre performer who got most of his points in smaller races, so it's mostly BS.

A mediocre rider who won a stage of the Giro, Gent-Wevelgem, Eneco Tour (+2 stages), TOB (+4 stages) etc the year before, in total 13 victories (7 from world-tour) and ranked 6th in CQ and Protour ranking.

So yeah, he won a WT semi-classic, a WT stage-race, and a Grand tour stage that year. If that's not enough to be considered a top WT rider, then I don't know what is...

 

[blackcat]

Oh and about Froome, the anti Sky resident experts seem to have forgotten that he posted the best numbers in Aigle when he was first tested there.

thanx for that.

I am a big promoter of froome here, i only knew of his testing for brailsford.

cheers WV

 

[roundabout]

best numbers compared to who?

 

[iZnoGouD]

Thanks, it's going to make TJVG happy ;-) More seriously I'm surprised that some who claim to follow cycling here don't know that the differences between these top cyclists is minute and that every little something counts, being at 100% vs 95%, hurting yourself a little bit extra because it's your main objective, racing in a team that's winning a lot (i.e. confidence), etc...what could be called marginal gains I guess...a concept that's been ridiculed by the crazed "froth at the mouth" anti-Sky experts. In the meantime they don't have a lot to show for themselves...the sole consolation I find to their polluting an otherwise great forum is that it's going to get worse for them before it gets better.

Oh and about Froome, the anti Sky resident experts seem to have forgotten that he posted the best numbers in Aigle when he was first tested there. Oh right, they are biased in Aigle and they had probably anticipated a big check from DB coming their way 5 years later so they cooked up his numbers. But that's boring so it's better to make up stories about him being bed ridden and then trouncing Cadel at the Dauphiné...last I checked it's Quintana who got away on Joux Plane but that doesn't fit the story.

THIS.

People here need to ride more and talk less, because they clearly have no idea how things work

 

[Dear Wiggo]

THIS.

People here need to ride more and talk less, because they clearly have no idea how things work

I'm riding plenty, thanks for asking.

 

[blackcat]

Richie Porte - what do we know about him?

he's little?

do I win?

 

[Ferminal]

best numbers compared to who?

WCC graduates? Couldn't name them...

 

[sittingbison]

...You are assuming that Hinault and LeMond are more naturally talented than Wiggo and Fenton. (We can accept that the other La Vie Claire riders are superior to their Sky equivalents as their peak performance levels are demonstrably superior.)

You then highlight that Wiggo and Fenton are inferior to Hinault and LeMond and conclude that as they are performing at the same sort of level they must be doping.

But you're initial assumption - ie the natural superiority of Hinault and LeMond - is what you're actually trying to prove.

This was a favourite technique of mine in undergraduate maths exams - assume to be true what the question requires you to prove to be true - and work from there. It was surprisingly successful as a tactic.

I'm going to do a thehog on this one Wallace :

...
Badger 1 1 1 1 WD 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 JEEBUS JUST LOOK AT THAT RECORD!!!
LeMond WD 3 3 2 4 1 WD 39 1 105 1 WD 7 WD WD WD where the WD and 39th were coming back from shotgun damage and you can see where EPO kicked into the peleton
.
.
.
Sir Wiggo 123 124 WD 134 71 3 40 23 WD 3 1 where the first WD was Cofidis drug expulsion and 2009 3rd...was actually a 4th
Froome 84 36 WD 2 2 4

There is not an "assumption" that Badger and Lemond were superior to Sir Wiggo and Froome.

Anyway, this thread is about Richie. Can we please try and keep it on topic? There are plenty of Sky, Sir Wiggo and Froome threads

 

[Galic Ho]

webvan...Quintana is not in question because in a clean peloton a small diminutive south American is always going to be able to climb. Letting an unknown get a small break on the Sky train is one thing. But when the guy who won the Tour the year before can only get a small gap on a descent, that means you're speaking from your behind AGAIN.

That stuff doesn't get mentioned because it's a given. Everyone should know that. Just like Froome's sudden form finding in both 2011 and early 2012. They are givens and yet you're allowed to say it never happened. Funny that you weren't saying that last June and July when it was all over the Clinic. Now that is trolling.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Can a mod please explain to me why once again my posts have been altered?

Come on, which of you is holding the hands of the cry baby Sky lovers? Seriously...a meme isn't allowed? It was a joke about team doping and you remove it! I'd like to know which mod is doing this and who the poster who cried was. And then I'd like to know how that person cannot be labelled a troll.

Oh and webvan...Quintana is not in question because in a clean peloton a small diminutive south American is always going to be able to climb. Letting an unknown get a small break on the Sky train is one thing. But when the guy who won the Tour the year before can only get a small gap on a descent, that means you're speaking from your behind AGAIN.

That stuff doesn't get mentioned because it's a given. Everyone should know that. Just like Froome's sudden form finding in both 2011 and early 2012. They are givens and yet you're allowed to say it never happened. Funny that you weren't saying that last June and July when it was all over the Clinic. Now that is trolling.

Hopefully I managed to read them before deleted.

 

[Ferminal]

I'm going to do a thehog on this one Wallace :


There is not an "assumption" that Badger and Lemond were superior to Sir Wiggo and Froome.

Anyway, this thread is about Richie. Can we please try and keep it on topic? There are plenty of Sky, Sir Wiggo and Froome threads

Surprised future LeMond, Richie Porte, slipped through the T/AIS net as a club triathlete.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Surprised future LeMond, Richie Porte, slipped through the T/AIS net as a club triathlete.

He's mentioned doing Col d'eze at around 400W. 6.3W/kg for ~20 minutes @ 63kg. How does this compare to the VAM calculations?

Take ~95% of that and he's hitting 6W/kg for FTP.
Froome dawg's FTP is around 5.8W/kg, apparently.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Surprised future LeMond, Richie Porte, slipped through the T/AIS net as a club triathlete.

Good point. Imagine a pro team letting go of someone like Peter Sagan. Not likely, right?

 

[Ferminal]

Good point. Imagine a pro team letting go of someone like Peter Sagan. Not likely, right?

Russian money came a year too late for Riis. I'm sure he would to have liked to keep Porte, but couldn't offer him anything.

 

[thehog]

Russian money came a year too late for Riis. I'm sure he would to have liked to keep Porte, but couldn't offer him anything.

Riis offered him leadership for non-Tour races.

And an apprenticeship under Contador.

That's a very attractive offer.

What does Porte have now?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

What does Porte have now?

Paris-Nice.

 

[webvan]

Right, and racing for a team where no one (especially not the GM and the leader) has been involved in doping scandals...should appeal to the zealot clinicians that haunt these premises, no?

 

[Netserk]

Porte was certain to leave Saxo before Contador was in the picture.

 

[thehog]

Right, and racing for a team where no one (especially not the GM and the leader) has been involved in doping scandals...should appeal to the zealot clinicians that haunt these premises, no?

What about their Doctor? does he count?

 

[Netserk]

What about their Doctor? does he count?

Don't worry. Geert can be trusted. Just ask Rasmussen.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I'm going to do a thehog on this one Wallace :

There is not an "assumption" that Badger and Lemond were superior to Sir Wiggo and Froome.

Race results are only half the story. But how would the Badger have fared during 2002-2006? (Assuming he was as clean or as doped as he was in he pomp.)

We know that 1980s GT greats and another top quality performer (LeMond, Fignon and Hampsten) did not prosper in the early EPO era. The past wins counted for absolutely nothing against guys enjoying a 5%-10% performance boost. How would a cleanish Badger have fared in the Wiggo track/road era, when even the optimists think blood-doping was still common-place and the peloton covered more countries in depth than just France, Italy, Holland, Spain and Belgium?

The answer is that we don't know, which is why I was wondering if there was any available data relating to his or LeMond's TT power outputs, from where some objective comparison against Wiggo could be made.

As it's Friday I won't even bother with Froome. Life is too short!

Sorry for going off topic.

 

[will10]

For insiders Froome always was one best talents around, noone was asking questions about him because they simply had no reason to.

Why was he without a contract before that Vuelta in 2011 then?
When setting up the Sky team in 2010, with the objective of winning the Tour within 5 years, why not mention this super talent Froome as a potential? The thoughts at the time were that Froome was signed because he was one of the few British pros on the circuit, not because he was some super talented future. GT contender.

There is a lot that doesn't add up with Froome's rise to prominance. A lot.

 

[Ferminal]

Right, and racing for a team where no one (especially not the GM and the leader) has been involved in doping scandals...should appeal to the zealot clinicians that haunt these premises, no?

So anyone who rides for Riis is questionable but someone who rides under Yates De Jongh Sutton Leinders Knaven alongside Rogers is beyond question?

As an aside, I think the possibility of Porte doping at Saxo or even in Italy is overlooked too easily.

 

[Ferminal]

Race results are only half the story. But how would the Badger have fared during 2002-2006? (Assuming he was as clean or as doped as he was in he pomp.)

We know that 1980s GT greats and another top quality performer (LeMond, Fignon and Hampsten) did not prosper in the early EPO era. The past wins counted for absolutely nothing against guys enjoying a 5%-10% performance boost. How would a cleanish Badger have fared in the Wiggo track/road era, when even the optimists think blood-doping was still common-place and the peloton covered more countries in depth than just France, Italy, Holland, Spain and Belgium?

The answer is that we don't know, which is why I was wondering if there was any available data relating to his or LeMond's TT power outputs, from where some objective comparison against Wiggo could be made.

As it's Friday I won't even bother with Froome. Life is too short!

Sorry for going off topic.

The comparison to Hinault LeMond Fignon Merckx etc is to show that GT winners gave a clear indication of their potential from a very young age, always <25 and within their first few GTs. If blood doping was never invented there is reason to expect today's greats to follow a similar path of success. That is not to ignore the other dynamics in the sport which probably mean it would happen a bit later anyway.

For me though the foremost explanation is that young riders don't often get on an elite program in their first few seasons. They (or their bosses) may be reluctant to dope until they've had a few years relatively clean. Of this decade's top GT riders, those who made the breakthrough early on were those who we know doped at that time:

Contador 2007 - 24, 2nd GT
Andy Schleck 2007 - 21, first GT
Valverde 2003 - 23, 2nd GT
Cunego 2004 - 22, 2nd GT

 

[thehog]

The comparison to Hinault LeMond Fignon Merckx etc is to show that GT winners gave a clear indication of their potential from a very young age, always <25 and within their first few GTs. If blood doping was never invented there is reason to expect today's greats to follow a similar path of success. That is not to ignore the other dynamics in the sport which probably mean it would happen a bit later anyway.

For me though the foremost explanation is that young riders don't often get on an elite program in their first few seasons. They (or their bosses) may be reluctant to dope until they've had a few years relatively clean. Of this decade's top GT riders, those who made the breakthrough early on were those who we know doped at that time:

Contador 2007 - 24, 2nd GT
Andy Schleck 2007 - 21, first GT
Valverde 2003 - 23, 2nd GT
Cunego 2004 - 22, 2nd GT

Cunego must look at Froome and shake his head.

I know you!