Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

full transparency and Froome back at 2008 climbing levels would be a good start.

Yes, because making any progress after the age of 23 is impossible.

Man, your SKY hate is strong. Yet your affection for Contador is still strong, care to elaborate? Doping is ok as long as it's your favorite rider who does it?

Progress is possible [at the age of 25], but when you progress from being mediocre to being the best ever, yes it is kind of suspicious. Don't get me wrong, performances like these would be suspicious even if Froome had a great career before [just like lot of people thought Contador's were], but he wasn't even as good as Roche or something like that.

Not arguing that his transformations isn't highly suspicious, just pointing out things I find funny. And sometimes I wonder how people here think. It's like people think it's impossible to improve without doping. Not talking about Froome now but as soon as someone starts doing better it's always doping. People seems to believe every damn cyclists is maximizing every possible parameter and thus no improvement can ever be expected since they are already operating at 100%. It's so naive.

Not as naive as thinking people who improve suddenly in their mid 20s are doing it clean.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

WADA or VADA?

Or will people still see WADA as corrupt?

The short explanation is WADA has no authority to sanction anyone. Note well that Armstrong's ban was a recommendation sent to the cycling federation who reluctantly enforced the recommendation. So, WADA/NADOs are not "corrupt" per se. At least, not in a known way.

It's the sports federations where the authority and corruption lie. VADA model isn't any better in this regard.

Understand that, but that's why I mentioned them as an independent body to investigate power, data, biological passports etc.

This can be done, UFC has partnered with USADA to have them do all their drug testing and monitoring on all of their fighters

Just give the NADO the authority to open cases. It's really that simple.

Did the UFC hand sanctioning authority over to USADA? I very, very, very, very much doubt it.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

WADA or VADA?

Or will people still see WADA as corrupt?

The short explanation is WADA has no authority to sanction anyone. Note well that Armstrong's ban was a recommendation sent to the cycling federation who reluctantly enforced the recommendation. So, WADA/NADOs are not "corrupt" per se. At least, not in a known way.

It's the sports federations where the authority and corruption lie. VADA model isn't any better in this regard.

Understand that, but that's why I mentioned them as an independent body to investigate power, data, biological passports etc.

This can be done, UFC has partnered with USADA to have them do all their drug testing and monitoring on all of their fighters

Just give the NADO the authority to open cases. It's really that simple.

Did the UFC hand sanctioning authority over to USADA? I very, very, very, very much doubt it.

Set the guidelines beforehand by the looks of it along with USADA.

http://mmajunkie.com/2015/06/ufcs-new-drug-testing-possible-4-year-suspension-for-first-time-offenders

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

Sure fine yeah you must be right, I won't bring up that he had no elite coaching/infrastructure until 2010 and was irritating Team Sky by the fact they could see the talent and data to say he is great rider but he would be very inconsistent, which they found out in 2011 was due to a bacterial infection.

Schistosomiasis is not a bacterial infection, and Barloworld was not a total cycling backwater.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

I guess what I really find both interesting and problematic this line of reasoning is not the logic of it, which I think is sound enough (to raise serious suspicions, not, in my view, to in and of itself prove doping). You would expect GT contenders to show real signs of extraordinary talent early on. Particularly since the performances now are pushing the boundaries of what is though to be humanly possible (even, apparently, by Sky themselves). But where does that leave Sky? They cannot do anything at this point to change how the riders have progressed up to this point. Thus, anything they do now will not assuage the skeptics one iota. If the die has truly been cast, then "full transparency" would be a completely wasted effort. It wouldn't change anyone's mind as it does not address the "original sin". So why do it?

If you're not questioning the logic of this line of reasoning, why question anything about the position?

Because it leaves Sky in a bad place? Well that's fits the old, "not liking where the logic leads" problem. It's akin to climate denier arguments. No real argument about the facts, but since we all hate the conclusion, some subset of the populace will react to the inconvenient truth of the situation and argue from a place of frustration, anger, defensiveness, etc., and resort to "arguments" like "Why is everyone picking on Sky" or "Nothing they can do will change your mind", and so on. None of which address the evidence that they're doping, but are simply a manifestation at the fan's frustration that they can't refute the evidence and look for alternate routes of attack or argumentation.

I agree completely that the original sins (there are many, including transformations, unbelievable performances, hiring doping enablers and doctors, lying about a great many things) cannot be undone. So there is little point in being transparent now, that's true. Of course the simple reality is that they can't be truly transparent, because of course they're doping and true transparency would simply be proof of and an admission of guilt.

"Full transparency" is not on the table. Not because it would prove nothing, but because it would prove everything.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

Sure fine yeah you must be right, I won't bring up that he had no elite coaching/infrastructure until 2010 and was irritating Team Sky by the fact they could see the talent and data to say he is great rider but he would be very inconsistent, which they found out in 2011 was due to a bacterial infection.

Schistosomiasis is not a bacterial infection, and Barloworld was not a total cycling backwater.

Meant parasite you knew what I meant and true but where would you rate their infrastructure/coaching levels for neo-pros?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

Sure fine yeah you must be right, I won't bring up that he had no elite coaching/infrastructure until 2010 and was irritating Team Sky by the fact they could see the talent and data to say he is great rider but he would be very inconsistent, which they found out in 2011 was due to a bacterial infection.

But, you just brought it up.

You can't train from 50-something place biology/genetics to top-3 on bread and water in a grand tour. No coach can fix that. Drugs fix that.

The whole blood borne illness thing has been thoroughly debunked at this point. He couldn't even keep his story straight.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Sure fine yeah you must be right, I won't bring up that he had no elite coaching/infrastructure until 2010 and was irritating Team Sky by the fact they could see the talent and data to say he is great rider but he would be very inconsistent, which they found out in 2011 was due to a bacterial infection.

If you haven't yet, you should familiarize yourself with this thread: viewtopic.php?t=21198

It deals in great length to the parasite Froome claims to have had. I don't have any reason to doubt that he had it, but I have no reason to believe it was the cause of the transformation, as you will see outlined in this thread. Multiple stories of when and how he contracted it, when and how it was treated, when and how it affected his performance, etc. He's lying about it, without question, as he can't keep his story straight. Worth a read.

 

[slim charles]

Re: Re:

full transparency and Froome back at 2008 climbing levels would be a good start.

Yes, because making any progress after the age of 23 is impossible.

Man, your SKY hate is strong. Yet your affection for Contador is still strong, care to elaborate? Doping is ok as long as it's your favorite rider who does it?

Progress is possible [at the age of 25], but when you progress from being mediocre to being the best ever, yes it is kind of suspicious. Don't get me wrong, performances like these would be suspicious even if Froome had a great career before [just like lot of people thought Contador's were], but he wasn't even as good as Roche or something like that.

Not arguing that his transformations isn't highly suspicious, just pointing out things I find funny. And sometimes I wonder how people here think. It's like people think it's impossible to improve without doping. Not talking about Froome now but as soon as someone starts doing better it's always doping. People seems to believe every damn cyclists is maximizing every possible parameter and thus no improvement can ever be expected since they are already operating at 100%. It's so naive.

But believing that there is a significant chance that a transformation like this, in a sport that pretty much every great champion was proven to be doping at some point, is due to suddenly being subjected to better coaches and stuff like that isn't naive?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

Set the guidelines beforehand by the looks of it along with USADA.

http://mmajunkie.com/2015/06/ufcs-new-drug-testing-possible-4-year-suspension-for-first-time-offenders

Yes, like the IOC sports. I'm lead to believe the UFC retains the authority to sanction athletes. There's a reason the phrase "never tested positive" has at least two meanings. The federation doesn't sanction all positives.

The bottom line is, If the UFC followed the WADA guidelines, then there is plenty of room for doping.

 

[Walkman]

Re: Re:

full transparency and Froome back at 2008 climbing levels would be a good start.

Yes, because making any progress after the age of 23 is impossible.

Man, your SKY hate is strong. Yet your affection for Contador is still strong, care to elaborate? Doping is ok as long as it's your favorite rider who does it?

Progress is possible [at the age of 25], but when you progress from being mediocre to being the best ever, yes it is kind of suspicious. Don't get me wrong, performances like these would be suspicious even if Froome had a great career before [just like lot of people thought Contador's were], but he wasn't even as good as Roche or something like that.

Not arguing that his transformations isn't highly suspicious, just pointing out things I find funny. And sometimes I wonder how people here think. It's like people think it's impossible to improve without doping. Not talking about Froome now but as soon as someone starts doing better it's always doping. People seems to believe every damn cyclists is maximizing every possible parameter and thus no improvement can ever be expected since they are already operating at 100%. It's so naive.

But believing that there is a significant chance that a transformation like this, in a sport that pretty much every great champion was proven to be doping at some point, is due to suddenly being subjected to better coaches and stuff like that isn't naive?

As, stated in my post, I was not talking about Froome.

 

[Melo]

@Walkman: You can improve doing it clean, but just to a point, then you'll need to dope to reach the high level in cycling because someone who's in the top surely does and doesn't matter how good you are at that moment, you can't beat someone who trains as hard, but also dopes.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Sure fine yeah you must be right, I won't bring up that he had no elite coaching/infrastructure until 2010 and was irritating Team Sky by the fact they could see the talent and data to say he is great rider but he would be very inconsistent, which they found out in 2011 was due to a bacterial infection.

Sky just suddenly decided that instead of getting rid of Froome after the 2011 Vuelta , they are going to give him a magic pill so he can become a good GT rider and challenge Wiggins before he had won a GT.

Not sure Froome was 'irritating' Sky. If he had good data why dont they release it?

The money that Sky have, why did they not want to wait if he had such talent? Why were they wanting rid of Froome?

The bacterial infection is unlikely to be true due to the amount of different versions there are from Froome.

No sure about magic pill after the Vuelta, it appeared he took loads before it!!!

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

Sure fine yeah you must be right, I won't bring up that he had no elite coaching/infrastructure until 2010 and was irritating Team Sky by the fact they could see the talent and data to say he is great rider but he would be very inconsistent, which they found out in 2011 was due to a bacterial infection.

Sky just suddenly decided that instead of getting rid of Froome after the 2011 Vuelta , they are going to give him a magic pill so he can become a good GT rider and challenge Wiggins before he had won a GT.

The magic pill that meant they also had to pay him ten times as much per year as well. Makes perfect business and sporting sense ...

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

full transparency and Froome back at 2008 climbing levels would be a good start.

Yes, because making any progress after the age of 23 is impossible.

Man, your SKY hate is strong. Yet your affection for Contador is still strong, care to elaborate? Doping is ok as long as it's your favorite rider who does it?

GT talent is not something that can trained for. Riders are born with an ability that their bodies recuperate. This is shown at a young age when riders ride races like Tour de l'avenir, Paris Nice etc and generally a 1st GT.

There is a difference to making progress and making a complete transformation. We have seen a number of riders on Sky make transformations. Wiggins, Froome and Thomas, all late to going from relatively no where to smashing people who have shown big talent and big doping.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

Sure fine yeah you must be right, I won't bring up that he had no elite coaching/infrastructure until 2010 and was irritating Team Sky by the fact they could see the talent and data to say he is great rider but he would be very inconsistent, which they found out in 2011 was due to a bacterial infection.

If you haven't yet, you should familiarize yourself with this thread: viewtopic.php?t=21198

It deals in great length to the parasite Froome claims to have had. I don't have any reason to doubt that he had it, but I have no reason to believe it was the cause of the transformation, as you will see outlined in this thread. Multiple stories of when and how he contracted it, when and how it was treated, when and how it affected his performance, etc. He's lying about it, without question, as he can't keep his story straight. Worth a read.

Almost fell of my chair, never I thought would see someone actually use links to support the facts they are using in the Clinic.

Whilst parts of the Froome story don't add up the guy who put up the links does contradict himself with the links, which if Froome does not clarify himself clearly (he isn't a doctor) can be seen to be him lying. E.G Where BroDeal says it should be a one off treatment not over 18 months. Froome says he goes once every 6 months, which is plausible as the link provided says the treatment is a single dose (one off) annually. It's a similar story with being off the bike for a week, which Froome doesn't go into detail about but is potentially true.

However if I was a journalist at the I would question why it would have taken Froome having a pill three times before the side affects wore off. And if I was Sky I would have would of got the Dr to explain the infection not the rider or Brailsford

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

Sure fine yeah you must be right, I won't bring up that he had no elite coaching/infrastructure until 2010 and was irritating Team Sky by the fact they could see the talent and data to say he is great rider but he would be very inconsistent, which they found out in 2011 was due to a bacterial infection.

Sky just suddenly decided that instead of getting rid of Froome after the 2011 Vuelta , they are going to give him a magic pill so he can become a good GT rider and challenge Wiggins before he had won a GT.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Froome went to the UCI's own development program for non Euro riders from 2006. Then he went to the world's best Div.2 team at the time, a team that won stages and contended for (and won) minor classifications at the Tour and Giro.

South Africa is NOT a cycling backwater either. They have turned out some fine riders such as Robbie Hunter and Daryl Impey and host the world's largest road sportive and one of the largest MTB stage races in the world. If infrastructure was such a huge setback for Froome, please explain the likes of Natnael Berhane, Daniel Teklehaimanot, Merhawi Kudus, Songhezo Jim and other very good African riders being uncovered, from far poorer communities and countries than Froome.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Froome was at UCI's World Cycling Centre. That is the definition of elite coaching / infrastructure.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

[quote="gazr99Sure fine yeah you must be right, I won't bring up that he had no elite coaching/infrastructure until 2010 and was irritating Team Sky by the fact they could see the talent and data to say he is great rider but he would be very inconsistent, which they found out in 2011 was due to a bacterial infection.

Sky just suddenly decided that instead of getting rid of Froome after the 2011 Vuelta , they are going to give him a magic pill so he can become a good GT rider and challenge Wiggins before he had won a GT.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Froome went to the UCI's own development program for non Euro riders from 2006. Then he went to the world's best Div.2 team at the time, a team that won stages and contended for (and won) minor classifications at the Tour and Giro.

South Africa is NOT a cycling backwater either. They have turned out some fine riders such as Robbie Hunter and Daryl Impey and host the world's largest road sportive and one of the largest MTB stage races in the world. If infrastructure was such a huge setback for Froome, please explain the likes of Natnael Berhane, Daniel Teklehaimanot, Merhawi Kudus, Songhezo Jim and other very good African riders being uncovered, from far poorer communities and countries than Froome.[/quote]

I thought he was there for about 5 months? He did win stages for them at 'B' level. My point is undoubtedly the best coaching he would of got would have been at Sky. My point is about lesser infrastructure meaning is he can't fulfil his full potential.

SA isn't the forerunner either. Talented riders like the ones you mentioned are going to be spotted as Froome was, doesn't mean they were fulfilling their potential. How many of them were junior champions and on the Tour de L'Avenir while based in Africa, a continent which is not historically known for putting money into cycling

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

Sure fine yeah you must be right, I won't bring up that he had no elite coaching/infrastructure until 2010 and was irritating Team Sky by the fact they could see the talent and data to say he is great rider but he would be very inconsistent, which they found out in 2011 was due to a bacterial infection.

Schistosomiasis is not a bacterial infection, and Barloworld was not a total cycling backwater.

Meant parasite you knew what I meant and true but where would you rate their infrastructure/coaching levels for neo-pros?

Lemond came out of cycling backwater with little to no infrastructure... Killing it by age 20. Most talented riders do. I remember one challenging race I did that had 200 meters climbing on a 9 km lap. A young guy in baggy shorts, riding an old 80's vintage Pinarello (6-speed downtube). Never really raced before. Sat on the front all day and won easily.

Talent shows. Early.

Froome did not show Lemond levels of talent prior to 2011 and even a cursory study of Schistosomiasis (Cambridge University - http://old-www.path.cam.ac.uk/~schisto/) would tell you that wasn't it. About a year ago I analyzed every single one of Froome's flat TT results to get an idea of how his FTP had changed. Literally overnight, starting with the Tour de Suisse in 2011 his FTP improved by ~15%. This is based on going from a steady top 25% placing at a deficit of 6 sec/km (first place) to consistent top 5% finish with no real deficit to the winners. In fact since TdS 2011 he has never had a "bad" TT that was anywhere near his best TT pre 2011. No steady progession. He turned on a switch and he's been "lit" ever since.

John Swanson

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

Sure fine yeah you must be right, I won't bring up that he had no elite coaching/infrastructure until 2010 and was irritating Team Sky by the fact they could see the talent and data to say he is great rider but he would be very inconsistent, which they found out in 2011 was due to a bacterial infection.

Sky just suddenly decided that instead of getting rid of Froome after the 2011 Vuelta , they are going to give him a magic pill so he can become a good GT rider and challenge Wiggins before he had won a GT.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Froome went to the UCI's own development program for non Euro riders from 2006. Then he went to the world's best Div.2 team at the time, a team that won stages and contended for (and won) minor classifications at the Tour and Giro.

South Africa is NOT a cycling backwater either. They have turned out some fine riders such as Robbie Hunter and Daryl Impey and host the world's largest road sportive and one of the largest MTB stage races in the world. If infrastructure was such a huge setback for Froome, please explain the likes of Natnael Berhane, Daniel Teklehaimanot, Merhawi Kudus, Songhezo Jim and other very good African riders being uncovered, from far poorer communities and countries than Froome.

He's from Kenya not SA. My point is about lesser infrastructure meaning he can't fulfil his full potential. Talented riders like the ones you mentioned are going to be spotted as Froome was, doesn't mean they were fulfilling their potential. How many of them were junior champions and on the Tour de L'Avenir while based in Africa, a continent which is not historically known for putting money into cycling

Daniel Teklehaimanot was already National Champ, 6th at L'Avenir and African Champ in all 3 disciplines as an U23 (RR, TT - 1st of 4 wins, TTT) by the time he moved to Europe full time as a stagiaire at Cervelo.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

Sure fine yeah you must be right, I won't bring up that he had no elite coaching/infrastructure until 2010 and was irritating Team Sky by the fact they could see the talent and data to say he is great rider but he would be very inconsistent, which they found out in 2011 was due to a bacterial infection.

Schistosomiasis is not a bacterial infection, and Barloworld was not a total cycling backwater.

Meant parasite you knew what I meant and true but where would you rate their infrastructure/coaching levels for neo-pros?

Lemond came out of cycling backwater with little to no infrastructure... Killing it by age 20. Most talented riders do. I remember one challenging race I did that had 200 meters climbing on a 9 km lap. A young guy in baggy shorts, riding an old 80's vintage Pinarello (6-speed downtube). Never really raced before. Sat on the front all day and won easily.

Talent shows. Early.

Froome did not show Lemond levels of talent prior to 2011 and even a cursory study of Schistosomiasis (Cambridge University - http://old-www.path.cam.ac.uk/~schisto/) would tell you that wasn't it. About a year ago I analyzed every single one of Froome's flat TT results to get an idea of how his FTP had changed. Literally overnight, starting with the Tour de Suisse in 2011 his FTP improved by ~15%. This is based on going from a steady top 25% placing at a deficit of 6 sec/km (first place) to consistent top 5% finish with no real deficit to the winners. In fact since TdS 2011 he has never had a "bad" TT that was anywhere near his best TT pre 2011. No steady progession. He turned on a switch and he's been "lit" ever since.

John Swanson

But he did show signs at the Commonwealth same level as he was by the the Vuelta no. I'm saying he is undoubtedly 100% clean, there are definitely odd things about him that don't make sense. But I'm also a strong believer that cycling isn't so special that late bloomers can't exist, when they can exist in other sports. If he had no talent whatsoever he would never have even been in the pro peleton at first

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

Sure fine yeah you must be right, I won't bring up that he had no elite coaching/infrastructure until 2010 and was irritating Team Sky by the fact they could see the talent and data to say he is great rider but he would be very inconsistent, which they found out in 2011 was due to a bacterial infection.

Schistosomiasis is not a bacterial infection, and Barloworld was not a total cycling backwater.

Meant parasite you knew what I meant and true but where would you rate their infrastructure/coaching levels for neo-pros?

Lemond came out of cycling backwater with little to no infrastructure... Killing it by age 20. Most talented riders do. I remember one challenging race I did that had 200 meters climbing on a 9 km lap. A young guy in baggy shorts, riding an old 80's vintage Pinarello (6-speed downtube). Never really raced before. Sat on the front all day and won easily.

Talent shows. Early.

Froome did not show Lemond levels of talent prior to 2011 and even a cursory study of Schistosomiasis (Cambridge University - http://old-www.path.cam.ac.uk/~schisto/) would tell you that wasn't it. About a year ago I analyzed every single one of Froome's flat TT results to get an idea of how his FTP had changed. Literally overnight, starting with the Tour de Suisse in 2011 his FTP improved by ~15%. This is based on going from a steady top 25% placing at a deficit of 6 sec/km (first place) to consistent top 5% finish with no real deficit to the winners. In fact since TdS 2011 he has never had a "bad" TT that was anywhere near his best TT pre 2011. No steady progession. He turned on a switch and he's been "lit" ever since.

John Swanson

But he did show signs at the Commonwealth same level as he was by the the Vuelta no. I'm saying he is undoubtedly 100% clean, there are definitely odd things about him that don't make sense. But I'm also a strong believer that cycling isn't so special that late bloomers can't exist, when they can exist in other sports. If he had no talent whatsoever he would never have even been in the pro peleton at first

No. At the Comm games he got his *** handed to him by Nathan O'Neill. A good TT'er, sure but not GT stage winning level by any means.

Edit: O'Neill won '06, St Millar won 2010

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Sure fine yeah you must be right, I won't bring up that he had no elite coaching/infrastructure until 2010 and was irritating Team Sky by the fact they could see the talent and data to say he is great rider but he would be very inconsistent, which they found out in 2011 was due to a bacterial infection.

Schistosomiasis is not a bacterial infection, and Barloworld was not a total cycling backwater.

Meant parasite you knew what I meant and true but where would you rate their infrastructure/coaching levels for neo-pros?

Lemond came out of cycling backwater with little to no infrastructure... Killing it by age 20. Most talented riders do. I remember one challenging race I did that had 200 meters climbing on a 9 km lap. A young guy in baggy shorts, riding an old 80's vintage Pinarello (6-speed downtube). Never really raced before. Sat on the front all day and won easily.

Talent shows. Early.

Froome did not show Lemond levels of talent prior to 2011 and even a cursory study of Schistosomiasis (Cambridge University - http://old-www.path.cam.ac.uk/~schisto/) would tell you that wasn't it. About a year ago I analyzed every single one of Froome's flat TT results to get an idea of how his FTP had changed. Literally overnight, starting with the Tour de Suisse in 2011 his FTP improved by ~15%. This is based on going from a steady top 25% placing at a deficit of 6 sec/km (first place) to consistent top 5% finish with no real deficit to the winners. In fact since TdS 2011 he has never had a "bad" TT that was anywhere near his best TT pre 2011. No steady progession. He turned on a switch and he's been "lit" ever since.

John Swanson

But he did show signs at the Commonwealth same level as he was by the the Vuelta no. I'm saying he is undoubtedly 100% clean, there are definitely odd things about him that don't make sense. But I'm also a strong believer that cycling isn't so special that late bloomers can't exist, when they can exist in other sports. If he had no talent whatsoever he would never have even been in the pro peleton at first

Comparing the commonwealth to La Vuelta, seriously? no i mean, seriously????

If late bloomers can exist, then you should be able to point to a few

As John Swanson puts it Froome didn't bloom. He flicked a switch at '11Vuelta , kapow! Kaboom! Zap!

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

Froome did not show Lemond levels of talent prior to 2011 and even a cursory study of Schistosomiasis (Cambridge University - http://old-www.path.cam.ac.uk/~schisto/) would tell you that wasn't it. About a year ago I analyzed every single one of Froome's flat TT results to get an idea of how his FTP had changed. Literally overnight, starting with the Tour de Suisse in 2011 his FTP improved by ~15%. This is based on going from a steady top 25% placing at a deficit of 6 sec/km (first place) to consistent top 5% finish with no real deficit to the winners. In fact since TdS 2011 he has never had a "bad" TT that was anywhere near his best TT pre 2011. No steady progession. He turned on a switch and he's been "lit" ever since.

John Swanson

That's an increase in power that's hard to explain WITH dope. It's that good.

How does one explain it without the dope? Nigh on impossible.