• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

The most alien jumps ever

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 20, 2012
4,238
0
0
Re:

Valv.Piti said:
I dont really think this was the point of the thread.

I have read through some of the comments and I think sniper has made it clear that what he was looking for was those Cancellara and Froome-type attacks, seating, on a steep gradient, seemingly easily riding away. The point is not they were doping, but something far more sinister (I dont have any problem with doping really, but mechanical help is despicable). Landa closing all the attack on a 8% steep gradient to some good, but not great climbers such as Fuglsang, Bardet and Pozzovivo barely is comparable to Cancellara dropping Boonen like a stone, seated, on 20%, easily, and opening a gap at 250 metres at least over the top, just like that, 20 seconds or so. Just listen to the commentators. They are amazed, stunned and in disbelief - the kind of feeling 'what the hell was that - is he just that much better, or..' That obviously also was what sparked the debate and given the rumours and the documentary, it seems more likely that it indeed WAS a motor. At least compared to 2010 when you probably had been ridiculed, now its not that much of a far-fetched thought.
Good point, but Tom was very clear on this matter last wednesday on Extra Time Koers: no proof, shut up about it.

Given this, it IS interesting who is going to have less results in the near future now UCI are really interested in moto dopings...
 
May 14, 2010
4,833
2
0
Re: Re:

Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Valv.Piti said:
I dont really think this was the point of the thread.

I have read through some of the comments and I think sniper has made it clear that what he was looking for was those Cancellara and Froome-type attacks, seating, on a steep gradient, seemingly easily riding away. The point is not they were doping, but something far more sinister (I dont have any problem with doping really, but mechanical help is despicable). Landa closing all the attack on a 8% steep gradient to some good, but not great climbers such as Fuglsang, Bardet and Pozzovivo barely is comparable to Cancellara dropping Boonen like a stone, seated, on 20%, easily, and opening a gap at 250 metres at least over the top, just like that, 20 seconds or so. Just listen to the commentators. They are amazed, stunned and in disbelief - the kind of feeling 'what the hell was that - is he just that much better, or..' That obviously also was what sparked the debate and given the rumours and the documentary, it seems more likely that it indeed WAS a motor. At least compared to 2010 when you probably had been ridiculed, now its not that much of a far-fetched thought.
Good point, but Tom was very clear on this matter last wednesday on Extra Time Koers: no proof, shut up about it.

Given this, it IS interesting who is going to have less results in the near future now UCI are really interested in moto dopings...
So who says they are really interested?
 
Apr 3, 2011
1,837
0
0
Re: Re:

Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Valv.Piti said:
I dont really think this was the point of the thread.

I have read through some of the comments and I think sniper has made it clear that what he was looking for was those Cancellara and Froome-type attacks, seating, on a steep gradient, seemingly easily riding away. The point is not they were doping, but something far more sinister (I dont have any problem with doping really, but mechanical help is despicable). Landa closing all the attack on a 8% steep gradient to some good, but not great climbers such as Fuglsang, Bardet and Pozzovivo barely is comparable to Cancellara dropping Boonen like a stone, seated, on 20%, easily, and opening a gap at 250 metres at least over the top, just like that, 20 seconds or so. Just listen to the commentators. They are amazed, stunned and in disbelief - the kind of feeling 'what the hell was that - is he just that much better, or..' That obviously also was what sparked the debate and given the rumours and the documentary, it seems more likely that it indeed WAS a motor. At least compared to 2010 when you probably had been ridiculed, now its not that much of a far-fetched thought.
Good point, but Tom was very clear on this matter last wednesday on Extra Time Koers: no proof, shut up about it.

Given this, it IS interesting who is going to have less results in the near future now UCI are really interested in moto dopings...
Well, you know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Looks like Tommeke does not want to launch his inner Landis (at least not while on active duty).
 
Mar 14, 2016
2,400
1
0
Can we stop pretending mechanical doping is any worse than "regular" doping? The end result is the same in both: the cheating rider fraudulently takes victory away from the rightful winner.
 
Re: Re:

Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Valv.Piti said:
I dont really think this was the point of the thread.

I have read through some of the comments and I think sniper has made it clear that what he was looking for was those Cancellara and Froome-type attacks, seating, on a steep gradient, seemingly easily riding away. The point is not they were doping, but something far more sinister (I dont have any problem with doping really, but mechanical help is despicable). Landa closing all the attack on a 8% steep gradient to some good, but not great climbers such as Fuglsang, Bardet and Pozzovivo barely is comparable to Cancellara dropping Boonen like a stone, seated, on 20%, easily, and opening a gap at 250 metres at least over the top, just like that, 20 seconds or so. Just listen to the commentators. They are amazed, stunned and in disbelief - the kind of feeling 'what the hell was that - is he just that much better, or..' That obviously also was what sparked the debate and given the rumours and the documentary, it seems more likely that it indeed WAS a motor. At least compared to 2010 when you probably had been ridiculed, now its not that much of a far-fetched thought.
Good point, but Tom was very clear on this matter last wednesday on Extra Time Koers: no proof, shut up about it.

Given this, it IS interesting who is going to have less results in the near future now UCI are really interested in moto dopings...
I missed this, did Tom say he did not think Canc doped in that 2010?
 
Aug 2, 2012
4,219
1
0
Re:

CheckMyPecs said:
Can we stop pretending mechanical doping is any worse than "regular" doping? The end result is the same in both: the cheating rider fraudulently takes victory away from the rightful winner.
but it's like ..bringing a gun...to...a fisticuffs.....

Mark L
 
May 14, 2010
4,833
2
0
Re:

CheckMyPecs said:
Can we stop pretending mechanical doping is any worse than "regular" doping? The end result is the same in both: the cheating rider fraudulently takes victory away from the rightful winner.
Okay, I'll make a deal with you. Take the next year off work. I'll pay. Spend the year with a coach, training as hard and smart as you can. Go to your anti-aging doc. (Visit Frank Schleck's gynecologist, too, for "training plans", just to be sure.) Better yet, consult with Doctor Ferrari. Dope as much as you want.

Me, I'll train as I feel like it, enjoy life, go to the beach, and follow the Chris Horner training diet (Burger King and burritos).

At the end of that year let's meet at the foot of Col du Galibier, north or south, you trained and taut like a spring and doped to a fare-thee-well, on your standard racing bike; and me, tan and happy like Pappy, on my motorbike. We'll race to the top and see who's the superior cyclist. Let me know if you're game.
 
Re: Re:

Maxiton said:
CheckMyPecs said:
Can we stop pretending mechanical doping is any worse than "regular" doping? The end result is the same in both: the cheating rider fraudulently takes victory away from the rightful winner.
Okay, I'll make a deal with you. Take the next year off work. I'll pay. Spend the year with a coach, training as hard and smart as you can. Go to your anti-aging doc. (Visit Frank Schleck's gynecologist, too, for "training plans", just to be sure.) Better yet, consult with Doctor Ferrari. Dope as much as you want.

Me, I'll train as I feel like it, enjoy life, go to the beach, and follow the Chris Horner training diet (Burger King and burritos).

At the end of that year let's meet at the foot of Col du Galibier, north or south, you trained and taut like a spring and doped to a fare-thee-well, on your standard racing bike; and me, tan and happy like Pappy, on my motorbike. We'll race to the top and see who's the superior cyclist. Let me know if you're game.
Sorry, bad analogy. The riders we are talking about are highly trained professionals whose ability is separated by very small percentages. Whether one is doped up to get that small edge to win or use a motor for the small edge is just the same.
 
May 14, 2010
4,833
2
0
Re: Re:

veganrob said:
Maxiton said:
CheckMyPecs said:
Can we stop pretending mechanical doping is any worse than "regular" doping? The end result is the same in both: the cheating rider fraudulently takes victory away from the rightful winner.
Okay, I'll make a deal with you. Take the next year off work. I'll pay. Spend the year with a coach, training as hard and smart as you can. Go to your anti-aging doc. (Visit Frank Schleck's gynecologist, too, for "training plans", just to be sure.) Better yet, consult with Doctor Ferrari. Dope as much as you want.

Me, I'll train as I feel like it, enjoy life, go to the beach, and follow the Chris Horner training diet (Burger King and burritos).

At the end of that year let's meet at the foot of Col du Galibier, north or south, you trained and taut like a spring and doped to a fare-thee-well, on your standard racing bike; and me, tan and happy like Pappy, on my motorbike. We'll race to the top and see who's the superior cyclist. Let me know if you're game.
Sorry, bad analogy. The riders we are talking about are highly trained professionals whose ability is separated by very small percentages. Whether one is doped up to get that small edge to win or use a motor for the small edge is just the same.
No, it isn't the same. There is a qualitative difference between motive force produced by human physiology, doped or no, and that produced by electro-mechanical means.

If my analogy doesn't quite get this across, let's clone Lance Armstrong. We'll call the pair LA I and LA II.

LA I takes the position of CheckMyPecs in the above scenario, trained, taut, doped on a road bike. LA II takes my position, happy Pappy on a motorbike. They race to the top of Col du Galibier. Is it a contest? Is it bicycle racing?
 
Re: Re:

veganrob said:
Maxiton said:
CheckMyPecs said:
Can we stop pretending mechanical doping is any worse than "regular" doping? The end result is the same in both: the cheating rider fraudulently takes victory away from the rightful winner.
Okay, I'll make a deal with you. Take the next year off work. I'll pay. Spend the year with a coach, training as hard and smart as you can. Go to your anti-aging doc. (Visit Frank Schleck's gynecologist, too, for "training plans", just to be sure.) Better yet, consult with Doctor Ferrari. Dope as much as you want.

Me, I'll train as I feel like it, enjoy life, go to the beach, and follow the Chris Horner training diet (Burger King and burritos).

At the end of that year let's meet at the foot of Col du Galibier, north or south, you trained and taut like a spring and doped to a fare-thee-well, on your standard racing bike; and me, tan and happy like Pappy, on my motorbike. We'll race to the top and see who's the superior cyclist. Let me know if you're game.
Sorry, bad analogy. The riders we are talking about are highly trained professionals whose ability is separated by very small percentages. Whether one is doped up to get that small edge to win or use a motor for the small edge is just the same.
Doping adds up to 200 watts of power for up to one hour on a mountain stage?

I'll answer that, no it doesn't.

They're not the same, motors are by far a superior advantage to even a rider doped to the gills.

How can anyone not see that?

A motor is not a "small edge".
 
Re: Re:

Irondan said:
veganrob said:
Maxiton said:
CheckMyPecs said:
Can we stop pretending mechanical doping is any worse than "regular" doping? The end result is the same in both: the cheating rider fraudulently takes victory away from the rightful winner.
Okay, I'll make a deal with you. Take the next year off work. I'll pay. Spend the year with a coach, training as hard and smart as you can. Go to your anti-aging doc. (Visit Frank Schleck's gynecologist, too, for "training plans", just to be sure.) Better yet, consult with Doctor Ferrari. Dope as much as you want.

Me, I'll train as I feel like it, enjoy life, go to the beach, and follow the Chris Horner training diet (Burger King and burritos).

At the end of that year let's meet at the foot of Col du Galibier, north or south, you trained and taut like a spring and doped to a fare-thee-well, on your standard racing bike; and me, tan and happy like Pappy, on my motorbike. We'll race to the top and see who's the superior cyclist. Let me know if you're game.
Sorry, bad analogy. The riders we are talking about are highly trained professionals whose ability is separated by very small percentages. Whether one is doped up to get that small edge to win or use a motor for the small edge is just the same.
Doping adds up to 200 watts of power for up to one hour on a mountain stage?

I'll answer that, no it doesn't.

They're not the same, motors are by far a superior advantage to even a rider doped to the gills.

How can anyone not see that?

A motor is not a "small edge".
Horner was not on a motor bike. See that?
 
May 14, 2010
4,833
2
0
Re: Re:

veganrob said:
Irondan said:
veganrob said:
Maxiton said:
CheckMyPecs said:
Can we stop pretending mechanical doping is any worse than "regular" doping? The end result is the same in both: the cheating rider fraudulently takes victory away from the rightful winner.
Okay, I'll make a deal with you. Take the next year off work. I'll pay. Spend the year with a coach, training as hard and smart as you can. Go to your anti-aging doc. (Visit Frank Schleck's gynecologist, too, for "training plans", just to be sure.) Better yet, consult with Doctor Ferrari. Dope as much as you want.

Me, I'll train as I feel like it, enjoy life, go to the beach, and follow the Chris Horner training diet (Burger King and burritos).

At the end of that year let's meet at the foot of Col du Galibier, north or south, you trained and taut like a spring and doped to a fare-thee-well, on your standard racing bike; and me, tan and happy like Pappy, on my motorbike. We'll race to the top and see who's the superior cyclist. Let me know if you're game.
Sorry, bad analogy. The riders we are talking about are highly trained professionals whose ability is separated by very small percentages. Whether one is doped up to get that small edge to win or use a motor for the small edge is just the same.
Doping adds up to 200 watts of power for up to one hour on a mountain stage?

I'll answer that, no it doesn't.

They're not the same, motors are by far a superior advantage to even a rider doped to the gills.

How can anyone not see that?

A motor is not a "small edge".
Horner was not on a motor bike. See that?
Horner is immaterial here. Start over. Try again. :rolleyes:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts