Voeckler doping?

[Roninho]

That's easy. Firstly, he hasn't had to defend yellow in the mountains the last few years. Whenever he has had to do that, in 2004 and this year, he has shown him self able to climb respectably well.

All i am saying is that TV is clearly capable of finishing up with the best, and he did it during 2 stages. It wasn't like in 04 when he gave his all and still finished way out of the top 10, losing as little time as possible. That was climbing respectably well, but this year everybody except 5 riders are losing time on him in the mountains. That's not climbing reasonably well, that is being one of the best. I can understand that he isn't interested in finishing 17th and wasting energy which he could better use in a breakway.

However we are not talking about finishing 17th, we are talking about a guy who finishes with the best climbers. Even without the breakaway he is having a top 5-top 10 GC form. In this form and without the yellow jersey he could actually have done what Sanchez and Vanendert did succesfully: Hang on till less then 10 riders are left and attack for the win because the others don't see you as a contender.

And sowehow, even with these legs we havn't seen him do anything else then attack on a selected stage in the past couple of years. I mean a rider must feel that he is having great legs, and you don't just stay in the grupetto when you have the legs as one of the ten best riders. I cannot believe a 30+year old rider can get these superlegs out of nothing, so to me it seems like he didn't have these legs in the past 2 years because otherwise we would have seen him do a vanendert during the tdf, dauphine or some other respected mountain stage. Especially a guy like voeckler who always wants to go for it.

The answer to your second question is that no amount of EPO or whatever could make me a quick climber. Think about it. All those riders have an underlying level of talent...and there have been new unexpected faces.

Ehm, that implies that everybody was on dope, and now we just see the same guys with less dope doing a bit slower pace. Unless you think that EPO does not have a big effect. So everybody is using less, and everybody is still in the same relative distance to the other. Except for Voeckler, who apparently was one of the few clean riders?

Perhaps when Voeckler gets blows up and gets dropped this week, he can go back to being presumed clean.

What's the for?

 

[armchairclimber]

All i am saying is that TV is clearly capable of finishing up with the best, and he did it during 2 stages. It wasn't like in 04 when he gave his all and still finished way out of the top 10, losing as little time as possible. That was climbing respectably well, but this year everybody except 5 riders are losing time on him in the mountains. That's not climbing reasonably well, that is being one of the best. I can understand that he isn't interested in finishing 17th and wasting energy which he could better use in a breakway.

However we are not talking about finishing 17th, we are talking about a guy who finishes with the best climbers. Even without the breakaway he is having a top 5-top 10 GC form. In this form and without the yellow jersey he could actually have done what Sanchez and Vanendert did succesfully: Hang on till less then 10 riders are left and attack for the win because the others don't see you as a contender.

And sowehow, even with these legs we havn't seen him do anything else then attack on a selected stage in the past couple of years. I mean a rider must feel that he is having great legs, and you don't just stay in the grupetto when you have the legs as one of the ten best riders. I cannot believe a 30+year old rider can get these superlegs out of nothing, so to me it seems like he didn't have these legs in the past 2 years because otherwise we would have seen him do a vanendert during the tdf, dauphine or some other respected mountain stage. Especially a guy like voeckler who always wants to go for it.

Ehm, that implies that everybody was on dope, and now we just see the same guys with less dope doing a bit slower pace. Unless you think that EPO does not have a big effect. So everybody is using less, and everybody is still in the same relative distance to the other. Except for Voeckler, who apparently was one of the few clean riders?


What's the for?

They're for you. I couldn't find the clown smiley.

 

[perico]

His estimation. But cycling exist longer than him.

So it´s qualified BS.

The pu$$y stage all had to do with the Schlecks unwilling to race. No more, no less, and that´s the reason TV is still in yellow.

I think after all Dr. Maserati found, wrote, linked to documents, we can safely say blood doping wasn´t there in 1987, nor was EPO. But what we saw was a rider with HEART and GUTS who GAVE IT ALL. That´s RACING. His name is S.Roche.

I would accept the above nonsense post if any of the "contenders" were at least close to be as exhausted as S.Roche in 1987. But instead i saw a pu$$y "attacking" for milliseconds, even tough creating a gap but then riding zig zag (almost backwards) to let the gap close again. It had nothing to do with doped/not doped. It was just cowards unwilling to ride in front and/or attack. Or how you explain that inches away from the finish line the biggest coward Schleck still had enough power to launch a real attack?

Yesterday was like the "Shame of Gijon". Worse than any doped performance i ever saw (since 1980). I am still nauseated.

And now you guys try to spoil the name of TV, only because he was the only one going to the limit and trying to race. Disgusting, folks.

This one made me chuckle... nah, it almost made me spit out me soft drink onto my keyboard from laughter.

Considering that Roche was said in a court of law to have undoubtedly used EPO his last years as a pro, then I have the sneaking suspicion that he may have dabbled in the other sauces available throughout his career.

The 1987 Tour de France winner was administered the drug in 1993, his last year in the peloton, according to the files. The files also give a number of aliases for Roche and many of the athletes named. Roche is also referred to as Rocchi, Rossi, Rocca, Roncati, Righi and Rossini. It is understood that Professor Conconi was experimenting to find a test to identify the use of EPO by athletes and that in 1993 he presented a report to the International Olympic Council (IOC) on his findings. The IOC backed this research, which Conconi claimed was conducted using 23 amateur athletes all of whom had given written consent. It has now emerged however that test results for Roche and his fellow elite athletes match those presented by Conconi in his report to the IOC.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/0109/sport.html

2004 saw the publication of a judge's report which rocked the cycling world when the Italian judge concerned Judge Franca Oliva alleged that Stephen Roche, among other top cyclists, had used the banned substance EPO. The comments occurred during a court case relating to claims that Dr Giovanni Grazzi, a doctor at Roche's Carrera team in 1993, had administered EPO to a number of members of the team, including Roche.

Under the statute of limitations neither Roche, his Carrera team-mates, nor the team doctor were ever prosecuted under Italian law. Roche has vehemently denied ever taking performance enhancing drugs and has never tested positive.

http://www.rte.ie/tv/20moments/moment_00s_stephen_roche.html

The judge’s verdict is unequivocal.

Roche was one of 33 athletes, mostly cyclists, who were given EPO in 1993. He claims he could not have been given it without his knowledge and did not knowingly take it. The evidence undermined his denials and Judge Oliva’s conclusions are not a surprise.

...

Conconi listed the subject’s name, sex, sport and the date upon which the analysis was made. There was also a column that indicated whether or not the athlete was treated with EPO. On different occasions in relation to Roche, the answer was “S”, as in “Si”, Italian for yes. Conconi’s test tried to identify the rate of erythropoiesis and concentrated on the level of transferrin receptor. Anything over 3.1, suggested Conconi, would indicate the use of synthetic EPO. Roche is listed with a level of 5.5, the fifth-highest of the 23 athletes used in the study.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/article1052710.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

 

[Maxiton]

This one made me chuckle... nah, it almost made me spit out me soft drink onto my keyboard from laughter.

Considering that Roche was said in a court of law to have undoubtedly used EPO his last years as a pro, then I have the sneaking suspicion that he may have dabbled in the other sauces available throughout his career.

Well, there you are. Even better. Cheers, mate.

 

[MacRoadie]

"Thomas Voeckler is climbing with the best riders in the sport" is rapidly becoming the replacement for "Armstrong's heart is three times the size of an average one" as the biggest pile of horse**** in cycling.

As we need to do every couple of pages, once again I'll remind everyone that the contenders will likely drop Tommy once they start actually riding LIKE contenders. Just because your name is Shleck or Contador doesn't mean you automatically go up every col at warp 6. Plateau de Baille being a perfect example.

 

[roundabout]

Climbing like that Tommy would have probably been top-10 in the last Tour.

He was not.

 

[Hinault en jaune]

I think it's unfair to accuse someone just because he's doing well. After all he did lose time on Luz Ardiden, and the favorites were extremely passive on Plateau de Beille. I still believe Voeckler is a clean rider (as long as he doesn't beat Cancellara in the time trial.)

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Really? I thought cycling began and ended with LA.

This is Voeckler's 9th or 10th Tour. He's been strong in the past, most notably in the 2004 Tour when he held the Maillot Jaune against Lance Armstrong until the race reached the Alps. This Tour, however, is the first time he has ever put himself into contention against the true "heads of state" with the real possibility of winning. So it's only natural that people question this performance and ask how it is achieved (especially given the prevalence of doping in the sport). It was my contention, in the post you were responding to, that Voeckler is racing clean, in a peloton that is much cleaner than in the past.

This forum is known for its general dislike for all things Armstrong, and its advocacy of dope-free racing. Armstrong's claim (implied in many interviews and elsewhere) is that pro cycling is entertainment, and that without medical assistance (i.e. doping) performances will be lackluster and not very entertaining. I was pointing out that on the very forums where people disparage doping and Armstrong, people are complaining that the racing of a cleaner peloton is lackluster and not very entertaining - just as Armstrong said they would.

As to Stephen Roche being the standard for all things glorious and clean in pro cycling - give me a break. While oxygen-vector doping wasn't yet developed in his time, they were doped up on everything else under the sun, and the testing was a joke. Yes, they rode bravely and like maniacs, often giving new meaning to the word exhaustion. That kind of racing - and that kind of doping - was all they knew.

Today's peloton - or at least its main GC contenders - only know racing with today's drugs and protocols - which are definitely more effective than in Roche's time. Over the past three or four years - that is, since the introduction of the biopassport - racing has begun to change. As of this Tour it has changed further. Perhaps the riding will become more entertaining as the riders get used to riding more au naturel. (Also, maybe traditional parcourse will need to be adjusted.)

The graph below shows test samples from the Tour, beginning in 2001. The light and dark green areas indicate EPO use. The pink and purple areas indicate blood doping. The royal blue line indicates the introduction of EPO testing. The red line represents the introduction of the biopassport.

It will be interesting to see the results from 2011 on this graph. Perhaps there will be yet another line, this one indicating the extra scrutiny given to Contador's sample last year. (The one that revealed his love of Spanish beef.)

The graph is from an article in The Science of Sport, a blog probably familiar to regular readers of the Clinic. In an article called Tour de France: Post-Pyrenees state of the race they had this to say about the Plateau de Beille stage:

"It's been a long, long time since I've seen such large groups on HC climbs at the end of Tour stages. The group was 24-strong at 4km gone, and there were 13 men battling it out only 4km from the summit of a finishing climb in the Tour de France (has it ever happened?). The days of brutally hard tempo riding from the start of the climb, eliminating all but two or three rivals, seem a distant memory.

"When you think about it logically, you would expect large groups because a) the differences between riders at this level should small at only a few
percent, and b) there is a drafting benefit that is equal to or larger than the natural performance differences between riders at that, even on the
climbs at relatively slower speeds of about 20km/hour. This is what helps the peloton stay together so that 180 men can finish flat stages together,
and I dare suggest it's normal for climbs to have so many men together, especially in the first mountain range because the cumulative fatigue effect is so much smaller."

And in a later article called Tour de France: The Biological Passport Context they had this to say:

. . . "when the climbing times are down, when the power outputs drop, when the physiological implications of those power outputs are suddenly
'credible' based on what we know about physiological capacity, when the racing is more conservative, when attacks are less frequent, when groups are more bunched, my interpretation is that the sport is moving in a positive direction. [i.e., less doping]"

Lastly, permit me to respectfully suggest that you learn to read and comprehend before posting, or don't bother posting at all.

I read that article too. And then i asked SS a Q. How in the world did something like this happen?

Quote of my Post there:
"Ok, i like the analyzation.
But one big question isn´t answered. You said the days of 6.4 W/KG are gone. Thus leading to bigger groups at HC-Climbs.

How you explain then the MEGA gaps pre EPO/Extra-Blood in the 70´s or 80´s ?

I assume the W/KG also were at around 5.8. But still there was separation.

Example: (there are hundreds of stage outcomes like this pre 1989/1990 !!)
Stage 18, TdF 1984, Bourg d´Oisans-LaPlagne (185 km, 3 HC-Climbs, MTF)
1. Fignon 6.12.45
2. Grezet + 1.04
3. Lemond + 1.07
4. Delgado + 1.27
5. Millar + 1.44
6. Simon + 2.12
7. Kelly+ 2.30
8. Munoz + 2.33
9. Criquiellion + 2.45
10.Hinalt + 2.58 (!!!)

Fignon was not alone at the next to last climb, since Delgado led at La Madeleine."

????

 

[poupou]

Climbing like that Tommy would have probably been top-10 in the last Tour.

He was not.

He has not reason to give all in mountain last year, he had targeted stage win, and was not wearing the leader jersey. So he kept energy for the other stages

 

[Roninho]

I read that article too. And then i asked SS a Q. How in the world did something like this happen?

Quote of my Post there:
"Ok, i like the analyzation.
But one big question isn´t answered. You said the days of 6.4 W/KG are gone. Thus leading to bigger groups at HC-Climbs.

How you explain then the MEGA gaps pre EPO/Extra-Blood in the 70´s or 80´s ?

I assume the W/KG also were at around 5.8. But still there was separation.

Example: (there are hundreds of stage outcomes like this pre 1989/1990 !!)
Stage 18, TdF 1984, Bourg d´Oisans-LaPlagne (185 km, 3 HC-Climbs, MTF)
1. Fignon 6.12.45
2. Grezet + 1.04
3. Lemond + 1.07
4. Delgado + 1.27
5. Millar + 1.44
6. Simon + 2.12
7. Kelly+ 2.30
8. Munoz + 2.33
9. Criquiellion + 2.45
10.Hinalt + 2.58 (!!!)

Fignon was not alone at the next to last climb, since Delgado led at La Madeleine."

????

Two possible explanations i can think of are:
- bigger cycling population: In the old days riders from france, belgium and holland had years in which they dominated the sport. Nowadays way more countries are involved. If you have 10.000 kids cycling you may end up with 1 TDF winner, 5 guys going for a GQ and 100 domestiques. When you have 30.000 kids you might only have2 or 3 guys talented enough to go for a TDF win, but 15 guys going for a GQ.
- better training and (non-doping) preparation: if you look at soccer the speed of (and strength of the players in) the game has increased so much, it isn't even comparable to the 60's and 70's. The talent level is probably not higher, it is simply due to better technique and training methods (due to way more experience in training methods). The same could apply to cycling.

 

[Roninho]

They're for you. I couldn't find the clown smiley.

Classy. Can't discuss so insult.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

This one made me chuckle... nah, it almost made me spit out me soft drink onto my keyboard from laughter.

Considering that Roche was said in a court of law to have undoubtedly used EPO his last years as a pro, then I have the sneaking suspicion that he may have dabbled in the other sauces available throughout his career.

This one made me chuckle even more... nah, it almost made me spit out my fish meal of yesterday onto my keyboard from laughter.

I talked about 1987 , not 1993. Or do you compare the pre 1997-Armstrong with the 1999+ Armstrong? Think before you post.

You should have noticed i took a stage w/exhausted riders pre the Epo-Era.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Two possible explanations i can think of are:
- bigger cycling population: In the old days riders from france, belgium and holland had years in which they dominated the sport. Nowadays way more countries are involved. If you have 10.000 kids cycling you may end up with 1 TDF winner, 5 guys going for a GQ and 100 domestiques. When you have 30.000 kids you might only have2 or 3 guys talented enough to go for a TDF win, but 15 guys going for a GQ.
- better training and (non-doping) preparation: if you look at soccer the speed of (and strength of the players in) the game has increased so much, it isn't even comparable to the 60's and 70's. The talent level is probably not higher, it is simply due to better technique and training methods (due to way more experience in training methods). The same could apply to cycling.

That might be true. SS gave a similar explanation to my post. But it doesn´t explain groups of single riders pre-Epo vs. groups of 24 riders nowadays. The talent pool didn´t grew that big.

Unless some better ideas come up, it must be that the top riders didn´t gave it all, thus TV was hanging on. I mean it was sooo obvious.

And i bet any stage w/o Schleck and/or 2009-Armstrong has the (almost) same separation as it was in the 70/80s. Or another reason could be: Since the stages got shorter, hills got less, separation don´t show up full (Fignon in his book).

Anyway, full doped/micro doped/not doped: You still have some sort of separation due to dayliy form and talent distribution out left on a bell curve. The line gets very thin there.

So back to the original TV-Q: No Voeckler is not doping more, better or less than before. It´s the fault of the contenders to actually race.

 

[armchairclimber]

Classy. Can't discuss so insult.

It wasn't really for you. Well, not just for you anyway. I was just moved to sarcasm by the whole caboodle.

If you want to reason, answer this question: if Voeckler is unable to follow the GC contenders up those really big hills later this week, and loses buckets of time, will you be declaring him clean? Or, at the very least, be hinting vaguely at his cleanliness?

 

[perico]

This one made me chuckle even more... nah, it almost made me spit out my fish meal of yesterday onto my keyboard from laughter.

I talked about 1987 , not 1993. Or do you compare the pre 1997-Armstrong with the 1999+ Armstrong? Think before you post.

You should have noticed i took a stage w/exhausted riders pre the Epo-Era.

Uhh... as I stated, just because he was not on EPO in 1987 does not mean he was clean. Were he susceptable to using drugs in 1993, what evidence is there that he wasn't on other drugs on the stage to La Plagne in 1987? What he did was an extraordinary effort, and to say it was on bread and water is a little ridiculous, if you consider that in those days, drug tests were much inferior to those of today's standards.

 

[Mambo95]

That might be true. SS gave a similar explanation to my post. But it doesn´t explain groups of single riders pre-Epo vs. groups of 24 riders nowadays. The talent pool didn´t grew that big.

Unless some better ideas come up, it must be that the top riders didn´t gave it all, thus TV was hanging on. I mean it was sooo obvious.

It's not the talent pool across the whole of cycling that needs to be examined, but the talent pool that turns up to the Tour and the make up of the teams. Back then the Tour wasn't the monster it is now. Not everyone bothered with it.

Take the 1984 Tour that you cited. Have a look at the start list. First of all where are the Italians? They haven't bothered. One team with no real big names (Moser, Saronni etc). There are also no teams with a big international mix. They are generally made up of riders from their own country.

Now look at the actual stage you cited and which teams the riders ride for. Of the top 17 on that stage there 5 Skil, 3 Renault, 3 Teka, 2 Reynolds and 2 La Vie Claire (3 French teams, 2 Spanish). The other 12 teams get one rider up there between them. By contrast on stage 14 this year, the top 17 came from 15 different teams.

This causes different dynamics to the racing. If Contador attacked 100km from the finish, seven or eight teams would send riders (from twenty different countries) to the front to chase him down - and all those teams have three or four riders capable of doing a job. He would fail.
However, when Hinault did it, someone like Fignon (who would have been riding with the equivalent of a modern day FdJ) may have had two riders capable of chasing and only a maximum of three teams willing to help, so the best option was for the leaders to counter immediately and chase themselves.
This caused the peloton to fracture far earlier than today.

Globalization and EPO changed this dynamic, over time.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Uhh... as I stated, just because he was not on EPO in 1987 does not mean he was clean. Were he susceptable to using drugs in 1993, what evidence is there that he wasn't on other drugs on the stage to La Plagne in 1987? What he did was an extraordinary effort, and to say it was on bread and water is a little ridiculous, if you consider that in those days, drug tests were much inferior to those of today's standards.

Did i ever wrote that a single rider other than Mottet, Bassons and Dion was on bread and water? Please show me that post.

Again: Roche gave it all in that 1987 maximum performance, be it on ampethamins, pot belge or whatever. Still he did not ride like Schleck on Saturday. He was truly exhausted. If something close to that happened on saturday, three things would have happened: TV loosing yellow, no discussion of his doping/non-doping, Schleck securing his first TdF-Victory, separation of the front group. To sum it up: We would have witnessed racing instead of riding zig-zag/almost backwards.

 

[biking_lawyer]

I don't post here frequently, and am "relatively" new to the sport (6yrs)., and do not race, but my 2 cents for what they are worth (not that cents are worth much of anything) is that as in most things in life, including most professional sports, the "cream of the crop" are generally at the same level. Some have better days than others; some train/work harder; some may have better equipment...But victory comes by small margins. Occassionally, there is a freak of nature who is just at another level and can put on outstanding, awe-inspiring performances. When you have several "supermen" year in and year out, something is amiss. Even before I started reading up on doping, I knew there was something wrong when a guy can sprint up a mountain and put 12 mins into everyone else. Thats just common sense. I think it was no coincidence that last year when Armstrong supposedly "opened his book", he looked like a mere mortal.

To me, what we are seeing in this tour are very exhausted, elite level athletes, who are behaving as normal, exhausted human beings do that just spent all day climbing a friggen mountain. Are things less "entertaining" this year? Perhaps. But, I think that the Tour is more competitive and more interesting BECAUSE there are no supermen. Anything can happen. Its much more interesting watching a bunch of pros duke it out inch by inch than seeing the energizer bunny run so far in front of everyone while looking like he is strolling in the park.

--Just the thoughts of an average fan.......

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

It's not the talent pool across the whole of cycling that needs to be examined, but the talent pool that turns up to the Tour and the make up of the teams. Back then the Tour wasn't the monster it is now. Not everyone bothered with it.

Take the 1984 Tour that you cited. Have a look at the start list. First of all where are the Italians? They haven't bothered. One team with no real big names (Moser, Saronni etc). There are also no teams with a big international mix. They are generally made up of riders from their own country.

Now look at the actual stage you cited and which teams the riders ride for. Of the top 17 on that stage there 5 Skil, 3 Renault, 3 Teka, 2 Reynolds and 2 La Vie Claire (3 French teams, 2 Spanish). The other 12 teams get one rider up there between them. By contrast on stage 14 this year, the top 17 came from 15 different teams.

This causes different dynamics to the racing. If Contador attacked 100km from the finish, seven or eight teams would send riders (from twenty different countries) to the front to chase him down - and all those teams have three or four riders capable of doing a job. He would fail.
However, when Hinault did it, someone like Fignon (who would have been riding with the equivalent of a modern day FdJ) may have had two riders capable of chasing and only a maximum of three teams willing to help, so the best option was for the leaders to counter immediately and chase themselves.
This caused the peloton to fracture far earlier than today.

Globalization and EPO changed this dynamic, over time.

Your post seems plausible to me. Great job.

But it doesn´t explain this:

Giro Stage 19, 2010, 195 km
1 Michele Scarponi (Ita) Androni Giocattoli 5:27:04
2 Ivan Basso (Ita) Liquigas-Doimo
3 Vincenzo Nibali (Ita) Liquigas-Doimo
4 Alexandre Vinokourov (Kaz) Astana 0:03:05
5 John Gadret (Fra) AG2R La Mondiale
6 Cadel Evans (Aus) BMC Racing Team 0:03:06
7 David Arroyo Duran (Spa) Caisse d'Epargne
8 Carlos Sastre Candil (Spa) Cervelo Test Team
9 Branislau Samoilau (Blr) Quick Step 0:05:27
10 Marco Pinotti (Ita) Team HTC - Columbia

Please don´t tell me the field was that less talented. Sure, not all top guns there. But you also got WC-Teams as in the TdF, and riders seeking a Top-10 finisih w/domestiques chasing.

Ok, it´s still time for things like that to happen in this years TdF. But it doesn´t wash away the stage we got robbed of on saturday. As soon riders ride, TV and this thread will be forgotten as nonsense.

 

[Escarabajo]

I read that article too. And then i asked SS a Q. How in the world did something like this happen?

Quote of my Post there:
"Ok, i like the analyzation.
But one big question isn´t answered. You said the days of 6.4 W/KG are gone. Thus leading to bigger groups at HC-Climbs.

How you explain then the MEGA gaps pre EPO/Extra-Blood in the 70´s or 80´s ?

I assume the W/KG also were at around 5.8. But still there was separation.

...

????

-There are also other drugs that helps recuperation. Not everything is about blood doping or EPO. That could be a potential answer to what you are asking for.

-What Mambo 95 said is also possible.

-Other reason could be the amount of blood doping or EPO is minimized. There are still effects but minimal or smaller. That's why you get larger groups. It is like an equalizer. Better than amphetamines but not as explosive like in the 90's.

FoxxyBrown1111, I have asked myself the same questions when looking at the results from the 80's. I also have noticed that there were smaller groups going into the last mountain in a moultimountain stages.

 

[Escarabajo]

i thought the science of sport guys have made the best analysis of tv's performance i have seen so far. well worth quoting in full. i have only one disagreement, i doubt we’ll see 6.1 w/kg average in the alps.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/
all bolded text original

Ok. If I understand correctly they use the same criteria that I use and that everyone uses pretty much. This is how I understand it:

His performance in the Alps can not improve above the 5.8 w/kg. they can be the same at best. But most likely will be less than that (my bet ). The other rider performances can be higher because we already know that they are doping (I am saying that not them, but that's how I read it, sorry Science of the Sports).

I agree with them.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

-There are also other drugs that helps recuperation. Not everything is about blood doping or EPO. That could be a potential answer to what you are asking for.

-What Mambo 95 said is also possible.

-Other reason could be the amount of blood doping or EPO is minimized. There are still effects but minimal or smaller. That's why you get larger groups. It is like an equalizer. Better than amphetamines but not as explosive like in the 90's.

FoxxyBrown1111, I have asked myself the same questions when looking at the results from the 80's. I also have noticed that there were smaller groups going into the last mountain in a moultimountain stages.

That would mean the ampethamins/pot belges had the same (separating) impact as the hi-tech doping since 1990 had. But that´s contrary of all Järmann, Winnen, Andreu etc. said about Epo.

The only one other explanation can be: Tactics were different; go all out, attack early, ride like there is no tomorrow. This seems plausible to me if i compare saturdays zig-zags to the racing of the 80´s (add in a little mix of smaller talent pools, longer stages). Maybe that´s it.

So we are back at the beginning: Guts and heart win you the TdF, not the so called attacks that last for a millisecond.

P.S.: Looking forward some fireworks. No more excuses to save energy for coming mountain stages, there won´t be any.
There should be hell of racing, TV loosing yellow, we get compensated for last saturday and friday.

 

[roundabout]

Your post seems plausible to me. Great job.

But it doesn´t explain this:

Giro Stage 19, 2010, 195 km
1 Michele Scarponi (Ita) Androni Giocattoli 5:27:04
2 Ivan Basso (Ita) Liquigas-Doimo
3 Vincenzo Nibali (Ita) Liquigas-Doimo
4 Alexandre Vinokourov (Kaz) Astana 0:03:05
5 John Gadret (Fra) AG2R La Mondiale
6 Cadel Evans (Aus) BMC Racing Team 0:03:06
7 David Arroyo Duran (Spa) Caisse d'Epargne
8 Carlos Sastre Candil (Spa) Cervelo Test Team
9 Branislau Samoilau (Blr) Quick Step 0:05:27
10 Marco Pinotti (Ita) Team HTC - Columbia

Please don´t tell me the field was that less talented. Sure, not all top guns there. But you also got WC-Teams as in the TdF, and riders seeking a Top-10 finisih w/domestiques chasing.

Ok, it´s still time for things like that to happen in this years TdF. But it doesn´t wash away the stage we got robbed of on saturday. As soon riders ride, TV and this thread will be forgotten as nonsense.

The group that finished 3 minutes behind was about 45 seconds back before the start of the final climb. First 3 worked together, the next 5 didn't.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

The group that finished 3 minutes behind was about 45 seconds back before the start of the final climb. First 3 worked together, the next 5 didn't.

There you see what tactics can do for you, other than to bring bottles (see Voight).

It´s not all about doping/non doping.

 

[roundabout]

There you see what tactics can do for you, other than to bring bottles (see Voight).

It´s not all about doping/non doping.

I don't think that a group of riders not wanting to work together for various reasons on what is essentially a quite easy climb for a pro is quite the same as a lot of people being seemingly even on what in my opinion was the toughest finish in this Tour.