When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

Page 97 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
TheGame said:
Not Quite. Experts analyse the data IF it is flagged by the computer as needing investigation. If the computer doesn't flag it, the experts likely don't look at it.

Does the computer work?
Pretty sure the computer does not flag increasing Hgb over a 3 week period of competition.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Taxus4a said:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03/biological-passport-legal-scientific.html

Here it says 110. And even more that 110 could be not doping

Dehydratation it could be a factor to take in account, despite you say no.

I read yerterday again this interview:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/armstrongs-bio-passport-critic-speaks

It is interesting, and of course, as Damsgaard says as well could be a blood transfusion, Lance in that Tour is quite suspicious acording to the Giro, but it is not sure.

I know riders that are riding clean doing well, but, there is a possibility that some riders are using still microdosing or small transfusions, but even in that case I think the progress in antidoping would be important. The zero neddle policy, the Adams program, the sorpresive controls, and some things you can read to the current cyclist make in my opinion difficult that case, but anyway is possible.

Would make that riders unbeatable as in the dark era? No.

I dont trust Horner a lot becouse he dont have an antidoping ethic as Wiggo have, he defended Armstrong, and he consider that if you win without positives you are clean, but he could be clean and for the moment there isnt anything that make me think the oposite.
Horner has the default option of being in league with the enemy he once professed to despise. Horner getting paid depended on playing ball. Kids need food you know! Then again he has the redneck hick angle sown up well and truly. Expecting the man to be of a decent intelligence level for a pro cyclists is asking way too much. Might be a nice guy though!

Wiggins on the other hand had ZERO reason to brown nose Lance, yet he did repeatedly last year. They were quite chummy beyond the point in time a wise man would have shut up and figured the USADA case was going to turn out nasty. But no, Sir Bradley kept going. Which is worse? Did Contador ever speak up for Lance like Wiggins did? How about Evans? Or Andy Schleck? Nope it was just Wiggins and all his fanboys on this very forum still refuse to call it what it was. It gets tiresome when they return to every new thread to excuse Sir Bradely. Heck I felt sorry for the guy when he was tearing up on the ITT podium at the worlds. He's had a hard year but it's from his own doing.

Who is worse off? I don't care. Both have said some very silly things regarding Armstrong and I think it shows one thing. Pro omerta attitudes that suggest both had something to hide at the time they said their respective words. I wonder how Horner will be if he goes from one extreme to the other like Wiggins did this year? I don't think it'd phase him like it did Wiggins.

Dehydration...this one is easy. The guy ripping Valverde, Rodriguez and Nibali apart on the last three climbs of the Vuelta is not dehydrated. If he were, he'd have bombed out of the peloton. So regardless of what some psuedo study says, common sense prevails. If you're dehydrated, you CANNOT perform at maximum aerobic and anaerobic output. You don't even get close. So forget about dropping everyone in a 3 week cycling grand tour. Not going to happen.

As for the sportsscience boys did you know they never had an opinion on whether Contador's Verbier time from 2009 was legitimate? They provide excuses. Just like Andrew Coggan does on this forum in the power threads. They exist to market their expertise and skills. It's not in their agenda to champion the truth and actually step out and say something is doping. They're not as useful as they appear. Oh and the fact one of them works as a consultant for South African Rugby Union...well that hypocrisy says it all. Massive drug problem in that sport. Especially in South Africa.
 
Jul 8, 2009
323
0
0
Galic Ho said:
As for the sportsscience boys did you know they never had an opinion on whether Contador's Verbier time from 2009 was legitimate? They provide excuses. Just like Andrew Coggan does on this forum in the power threads. They exist to market their expertise and skills. It's not in their agenda to champion the truth and actually step out and say something is doping. They're not as useful as they appear. Oh and the fact one of them works as a consultant for South African Rugby Union...well that hypocrisy says it all. Massive drug problem in that sport. Especially in South Africa.
Ross Tuckers analysis has always bothered me but I guess he would rather not be deemed a psuedo-quack like Vayer is in some circles. But straight up. If Contador is climbing at a higher VAM than Riis then how can this not be called on the carpet? Answer? No positive doping test, per Coggan. Even Lemond was looked at derisively for his VO2 max claims on Contador [a value of 99 iirc]. At the time, Contador was testing clean and the chief explanations, predictably, were drafting and tailwinds, even though we both know that the road does not traverse the mountain in a straight line from base to summit.

The new paradoxically bedeviling apparatus of anti-doping? The blood passport, which Ashenden himself has proven can be manipulated without infraction. The problem is, most see the passport as the last word in the anti-doping fight. Now athletes have two ways to avoid suspicion. No positive test and no passport infraction, neither of which has done more than temper how much an athlete can get away with inside the parameters of a system too lax by design and too subjective in punitive proceedings to be totally effective. Read the comments on Horner's passport data. Many are prompting Ashenden to weigh in even though what he wrote about Armstrong's '09 profile disambiguates why Hb and Hct should fall and remained mostly depressed, not crash then rise again during a 3 week tour, while reticulocyte fraction crashes heavily, rises but remains depressed below the athlete's baseline over the same period.

Everything is deemed to complicated except for the most esteemed physiologists, until of course said physiologists cast aspersion on their favorite rider. Then they are simply labeled a quack, like Vayer. Case in point? Grappe's analysis of Froome's data was sapped up like cheap kool-aid in searing heat ... for those predisposed to accept the vindication of Froome via a "reputable" physiologist. This while completely ignoring a similar pronouncement [by Grappe] about the veracity of Armstrong's data almost a decade earlier.

The anti-doping fight will be lost amid a sea of specious "pseudo-presumptions" proffered by BOTH sides of the issue. The sports-scientists and physiologists will do little to quell the beliefs of those who think cycling is clean vs. those that think it is not. If an outlandish performance such as Contador on Verbier doesn't shake the foundations of common sense, known physiology and historical perspective then no performance will. That is sad and cycling will benefit no more from the witch-hunts than it will from the apologists.
 
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Yep, there were no carbon frames in 1990. Even Herrera had a carbon frame in 1987. So aome research you ....

But, do you realise what 2% over 3449 km is? About one and a half hour. Do you really think chumps like Horner and you british hero Sir Wiggins would gain one and a half hour on Greg LeMond?

LeMond rode a carbon bike of 8.5 - 9 kilo in 1990, Look pedals et all. Only a motorised bike would give your hero a chance against that LeMond.

This site is getting funnier by the day.
Parker already correctly noted that 1-2% advancement in this case is not so much about Wiggins vs LeMond, but 2013 peloton vs 1990 peloton.

Secondly, Tucker here drives an analogy from track and field http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/clean-performances-to-surpass-doped.html. Not counting doping and technology historically performances in track and field have improved 1% during a decade. Obviously it is very crude estimate and reasons are quite speculative. We can put some numerical values to technological change (though even this is complicated), but if we are talking about training, nutrition, tactics and so on, it is very hard to estimate. Or if we look even further and ask how much is performance influenced by the fact that today GC leader steps into helicopter and 15 minutes later is already in hotel instead of several hours in traffic? Or how much is performances influenced by the fact that you can get to every race in Europe with couple of hours on the board of Ryanair instead of hours and hours and hours in small car from one country to other (I have read several stories from 1980-s where riders complain how hard it was travel and how easy it is today)? Or how do we count that today GC leader is pampered by his teammates every second, whatever he wants his teammates - compare this to Merckx, I watched couple of weeks ago his 1970 Ventoux win - when he wanted to drink he grabbed a bucket full of water from the side of road.

Point is - there are so many changes that we are not even able to name them all, we are not even count them all and we are definitely able to estimate their influence.
 
Parker said:
If you are comparing average speeds, you are not comparing Wiggins to LeMond, you are comparing the 2012 peloton with the 1990 peloton. Do they go four and a half minutes quicker per day? Sure they do - not least because there is longer TV coverage so breaks go earlier
You start out perfectly okay, then you do your best to align a 2012 peloton with a 1990 peloton. That's a fail.

The 1990 race is fundamentally different than the 2012 event. The race is shorter. Whoops! There I go trying to somehow compare the 2012 race with the 1990 race. It's not the same event.

the 2012 racers are putting out much more power in the third week. Is that because the race is shorter? Roads smoother? Race radio?<shrug>

Parker said:
(they used to amble along until the helicopters showed up), there is a greater strength in depth across the peloton and there are dedicated sprinters teams thundering along in the last 30km.

Using average speeds as an indication of doping is completely pointless.
I agree the average speeds is a terrible comparator. But don't make the 1990 event somehow less, or even compare it to a 2012 event. It's a different event. Different incentives, different race.

I have no clue how one compares the event over history. I know it's tempting, and probably deserving of it's own forum sorting out all the variables. There be dragons!
 
Seems like things have gone off track a touch here.

We want to know who/what/when/where is the smackdown coming down on Horner?

I for one have to assume that all this other talk means, not anytime soon, even with Cookson now as part of the UCI.
 
vrusimov said:
Ross Tuckers analysis has always bothered me but I guess he would rather not be deemed a psuedo-quack like Vayer is in some circles. But straight up. If Contador is climbing at a higher VAM than Riis then how can this not be called on the carpet? Answer? No positive doping test, per Coggan. Even Lemond was looked at derisively for his VO2 max claims on Contador [a value of 99 iirc]. At the time, Contador was testing clean and the chief explanations, predictably, were drafting and tailwinds, even though we both know that the road does not traverse the mountain in a straight line from base to summit.
I would tend to agree the usefulness of comments from guys like this is limited and in fact often counter-productive. Laregely, they tend to state whether a performance is within bounds of believable human performance. What they don't (because they can't) address is whether the performance of a particular human is believable.

In other words, in too many cases what is said is (to paraphrase), "Yes, a human could have done this without dope". What is not said, because it can't be, is "Yes, Rider X could have done this without dope."

The problem is that almost no one is at the outer limit of human performance. That is by definition, even in the top level of sport, the far outlier. The rare, once-a-generation talent even amongst elite athletes.

It is very, very unlikely (to say the least) that anyone could approach the outer limits of human achievement.

So when I see some pack rider all of a sudden hitting the outer limits (as all too often happens), I can't say it's not possible. But I can say it's BS.

As such, these kinds of references are often counter-productive in getting us to any kind of truth.
 
Apr 19, 2010
1,112
0
0
zigmeister said:
Seems like things have gone off track a touch here.

We want to know who/what/when/where is the smackdown coming down on Horner?

I for one have to assume that all this other talk means, not anytime soon, even with Cookson now as part of the UCI.
Maybe after he wins all 3 GTs next year.
 
Jul 8, 2009
323
0
0
red_flanders said:
I would tend to agree the usefulness of comments from guys like this is limited and in fact often counter-productive. Laregely, they tend to state whether a performance is within bounds of believable human performance. What they don't (because they can't) address is whether the performance of a particular human is believable.

In other words, in too many cases what is said is (to paraphrase), "Yes, a human could have done this without dope". What is not said, because it can't be, is "Yes, Rider X could have done this without dope."

The problem is that almost no one is at the outer limit of human performance. That is by definition, even in the top level of sport, the far outlier. The rare, once-a-generation talent even amongst elite athletes.

It is very, very unlikely (to say the least) that anyone could approach the outer limits of human achievement.

So when I see some pack rider all of a sudden hitting the outer limits (as all too often happens), I can't say it's not possible. But I can say it's BS.

As such, these kinds of references are often counter-productive in getting us to any kind of truth.
The usual syllogism employed by supporters of suspect performances is that detractors simply label every winner a doper. The fallacy in that sophistry is that it is not merely a question of said rider winning but how said rider is winning and if said rider's performance juxtaposed against his own history passes muster in physiological reality.
 
Jul 8, 2009
323
0
0
Le breton said:
A pseudo-quack?
Hmm,
That's a bit like a double negative isn't it?
So, is it a compliment to designate a competent person?
or is it supposed to describe some sort of sub-quack?
That would depend on the predisposition to believe the guilt or innocence of the rider in question. The double-negative, as you so punctiliously point out, is proffered as a purely polemic pejorative not particularly predicated on anything but a psuedo-prosaic pronouncement. Call it vernacular, a vapid votive or simply a vestige of verbiage meant to venerate negatively the various positions of those claiming veracity! ... and you may call me "V"!:D
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Parker said:
They could gain an hour and a half on LeMond easily - but not if they were in the same race - which, when comparing average speeds, they aren't. You see, for most of the Tour the GC guys are sitting comfortably in the bunch - the pace they are going is nothing to do with them - they aren't sitting on the front tapping out the pace on flat stages, you know. For at least 60% of a Tour the winner is in the same group as the Lantern Rouge.

If you are comparing average speeds, you are not comparing Wiggins to LeMond, you are comparing the 2012 peloton with the 1990 peloton. Do they go four and a half minutes quicker per day? Sure they do - not least because there is longer TV coverage so breaks go earlier (they used to amble along until the helicopters showed up), there is a greater strength in depth across the peloton and there are dedicated sprinters teams thundering along in the last 30km.

Using average speeds as an indication of doping is completely pointless.
Good response to my pretty bad previous post on this subject. I agree, average speeds are not a definite indication of doping, we can only conclude that the fastest Tours/Giro's/Vuelta's were ridden as fast thanks to doping. If these speeds are equalled or bettered by the current crop of riders we cant say it is because of dope, just because there is no proof. But the probability these speeds are reached through dope is quite high.

What we can do is take a trip into memory lane with some of the best climbers of the eighties and compare them with now. How do Delgado, Herrera, Wilches, Hampsten, Fignon, Millar, Fuerte, Parra et all correlate to the climbers of now? How is it for instance possible a guy like Jelle Vanendert climbing five and a half minutes faster than Delgado in 1988 up to Luz Ardiden? Or six minutes on Herrera in 1987, notably his best year in his carreer? Better equipment. Sure, but Lucho also had carbon at his disposal at that time. Better training? Sure. But, lets face it, someone like Vanendert putting six minutes on Herrera is ludicrous. Even taking into account for the differences in the stages, no equipment makes up for differences like that.

1-2% faster due to equipment, okay, lets assume that is right. Delgado rode up on Luz Ardiden in 1988 in 43 minutes 18 seconds ~. Jelle Vanendert in 2011 did the same climb in 37 minutes 36 ~. 2% of 43.18 minutes is ~52 seconds. 43.18 minutes minus 52 seconds = 42 minutes 26 seconds. Still missing 4 minutes and 49 seconds. Better roads? Better nutrition? Better weather? Better talent?

Funniest thing. Delgado's fastest time up Luz Ardiden was done in the Vuelta 1992: 37 minutes 56 seconds. How did HE gain almost six minutes on that climb in comparison to 1988? Well, he had better equipment, better nutrition, better everything, but I bet it was just dear old Edgar allen PO.

http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1992/05/05/pagina-31/1260046/pdf.html#&mode=fullScreen
[sorry for Hein V. there]

I quote:
* Portillon
* Peyresourde
* Aspin
* Tourmalet
* Luz Ardiden

144 km, 70 kilometres of climbing
http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1992/05/06/pagina-6/1260070/pdf.html#&mode=fullScreen
[Ferrari versus Fuentes, for the good analists]

36 Herrera(CoI/Postobon) at 15.40

I bet Lucho just didnt have the right equipment like Amaya Seguros...
He subsequently hung up his bike and quit cycling.

I am not saying Lucho was the best climber ever, but when we take him as a reference point I think it is hard to believe the peloton of now would have him too on 15 minutes.

Yes, the parametres are not the same, but the pattern is there: the peloton of now would destroy natural climbers like the Herrera's of the past. Herrera on the Angliru? He would be in the autobus.
Von Mises said:
Parker already correctly noted that 1-2% advancement in this case is not so much about Wiggins vs LeMond, but 2013 peloton vs 1990 peloton.

Point is - there are so many changes that we are not even able to name them all, we are not even count them all and we are definitely able to estimate their influence.
See the above.

red_flanders said:
In other words, in too many cases what is said is (to paraphrase), "Yes, a human could have done this without dope". What is not said, because it can't be, is "Yes, Rider X could have done this without dope."

The problem is that almost no one is at the outer limit of human performance. That is by definition, even in the top level of sport, the far outlier. The rare, once-a-generation talent even amongst elite athletes.

It is very, very unlikely (to say the least) that anyone could approach the outer limits of human achievement.

So when I see some pack rider all of a sudden hitting the outer limits (as all too often happens), I can't say it's not possible. But I can say it's BS.

As such, these kinds of references are often counter-productive in getting us to any kind of truth.
I couldnt have said it better than this, as English is not my native language.

What we are seeing is BS.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,295
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Good response to my pretty bad previous post on this subject. I agree, average speeds are not a definite indication of doping, we can only conclude that the fastest Tours/Giro's/Vuelta's were ridden as fast thanks to doping. If these speeds are equalled or bettered by the current crop of riders we cant say it is because of dope, just because there is no proof. But the probability these speeds are reached through dope is quite high.

What we can do is take a trip into memory lane with some of the best climbers of the eighties and compare them with now. How do Delgado, Herrera, Wilches, Hampsten, Fignon, Millar, Fuerte, Parra et all correlate to the climbers of now? How is it for instance possible a guy like Jelle Vanendert climbing five and a half minutes faster than Delgado in 1988 up to Luz Ardiden? Or six minutes on Herrera in 1987, notably his best year in his carreer? Better equipment. Sure, but Lucho also had carbon at his disposal at that time. Better training? Sure. But, lets face it, someone like Vanendert putting six minutes on Herrera is ludicrous. Even taking into account for the differences in the stages, no equipment makes up for differences like that.

1-2% faster due to equipment, okay, lets assume that is right. Delgado rode up on Luz Ardiden in 1988 in 43 minutes 18 seconds ~. Jelle Vanendert in 2011 did the same climb in 37 minutes 36 ~. 2% of 43.18 minutes is ~52 seconds. 43.18 minutes minus 52 seconds = 42 minutes 26 seconds. Still missing 4 minutes and 49 seconds. Better roads? Better nutrition? Better weather? Better talent?

Funniest thing. Delgado's fastest time up Luz Ardiden was done in the Vuelta 1992: 37 minutes 56 seconds. How did HE gain almost six minutes on that climb in comparison to 1988? Well, he had better equipment, better nutrition, better everything, but I bet it was just dear old Edgar allen PO.

http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1992/05/05/pagina-31/1260046/pdf.html#&mode=fullScreen
[sorry for Hein V. there]

I quote:
* Portillon
* Peyresourde
* Aspin
* Tourmalet
* Luz Ardiden

144 km, 70 kilometres of climbing
http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1992/05/06/pagina-6/1260070/pdf.html#&mode=fullScreen
[Ferrari versus Fuentes, for the good analists]

36 Herrera(CoI/Postobon) at 15.40

I bet Lucho just didnt have the right equipment like Amaya Seguros...
He subsequently hung up his bike and quit cycling.

I am not saying Lucho was the best climber ever, but when we take him as a reference point I think it is hard to believe the peloton of now would have him too on 15 minutes.

Yes, the parametres are not the same, but the pattern is there: the peloton of now would destroy natural climbers like the Herrera's of the past. Herrera on the Angliru? He would be in the autobus.

See the above.

I couldnt have said it better than this, as English is not my native language.

What we are seeing is BS.
What about the tactical situation? I was on the Luz Ardiden in 1988 about 2km from the finish line and From what I remember Delgado was not under great tactical pressure that day. If I remember it was Fabio Para that won the stage and Delgado was not at the front. He was racing for GC so his rivals were not up the road, but around him. He did not have a need to go faster so he rode tempo or hard enough to discourage attacks. Race Dynamics often set the pace more than the person. If every climb was done as a TT we would still see a lot of variablity in times just by putting the climb in early or late in the stage. or early and late in the event. Number of days climbing in advance and a lot of other things determine climbing times for many of the climbs. Even when raced as a tt many conditions change from year to year. Wind direction, ambient temperature, fitness of the rider, fatigue of the rider, and a dozen other factors. Straight time comparisons are not especially significant in proving whether a rider is boosted without also quantifying the conditions under which they are tested.
Mostly this is just another exercise in doping masturbation, The main activity in the clinic.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Master50 said:
What about the tactical situation? I was on the Luz Ardiden in 1988 about 2km from the finish line and From what I remember (1)Delgado was not under great tactical pressure that day. If I remember it was (2)Fabio Parra that won the stage and Delgado was not at the front. He was racing for GC so his rivals were not up the road, but around him. He did not have a need to go faster so he rode tempo or hard enough to discourage attacks. (3)Race Dynamics often set the pace more than the person. If every climb was done as a TT we would still see a lot of variablity in times just by putting the climb in early or late in the stage. or early and late in the event. Number of days climbing in advance and a lot of other things determine climbing times for many of the climbs. Even when raced as a tt many conditions change from year to year. (4) Wind direction, ambient temperature, fitness of the rider, fatigue of the rider, and a dozen other factors. Straight time comparisons are not especially significant in proving whether a rider is boosted without also quantifying the conditions under which they are tested.
Mostly this is just another exercise in doping masturbation, The main activity in the clinic.
Good post. Espescially the bolded parts. The insult was not needed though. I guess that one was just free of charge.

Nevertheless I will respond to you.

(1)
Of course not. Delgado had his GC win bagged and sealed, Rooks was already 3 and a half minutes back on him on GC. No threat at all.
But, a rider who does this or is able to do this is just miles ahead of his competition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3ZoYshnI3KI#t=2631

(2)
It was another Spanish rider, Laudelino Cubino. Fuentes client, edit, and a Ferrari client. Parra won Morzine if I am correct.

(3)
I totally agree, but, it is a strange pattern, riders who know they are so much better than those around them have the need to demonstrate their superiority. See Pantani, see Armstrong, see Robo Basso, see fill in any name there. The only exception here I can recall is Indurain. He left the leftovers to the ´little ones´.

(4)
Of course. I love wind! But Delgado going five minutes faster in 1992 in comparison to 1988 where he showed his topform, nah. Cubino too means only one thing, doping.

Good thing the boys of now can do that kinda performance clean!

PS
Werent you there at Val Louron too.

PS2
Dont you think it is ridiculous Lucho would be b' slapped right left and centre by Christopher Horner. Not saying Horner isnt a talented rider, I just dont think he is at age of 41 able to better performances of born climbers like Lucho. Even with better equipment it does not make sense.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,295
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Good post. Espescially the bolded parts. The insult was not needed though. I guess that one was just free of charge.

Nevertheless I will respond to you.

(1)
Of course not. Delgado had his GC win bagged and sealed, Rooks was already 3 and a half minutes back on him on GC. No threat at all.
But, a rider who does this or is able to do this is just miles ahead of his competition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3ZoYshnI3KI#t=2631

(2)
It was another Spanish rider, Laudelino Cubino. Fuentes client, edit, and a Ferrari client. Parra won Morzine if I am correct.

(3)
I totally agree, but, it is a strange pattern, riders who know they are so much better than those around them have the need to demonstrate their superiority. See Pantani, see Armstrong, see Robo Basso, see fill in any name there. The only exception here I can recall is Indurain. He left the leftovers to the ´little ones´.

(4)
Of course. I love wind! But Delgado going five minutes faster in 1992 in comparison to 1988 where he showed his topform, nah. Cubino too means only one thing, doping.

Good thing the boys of now can do that kinda performance clean!

PS
Werent you there at Val Louron too.

PS2
Dont you think it is ridiculous Lucho would be b' slapped right left and centre by Christopher Horner. Not saying Horner isnt a talented rider, I just dont think he is at age of 41 able to better performances of born climbers like Lucho. Even with better equipment it does not make sense.


Sorry for the insult but it is what is mostly going on here.

Delgado crossed the line about 25 to 30 seconds ahead of the group he spent most of the time up Luz Ardiden. It looked like a devastating attack but I think he lost a bit of it before the finish.

Herrera climbs on his feet as did many of these riders. Gert Tunesse (sp) was a pretty good climber for a flatlander

1988 doped as compared to now clean?

Is that the foundation for this post?

2013 clean kicks the Stuffing out of 1988 clean or dirty? Yes!

Aside from all the legal and fair methods to maximize performance the race is different. Stage races of the day were plenty hard enough to race full gas and without the TV audience until the last 1 to 2 hours who are they performing for?

Race calendars for many riders had 150 days on them. Like today the only really important race on the calendar was the Tour and if they needed results this was the place we also saw the worst of the doping which was still mostly pain management and fatigue with the most effective performance drug as testosterone.

A lot of things have reduced the total workload of pro riders over the entire calendar year and fewer riders take long off seasons. They race fewer days but are expected to ride harder when they do and yes I see the demand for results are always there. But the peloton has changed a lot in only the last few years. I have been following pelotons (physically right behind) for 25 years and there has been a big change. These riders are the best road racers on the planet and they look more human than I have seen since the 1980s.

No more than anyone here I cannot say that CH rode the Vuelta sans but I do believe he is capable of the result and I will stick my neck out even more by saying his win is the most evidence I have seen that his opponents raced clean too. Another TT and CH would not have won. He got into a race he was the best fit to win and he was ready for it. Age? Just explain the 73 year old that kicks your **** on the club ride:)
 
Jul 8, 2009
323
0
0
Master50 said:
Sorry for the insult but it is what is mostly going on here.

Delgado crossed the line about 25 to 30 seconds ahead of the group he spent most of the time up Luz Ardiden. It looked like a devastating attack but I think he lost a bit of it before the finish.

Herrera climbs on his feet as did many of these riders. Gert Tunesse (sp) was a pretty good climber for a flatlander

1988 doped as compared to now clean?

Is that the foundation for this post?

2013 clean kicks the Stuffing out of 1988 clean or dirty? Yes!

Aside from all the legal and fair methods to maximize performance the race is different. Stage races of the day were plenty hard enough to race full gas and without the TV audience until the last 1 to 2 hours who are they performing for?

Race calendars for many riders had 150 days on them. Like today the only really important race on the calendar was the Tour and if they needed results this was the place we also saw the worst of the doping which was still mostly pain management and fatigue with the most effective performance drug as testosterone.

A lot of things have reduced the total workload of pro riders over the entire calendar year and fewer riders take long off seasons. They race fewer days but are expected to ride harder when they do and yes I see the demand for results are always there. But the peloton has changed a lot in only the last few years. I have been following pelotons (physically right behind) for 25 years and there has been a big change. These riders are the best road racers on the planet and they look more human than I have seen since the 1980s.

No more than anyone here I cannot say that CH rode the Vuelta sans but I do believe he is capable of the result and I will stick my neck out even more by saying his win is the most evidence I have seen that his opponents raced clean too. Another TT and CH would not have won. He got into a race he was the best fit to win and he was ready for it. Age? Just explain the 73 year old that kicks your **** on the club ride:)
A club ride ain't a three week grand tour and the 73 year old does not race for money...a fatuous syllogism at best. ~6.3 w/kg for 43 minutes on the final day of a three week tour is rather stupendous for a rider who has shown no such ability for that length of time. Recording the lowest reticulocyte fraction of his entire passport is questionable as well, as it flat-lined below his baseline value through the entire tour. Of course we won't ever know what his final blood markers show because of the missed test. I find it rather questionable that a rider loses time on the bike due to knee injury and later surgery/recovery but comes around to defeat Spain's best climbers and put paid to Nibali on nearly every summit finish just four months later.
 
This Horner thread has become a complete train wreck mods...get with it. Actually, that applies to most threads in the clinic. :D


Seriously, any talk of average speeds is completely stupid. You can't compare one set of stages, how the entire GT is designed, the distance, the various climbs/grades/weather/wind/competitors.

One of the worst ways to compare any race or ride in general, even for local group rides/training/racing...by average speeds. Too many variables.

Almost worst than saying the equipment is some % variable. Is it safe to say equipment has improved and performance has gone up, certainly, science can prove that piece to an extent. But even then, we still have track hour records where the weather/conditions on the track are very consistent, and guys even on older bikes, have times that are still incredible to this day, with "inferior" equipment compared to today's standards and marketing.

Unless you have written some massive mathematical formulas and can run extensive modelling like we are tracking hurricanes, you might have a chance to guess something...but that is bunk also.

The US Hurricane season was supposed to be one of the most active in recent history...yet, big bust...not even 1 storm has formed or come close to the US. The season is almost 2 months still from being over...but the "experts" and doomsdayers got it wrong with their science, match and super computer modelling again.
 
zigmeister said:
This Horner thread has become a complete train wreck mods...get with it. Actually, that applies to most threads in the clinic. :D
............
But that's the beauty of the clinic. The slow descent into utter madness as the thread progresses. Long amyloid beta levels - short tau levels.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY