-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
lstomsl said:
No, the average age of a tour de France winner is 28 years old. Before hardcore doping emerged there were a lot of very young winners.
Lemond 25
Fignon 23
Hinault 24
Merckx 24
Aimar 24
Gimondi 23
Anquetil 23
Gaul 26
Koblet 26
Robic 26
Bartali 24
Lapapie 23
Maes 22
Spiecher 26
ect.
If someone has stage racing talent, it shows itself early. This concept of maturing into a GC rider in your 30s or with Horner your 40s is bunk. Before hardcore dope, people could spot a potential GC rider from a mile away.
You really need a new point of reference since you appear to be stuck in the early 80s. Have you been living behind the Iron Curtain?Moose McKnuckles said:
Zweistein said:
Awww, but none of those riders had to deal with the dreaded badzilla and only LeMond had to resist the temptation of Mickey D's.
131313 said:
Agreed on the age/Vo2 part.....but what about recovery? It is a huge part of a GT and 3 weeks in Horner has not lost a watt.
Chris is certainly lean. Very, very lean. Skinniest I have ever seen him
Don't be late Pedro said:
No. But Britain without US assistance is zero. Anyway, I don't want to bust the British stiff upper lip, easy to do as it is.
I do find it hilarious that Brits have to place their sporting hopes on a Kenyan who lives in Monaco.
Jolly good show.
Zweistein said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUxPHnFnxo0
Skip to 5 minutes and have a bucket ready.
darwin553 said:He went from average, to super average and now simply awesome and all from about his early to mid 30s and now to his early 40s. You can't tell me that doesn't defy nature as it should be the other way around!
Unless he went from not doping to ready to do what was necessary to fook it we're all in.
Yes, the whole of Britain is putting their hopes in a rider most people don't know, in a sport most don't follow.Moose McKnuckles said:
You guys keep on giving it the whole 'he always had talent' line. I am sure it is giving all the Brits quite a chuckle. In a sport where many in the clinic say everyone is doping and pretty much always has done, it was Sky that made everyone dope?
Lets face it, a rider you like has won a GT and for you to justify it you spend all your time blaming Sky. The reality is that you look like a hypocrite hence the need to deflect. Keep digging Moose.
If that is the case then what is he on that is so much better and why is no one else on his team on it? If this is something quite advanced it would be surprising that someone not (previously) doping would have the contacts that most other teams and riders don't.Hugh Januss said:
Please don't compare yourself to a seasoned professional rider. It is a specious observation and one that many use as an argument for why Horner has suddenly found the peak of his physiology at age 41. He is not you and you are not him. Finally mountain-biking ain't professional road racing.Juan Speeder said:
Please tell me who said that???Don't be late Pedro said:
Don't you think that Froome's performance in the Tour might push Bertie to older limits?
I like reading threads in The Clinic because it's funny to watch the same posters who are blind to Froome (99% chance doper) now be soooo convinced that Horner (99% chance doper) is cheating. The discussion really gets us nowhere, because unless/until these guys get caught, it's just a bitc*fest. But I do find humor in seeing how cool and calm the Froome fanboys were during the TdF, now have become utterly apoplectic commenting on the Big Bad American cheater. It's like a light switch or something. Keep it up people, it's quite entertaining.
Oh, and Nibali on the Angrilu reminded me of Froomedawg on the Pena Cabarga in 2011, except the whole getting dropped like a stone part...
Oh, and Nibali on the Angrilu reminded me of Froomedawg on the Pena Cabarga in 2011, except the whole getting dropped like a stone part...
alspacka said:
What on earth is the problem. Best stage of any race I've seen all year. Nibali was fantastic, and it was an amazing race. Very intense stage.
I don't know that I'd have called it legendary but I find Horner's enthusiasm refreshing. Nice to see someone having a great time on the bike.
go crazy said:
Exactly. 100% spot on. Basically, the forums have been inundated with posters blind to the fact that Froome is as big of a fraud as Horner. In fact, all of pro cycling seems to be a fraud.
Meanwhile, manufacturers seem to keep trying to sell us cheap junk at high prices because these drug muppets are riding it.
The Brits are angry that America now has a Froome of its own, and one who is a heck of a lot less suspicious I might add.
as much as a fraud as Horner is, he still isn't smashing everyone by 2 minutes in time trials. it actually makes sense that he lost 1:30 to Nibali in the TT, and then outclimbed him. nothing about Froome's performance makes sense, Horner wouldn't stand a chance against him in a GT.
go crazy said:
I think you'll find that a substantial majority in the Clinic are highly suspicious of both riders.
They would get blown out of the water because they aren’t interested in running that distance, and don’t train for it. Just as the 100 milers would get beaten badly at shorter distances. The difference is that ultra endurance events are relatively new, and it’s not clear that they attract all of the top talent. Anyone who happened to be very good at 100 miles and equally good at shorter distances that have been run for decades and which have more prestige attached to them is far more likely to choose the latter, and train exclusively for that.
Not in the post I was responding to. Why don’t you at least point out the post in which you did furnish it?
Which is another way of saying that performance decline in ultra-endurance events is not a very good gauge of the decline in cycling. V02 max may be less of a factor in ultra-endurance events, which probably have a greater mental factor than shorter distances.
Ullrich is probably not a great example, as he let himself go even during the offseason when he was still active. The point is, if what Isto is saying were true, it should be possible for riders to make a comeback.
Actually, at age 55 he finished about two and half minutes slower than his fastest time about twenty-five years earlier. I would question, though, whether he trained specifically for such a climb during his salad days as a mountain bike racer. Also, keep in mind that just as Horner supporters like to point to wind and other factors that make it difficult to estimate power from climbing time, gauging how much a rider has declined by comparing times on this climb over the years is also difficult. Two years earlier, Overend finished 5th in a race that was won in a time almost two minutes slower than his time at age 55.
In any case, hill climbs like these are actually textbook illustrations of performance decline with age. The winner in that year (2010) was 23 years old, and except for Overend, everyone in the top 9 was under 40. After Overend, the oldest in the top 20 was 43. The course record is held by Danielson, ridden more or less in his prime.
You can see the same thing in another climb Overend has competed in, Mt. Washington. In this past year’s race, the top 10 finishers ranged in age from 22-38, and if you look at the results at various age groups, times fall off clearly with age. Indeed, if one were to believe Isto, why would there even be age groups? Why would they be needed? Why is there such a thing as Masters, e.g., if merely by keeping oneself “fresh” one can reduce the effect of age to “miniscule”?
I think Isto and others are making the mistake of picking out some exceptional athlete who has, as s/he has gotten older, focused on one type of race, and has been able to compete with much younger riders. The lists of finishing times in these races makes it very clear that there is a substantial performance decline in age that can't be explained by not remaining "fresh". In popular races like these, there is a very large group of riders that makes the effect jump out statistically. Ultra-endurance events are not competed in by comparably large numbers of individuals, so this effect is not as apparent. Indeed, probably relatively few who are not among the very best are even going to pursue this activity.
So are you saying
a) Horner and his managers when he was younger did not realize the importance of minimizing his weight? or
b) Horner, the junk food king, has found a way to reduce his weight within the rules that eluded him until he was past 40 (a time when it generally becomes increasingly difficult to lose all body fat)?
It's really very relevant. If you disagree, give me an age where a Vuelta winner would be suspicious to you precisely because of age. 45? 50? 55? 60? I take it for Isto, there is no such age, that a rider who took care to limit his racing schedule could win a GT at age 70.
vrusimov said:
It's not that different. Why do pros usually decline and stop in their mid to late 30s? Actually you don't know. It just seems to be the historical norm. Is it because of their chronological age, or because they have ridden too much? In the US amateur/almost pro ranks we see quite a few late bloomers, who pick up the sport later for various reasons and peak much later than the others who train hard from an early age consistently.
...and doing it the "Clint Eastwood" way : Dirty, on his own, with no back up and against all odds - USA has just found a new Hero to worshipBroDeal said:
Merckx index said:
Having trained with Ned quite a bit through the years I would suggest that no he did not train specifically for the HC either in his peak or even in recent years. The guy just loves riding and goes out and enjoys riding mtn and road bikes, he has enormous passion and enjoyment kind of like Chris maybe.
The other general point about age decline is certainly true, looking at performances and ages only, but the question is why that happens and if there are ways to at least slow the trend. I think that cumulative stress and oxidative damage would track performance decrements through age better than chronological age, it just happens that many people experience this trend at a similar rate.
Mental age and motivation are also a big factor too, most 35+ ect. masters racers have very different at home lives and personal values compared to the 20 year old Espoir.
If you dig a little deeper there are some other interesting exceptions besides Ned, though not at the GT level, but I think the age <> performance relationship is more complex than just 1-s=ma+0
The word "normal" hasn't been used in any shape or form in this page yet. Figured I'd pitch in.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 978
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram