Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[Wallace and Gromit]

Please keep in mind the modern grand tour races mostly from the start as repeated breakaway attempts try and fail. The middle of a stage ridden tempo, as some combination of riders is allowed to run out ahead, then the pace goes through the roof for at least the second time. The long grinds to the base of MTF's shell much of the peloton for a reason.

The days of a tranquilo pace and a peloton boss orchestrating the race until 20K to go are long over.

Modern tactics actually reduce the opportunities for the contenders to take time. Realistically, it's the MTFs or climbs close to the finish and the ITTs that are the only place to take time.

These were also the tactics in Lance's prime. The Blue Train would muller all but the very best before the final climb and then Lance, still relatively fresh, would dish out "The Look" and take a minute or two.

In 2009, the high pace before the final climbs still mullered the weaker riders but this time, Lance was having to give most of what he had to maintain station and had little left to counter attacks or launch his own attacks on the final climbs.

This isn't to say Lance was clean in 2009; it's just to highlight that he was relatively around 10 minutes worse in 2009 than in his prime and 10 minutes is an eternity in GT terms these days. Time catches up with all of us eventually, and between 34 to 37 seems like a reasonable time for it to have caught up with the retired Lance who was doing a lot of partying whilst retired.

 

[the sceptic]

Modern tactics actually reduce the opportunities for the contenders to take time. Realistically, it's the MTFs or climbs close to the finish and the ITTs that are the only place to take time.

These were also the tactics in Lance's prime. The Blue Train would muller all but the very best before the final climb and then Lance, still relatively fresh, would dish out "The Look" and take a minute or two.

In 2009, the high pace before the final climbs still mullered the weaker riders but this time, Lance was having to give most of what he had to maintain station and had little left to counter attacks or launch his own attacks on the final climbs.

This isn't to say Lance was clean in 2009; it's just to highlight that he was relatively around 10 minutes worse in 2009 than in his prime and 10 minutes is an eternity in GT terms these days. Time catches up with all of us eventually, and between 34 to 37 seems like a reasonable time for it to have caught up with the retired Lance who was doing a lot of partying whilst retired.

Where do you get those 10 minutes from? The 2009 tour was very fast, one of the fastest of the 2000s.

http://www.fillarifoorumi.fi/forum/...km-h-VAM-W-W-kg-etc-%29&p=1878520#post1878520

1. Lance Armstrong | 2003 | 6,18 W/kg
2. Alberto Contador | 2009 | 6,17 W/kg
3. Lance Armstrong | 2004 | 6,09 W/kg
4. Lance Armstrong | 2005 | 6,09 W/kg
5. Lance Armstrong | 2001 | 6,07 W/kg
6. Bradley Wiggins | 2012 | 5,98 W/kg
7. Lance Armstrong | 2000 | 5,97 W/kg
8. Lance Armstrong | 2002 | 5,97 W/kg
9. Alberto Contador | 2007 | 5,92 W/kg
10. Carlos Sastre | 2008 | 5,85 W/kg
11. Alberto Contador | 2010 | 5,78 W/kg
12. Cadel Evans | 2011 | 5,68 W/kg
13. Floyd Landis | 2006 | 5,67 W/kg

I dont disagree that Lance was slower in 2009 than at his peak, but 10 minutes sounds like way too much.

 

[The Hitch]

Agree Lance 2009 compared to LA 2005 is a major difference. Lance 05 would had won the prologue or at least be very close, and would had smoked everyone in the ITT. Would have had no problems in the mountains either.

I dont know.

Lance was clearly weaker in 2009 but the obvious answer to that is age.

But would lance 2005 have beaten 09 contador. I dont know. 2009 was one of the dodgiest tours of the decade. Contador broke the Vam record. His. Ventoux time was impressive for someone clearly holding back. Ans matching Cancellara in the tts- well this was the ultra robo Cancellara at the height of his powers who would then win both the gold and silver medal at the world tts. Contador 09 =imo 3rd best cyclist ever behind 99/98 Pantani and 2013 Froome.

 

[The Hitch]

If the Clinic was around during Armstrong's 7 Tour wins, I suppose we could have stopped his shenanigans.

I blame Future for not setting up this place earlier.

Some like to build up their own importance.

Who is building their own importance. It was parker who introduced the idea in what was either an attempt at trolling or real confusion from someone who's brain can't handle any diversion from a non existent structure he had made up in his head.

 

[The Hitch]

Sastre as others have pointed out won a very EPO laden tour, in the height of the dark era. I don't subscribe to winning = doper, but throwing in the teams and associations, then yes, there is enough to move him from probably clean to suspicious.

I have some suspicions about Wiggo, the 'break point' to me being the discussions that but for being on the wrong side of an echelon in 2009, he would have beaten Lance on the road. You have to wonder a little about anyone who beats Lance, even if it was on his comeback.
I do still think he is probably clean, but there are little doubts around that statement.

Froome, I have had suspicions about since that Vuelta, but I don't tend to voice them loudly. He is either a once in a generation find that struggled with illness, or something manufactured.

Considering Sastre 08 was a far weaker beast than Wiggins 2012, what you are saying is that you don't believe it is possible for Sastre - climber from birth to ride at a certain pace, but you do believe it is possible for Wiggins to a couple of years after riding jn the gruppeto, ride at a significantly faster pace clean?

If it's possible for Wiggins to ride that fast why is it not possible for Sastre to ride at a slower pace?

 

[The Hitch]

The great imponderable here is how good Lance actually still was by 2009. Three years off - albeit whilst still being active e.g. marathon running - aged 34 to 37 wouldn't have done him any favours, Ferrari's Finest notwithstanding.

In any reliably timed events, the decline over these ages is quite marked in general, even if in full training and competition, so he could conceivably have been Lance only in name and medical programme in '09 vs '05.

To flip that - he beat a fully doped kloeden, a fully doped kreuziger, a liquigas robo pellizoti programme Nibali, a full Fuentes programme Frank Schleck. He beat all those top dopers clean? Wow

 

[The Hitch]

I agree, and its even possible Lance was telling the truth and did comeback clean (Lance actually telling the truth would be a first of course). That's why its a little snippet of doubt, not a full blown belief that there is something is up.

Possible that old man lance came 3rd in one of the most doped tours clean. where he was engaging in corespondence with Ferrari. A tour which he has since had removed?

Your ok cawthorg but imo that is the same naive attitude to doping in sport that allows you to believe Wiggins could be clean.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

To flip that - he beat a fully doped kloeden, a fully doped kreuziger, a liquigas robo pellizoti programme Nibali, a full Fuentes programme Frank Schleck. He beat all those top dopers clean? Wow

Hitch - I've said in two previous posts that I'm sure Lance was doped to the max in 2009.

The issue isn't clean vs dirty; it's how good Lance was in 2009 vs 2005.

Even the Clinic can't dispute the fact that age eventually catches up with everyone. My point is that it most likely caught up with Lance between 2005 and 2009 so he wasn't as good in 2009 as he was in 2005. This seems self-evident. If he'd been as good in 2009 as he was in 2005 he'd have won the Tour quite easily!

 

[The Hitch]

Hitch - I've said in two previous posts that I'm sure Lance was doped to the max in 2009.

The issue isn't clean vs dirty; it's how good Lance was in 2009 vs 2005.

Even the Clinic can't dispute the fact that age eventually catches up with everyone. My point is that it most likely caught up with Lance between 2005 and 2009 so he wasn't as good in 2009 as he was in 2005. This seems self-evident. If he'd been as good in 2009 as he was in 2005 he'd have won the Tour quite easily!

Yes and I agree with that. I even said myself on this page that Lance wasn't as good because of age.

Also the fact that he didn't cycle for 3 seasons. 2009 was clearly not the beast of 2005, but he was still pretty damn good.

 

[gooner]

Who is building their own importance. It was parker who introduced the idea in what was either an attempt at trolling or real confusion from someone who's brain can't handle any diversion from a non existent structure he had made up in his head.

Hitch, I wasn't referring to yourself.

I - The Hitch,- bone idle ****er clinician, am making the exact opposite point. I have never claimed the clinic has influence and I don't care that it doesnt.

I know that. It was to the post just above my own one.

You appear to have missed that you currently contribute to what you labelled 'the Asylum' and everyone is laughing at you too.

Most people who ever criticise the clinic, 'echo chamber', 'only about 12 people posting' (hence the Clinic 12) are aware of what it represents. That it has been criticised by the likes of Armstrong and Wiggins shows it hurts them and that can only be a good thing.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I dont disagree that Lance was slower in 2009 than at his peak, but 10 minutes sounds like way too much.

It's a fairly crude analysis...

At his peak, Lance was winning the Tour by approximately 6 minutes. Winning margins in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2005 were 6, 7, 7, 6 and 5 minutes respectively. (2003 excluded as that was the year where it was too hot for Lance's refrigerated panniers to work, so he down a bloodbag or two relative to normal, conditions which did not prevail in 2009.)

So, in peak form, Lance was winning by 6 minutes against some top quality riders eg Ulle, Beloki and Basso.

By 2009, Lance was conceding approx 4 minutes to Andy Schleck, who is comparable quality to Ulle etc. (Subjective assessment.)

Thus he goes from being 6 minutes up to 4 minutes down on podium rivals ie a swing of 10 minutes, as if the 2009 version of Andy had raced Lance in his peak years, he'd have been put to the sword like Ulle, Basso and Beloki were, once would think.

 

[gooner]

Hitch - I've said in two previous posts that I'm sure Lance was doped to the max in 2009.

The issue isn't clean vs dirty; it's how good Lance was in 2009 vs 2005.

Even the Clinic can't dispute the fact that age eventually catches up with everyone. My point is that it most likely caught up with Lance between 2005 and 2009 so he wasn't as good in 2009 as he was in 2005. This seems self-evident. If he'd been as good in 2009 as he was in 2005 he'd have won the Tour quite easily!

Not necessarily.

Armstrong said Contador's performance was enough to knock three of his seven wins off him and he mentioned 2005 as one of those.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Yes and I agree with that. I even said myself on this page that Lance wasn't as good because of age.

Also the fact that he didn't cycle for 3 seasons. 2009 was clearly not the beast of 2005, but he was still pretty damn good.

Excellent. We are in agreement!

 

[Netserk]

It's a fairly crude analysis...

At his peak, Lance was winning the Tour by approximately 6 minutes. Winning margins in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2005 were 6, 7, 7, 6 and 5 minutes respectively. (2003 excluded as that was the year where it was too hot for Lance's refrigerated panniers to work, so he down a bloodbag or two relative to normal, conditions which did not prevail in 2009.)

So, in peak form, Lance was winning by 6 minutes against some top quality riders eg Ulle, Beloki and Basso.

By 2009, Lance was conceding approx 4 minutes to Andy Schleck, who is comparable quality to Ulle etc. (Subjective assessment.)

Thus he goes from being 6 minutes up to 4 minutes down on podium rivals ie a swing of 10 minutes, as if the 2009 version of Andy had raced Lance in his peak years, he'd have been put to the sword like Ulle, Basso and Beloki were, once would think.

So you think a 2005 Lance would beat a 2009 Contador on that route with 4'30"?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Not necessarily.

Armstrong said Contador's performance was enough to knock three of his seven wins off him and he mentioned 2005 as one of those.

Good point. 2009 Contador was indeed quite special. I think Berto could have gone a lot faster in 2009 had he needed to.

I'm sure Pantani would have given him a close run for this money in 1999 if he'd not been "stood down".

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

So you think a 2005 Lance would beat a 2009 Contador on that route with 4'30"?

You'll note that I benchmarked Lance to Andy Schleck. I'm pretty sure he'd have walloped Schleck on any of his victorious Tour routes in peak form.

Per my response to Gooner, I'm not so sure about Contador, who was indeed very special in 2009.

 

[gooner]

Good point. 2009 Contador was indeed quite special. I think Berto could have gone a lot faster in 2009 had he needed to.

I'm sure Pantani would have given him a close run for this money in 1999 if he'd not been "stood down".

Andy and Contador could have been off into the distance on the Ventoux if it wasn't for Frank's and Armstrong's own ambitions for the podium.

 

[jens_attacks]

Not necessarily.

Armstrong said Contador's performance was enough to knock three of his seven wins off him and he mentioned 2005 as one of those.

i agree. i think this is the closest we can get to a comparison

2009 keep in mind was very fast uphill also because the route was very soft. i always say that. first big fight after two weeks on verbier.

lance was definitely weaker in 2009 than all his tour wins years except 1999(slowest tour since jetfuel arrived). but still it was extremely impressive keeping in mind his age and more important, the period of time in which he stayed on the couch and drank beer. lance was a big champ but i don't believe for a second that he raced 2009 without extra boost. maybe he intented to but it didn't happen

 

[thehog]

Andy and Contador could have been off into the distance on the Ventoux if it wasn't for Frank's and Armstrong's own ambitions for the podium.

More so the headwind. No one was going off on their own.

 

[roundabout]

It's a fairly crude analysis...

At his peak, Lance was winning the Tour by approximately 6 minutes. Winning margins in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2005 were 6, 7, 7, 6 and 5 minutes respectively. (2003 excluded as that was the year where it was too hot for Lance's refrigerated panniers to work, so he down a bloodbag or two relative to normal, conditions which did not prevail in 2009.)

So, in peak form, Lance was winning by 6 minutes against some top quality riders eg Ulle, Beloki and Basso.

By 2009, Lance was conceding approx 4 minutes to Andy Schleck, who is comparable quality to Ulle etc. (Subjective assessment.)

Thus he goes from being 6 minutes up to 4 minutes down on podium rivals ie a swing of 10 minutes, as if the 2009 version of Andy had raced Lance in his peak years, he'd have been put to the sword like Ulle, Basso and Beloki were, once would think.

where do you keep getting 4 minutes from when the final gap was less than 1.30

1.13 to be exact

 

[roundabout]

Good point. 2009 Contador was indeed quite special. I think Berto could have gone a lot faster in 2009 had he needed to.

I'm sure Pantani would have given him a close run for this money in 1999 if he'd not been "stood down".

he got 20 seconds over the rest in under 2 km in Andorra and 45 seconds in under 5km on Verbier.

But do go on telling everyone how he could have gone *a lot* faster

 

[Angliru]

Indeed. It's very fine margins at the top of elite sport. The relative drop off in performance to go from 1st - 3rd is likely to be very very small. So Lance must have been very close to his 2005 level to finish 3rd hence it becomes an even more unbelievable performance from BW.

Isn't the time gap between the placements more important than the positions in the gc?

 

[Catwhoorg]

Possible that old man lance came 3rd in one of the most doped tours clean. where he was engaging in corespondence with Ferrari. A tour which he has since had removed?

Your ok cawthorg but imo that is the same naive attitude to doping in sport that allows you to believe Wiggins could be clean.

I'll say thanks.
Its not truly naive, but I can see why you would say that. Its informed to a degree, but not as informed as someone truly on the inside.

I don't believe it would be possible if a BC track or Sky rider tested positive that UKAD would be willing let alone able to suppress it, like happens elsewhere.

BC is of course the agency responsible for anti-doping in UK registered cyclists, but that is entirely devolved to UKAD on a day to day basis, and if there turns out to be a case to answer.

Look at JTL, once the UCI said there was a passport case to answer, then its UKAD running the show, not BC internally.

(Now of course getting the UCI free from undue influence is another matter entirely)

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Indurain never tested positive or confessed so hes got to be cleans.

Actually, he did test positive.

And he did sort of confess too. Otra pregunta...

By 2009, Lance was conceding approx 4 minutes to Andy Schleck, who is comparable quality to Ulle etc. (Subjective assessment.)

Youch. Poor Ulle.

2009 keep in mind was very fast uphill also because the route was very soft. i always say that. first big fight after two weeks on verbier.

Yes, this is worth remembering: the 2009 Tour route, bar one stage which is still Prudhomme's finest hour in terms of route compiling, was the worst stage race design in the modern era. Worse than the crapfest of 2012. A one-climb stage to Verbier (an eight kilometre climb that isn't even all that steep), a one-climb stage to Arcalis (one of the dullest MTFs imaginable), and a one-climb stage to Ventoux on the penultimate day which was spoiled by the GC already being more or less safe. The TTT was far too long to balance the parcours without a vast improvement in the mountain stages' abilities to produce gaps, and the top 4 teams in the TTT produced 9 of the top 10 riders on GC (the only exception being Le Mevel, who got into a good GC position thanks to a breakaway, and wouldn't have been in the top 10 if Leipheimer hadn't crashed out). The stage to Tarbes is the worst insult of a "mountain stage" the Tour has ever produced, including ALL stages to Pau. If somebody had given the Caisse d'Epargne domestiques a bit of help on the flat, they'd have hauled in Fedrigo & Pellizotti and Freire and Rojas would have been sprinting for the win in a "high mountain stage".

The 2009 Tour as a whole is almost impossible to use as a comparative guide because no Tour has been so utterly awful in its design before or since, and the ease with which it was controlled was up there with the most ridiculous USPS performances. The only reason the gaps weren't as big as in the Specially Designed Bradley Wiggins Non-Competitive Testimonial Ride Around France 2012 was that they had to make sure they didn't drop old man Armstrong in case the press turned from being stupidly anti-Contador (and anti-Contador through stupidity) to full *** at a level that would take the combined powers of Gewiss '94 and Mapei '96 to match.

 

[Samson777]

Sastre as others have pointed out won a very EPO laden tour, in the height of the dark era. I don't subscribe to winning = doper, but throwing in the teams and associations, then yes, there is enough to move him from probably clean to suspicious.

I have some suspicions about Wiggo, the 'break point' to me being the discussions that but for being on the wrong side of an echelon in 2009, he would have beaten Lance on the road. You have to wonder a little about anyone who beats Lance, even if it was on his comeback.
I do still think he is probably clean, but there are little doubts around that statement.

Froome, I have had suspicions about since that Vuelta, but I don't tend to voice them loudly. He is either a once in a generation find that struggled with illness, or something manufactured.

To the balded part: How well do you think Froomes Barloworld past, or SKY's Gert Leinders link serve him?

I agree that Wiggins 2009 is suspicious, and since he then went on and won the Tour... Well.. You have to be very much into this dark/light area idea, to avoid drawing the logical conclusion..