Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Context Dear Wiggo. Your response was immediately questioning the validity of my statement that aero had a big role to play in Boardman going faster than Rominger.

If that was what I was questioning, trust me, I would have written that. Or do you think I am too scared to write what I think?

Of course that doesn't fit with doping is the only answer to why performance improved rhetoric and hence your comment:

Ah. The science of CdA.

Then going on to say Boardman never measured CdA when he's done more aero testing than most.

Are you saying science is not involved in determining CdA?

I was wrong that he hadn't measured his CdA. Do you have his measured CdA? I guess if you did you'd be using the measured value yeah?

You're barking up the wrong tree if you think you're the sole holder of the knowledge of aerodynamics impacting performance, or that I don't know that already. A very wrong tree.

I don't dismiss VAM at all.

You had a go at me earlier re: reading comprehension?

I said you dismiss the VAM guys. The alleged pseudo-scientists. Not VAM itself. Good one.

In any case, given this is the clinic, it really doesn't matter what estimates one derives, nor the error bars, confirmation bias will likely dictate what one believes it tells them.

So you're comfortable claiming Boardman was clean?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Well it would be interesting to know what model you're using. Also, each and every measured parameter (temp, humidity, weight, Crr, etc) will have an uncertainty. These will propagate and yeah, you need some error bars.

John Swanson

Yes, they will propagate if those values are unknown or have a level of uncertainty that is significant.

Hence it's also a matter of sensitivity analysis.

For example, as I showed earlier, the estimates of indoor W/m^2 are pretty insensitive to uncertainty with the mass value.

In that example chart on Voigt's W/m^2 I listed precisely the assumptions used, so that the range of variation in power/CdA ratio could be seen for a given speed - it was a sensitivity analysis for this specific element to demonstrate that if you know those other measurements, you can nail the W/m^2 value down to a reasonably narrow range. Naturally if plotting a level of uncertainty with any of the assumptions, you can then add error bars accordingly.

So even if you don't know either of power or CdA, you can at least nail W/m^2 down pretty well if you know air density and speed and couple of other factors. It's the same principle in play for climbing speed and estimates of W/kg, except in an indoor velodrome we can be far more certain about the (lack of) wind variable, as both climbing W/kg estimates and flat land W/m^2 estimates are quite sensitive to air movement.

Even indoors there is the tiniest of air movement in a velodrome caused by the rider themselves (think of using a toothpick to swirl a large pool of water). I've actually measured it at one track (Sydney DGV) and have data on its maximal extent. It takes about 10-15 minutes to reach equilibrium and it's not much. Building design will affect this element.

Elsewhere I have shown how uncertainty in the other factors can affect such calculations, e.g. as per this chart when I blogged about impact of air pressure on the distance a rider may attain for a given power output and CdA:

I've provided the numbers in the past on many of the individual components in various places, but it's an idea for a future blog post to do up a combined sensitivity table for each of the various inputs. i.e. how does uncertainty in "X" affect the W/m^2 required to attain a given speed on an indoor velodrome, or given a W/m^2 value, what's the impact on distance attainable?

Wow. I'm used to a lot of hand-waving, but that's a lot of hand-waving! Very simply: what's your model? And what's the uncertainty of your measurements?

John Swanson

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Well it would be interesting to know what model you're using.

I missed this bit before. As mentioned and linked to in an earlier post, I use the Martin et al model (since it's been very well validated).

Please post the Martin model as that's infinitely non-Google-able.

John Swanson

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Well it would be interesting to know what model you're using.

I missed this bit before. As mentioned and linked to in an earlier post, I use the Martin et al model (since it's been very well validated).

Please post the Martin model as that's infinitely non-Google-able.

John Swanson

http://journals.humankinetics.com/jab-back-issues/jabvolume14issue3august/validationofamathematicalmodelforroadcyclingpower

http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/MartinDocs/Validation%20of%20a%20mathematical%20model%20for%20road%20cycling.pdf

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

Boardman in the wind tunnel doing some preliminary work on the Lotus, which eventually morphed into the bike design and position used for his 1996 hour record ride.

Source:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/features/a7708/lotus-sport-108-secret-history-bicycle/

Then of course there was the six months of wind tunnel work Boardman did leading up to the 1992 Olympics:

Here's a video talking about the testing that was done with Boardman and the aerodynamicist Richard Hill and how that progressed to the Superman position:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMpMP1nu5jc

Sort of belies the claim that Boardman never did aero testing. He probably spent more hours doing aero testing in tunnels and at the track that just about any other rider on the planet (although I can think of perhaps one or two). I can't provide error bars for that statement though, so take it for what it is.

That's a fantastic shot for what it gets wrong. Neither wheel is spinning. I'd love to see the smoke wand about four inches to the left or right as it hits a leg/knee in motion at 90 rpm. Occasional head position changes. Dude's in the air stream!

Wow.

John Swanson

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Boardman in the wind tunnel doing some preliminary work on the Lotus, which eventually morphed into the bike design and position used for his 1996 hour record ride.

Source:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/features/a7708/lotus-sport-108-secret-history-bicycle/

Then of course there was the six months of wind tunnel work Boardman did leading up to the 1992 Olympics:

Here's a video talking about the testing that was done with Boardman and the aerodynamicist Richard Hill and how that progressed to the Superman position:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMpMP1nu5jc

Sort of belies the claim that Boardman never did aero testing. He probably spent more hours doing aero testing in tunnels and at the track that just about any other rider on the planet (although I can think of perhaps one or two). I can't provide error bars for that statement though, so take it for what it is.

That's a fantastic shot for what it gets wrong. Neither wheel is spinning. I'd love to see the smoke wand about four inches to the left or right as it hits a leg/knee in motion at 90 rpm. Occasional head position changes. Dude's in the air stream!

4 inches to the left you'd have the confounding boundary layer effect produced by hitting the wires holding up the bike.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

Boardman in the wind tunnel doing some preliminary work on the Lotus, which eventually morphed into the bike design and position used for his 1996 hour record ride.

Source:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/features/a7708/lotus-sport-108-secret-history-bicycle/

Then of course there was the six months of wind tunnel work Boardman did leading up to the 1992 Olympics:

Here's a video talking about the testing that was done with Boardman and the aerodynamicist Richard Hill and how that progressed to the Superman position:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMpMP1nu5jc

Sort of belies the claim that Boardman never did aero testing. He probably spent more hours doing aero testing in tunnels and at the track that just about any other rider on the planet (although I can think of perhaps one or two). I can't provide error bars for that statement though, so take it for what it is.

That's a fantastic shot for what it gets wrong. Neither wheel is spinning. I'd love to see the smoke wand about four inches to the left or right as it hits a leg/knee in motion at 90 rpm. Occasional head position changes. Dude's in the air stream!

4 inches to the left you'd have the confounding boundary layer effect produced by hitting the wires holding up the bike.

I think you mean that the wires will "trip" the boundary layer, producing turbulent (low drag) flow. However, the wires probably aren't in the boundary layer which isn't very thick. Rather they are just making lots of turbulent flow and screwing up the measurements.

So, so much wrong with that setup. Even if the person is pedalling, what if the wheel speed (front and back) isn't matched to the wind velocity? If the person is pedalling, how is their motion decoupled from the drag measurement (i.e., moving on the bike creates forces)? What's the vertical wind velocity profile (hint: velocity is zero at the ground)? Homogeneous in both axes (uh, no)? Micro-turbulent? BTW, if you hear any fan noise you've by definition got noise - quantify it.

John Swanson

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Those wheels won't move in that set up - he's on a rig, not rollers.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

There's a better image here: http://www.lotusespritworld.com/LotusModels/LotusSportBike.html

It looks to me like the wires were inside the width of the front wheel nuts, plus it (looks like it?) extends from an apex at the top and then triangles out either side, hence the impact on boundary flow suggestion.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Well it would be interesting to know what model you're using.

I missed this bit before. As mentioned and linked to in an earlier post, I use the Martin et al model (since it's been very well validated).

Please post the Martin model as that's infinitely non-Google-able.

John Swanson

http://journals.humankinetics.com/jab-back-issues/jabvolume14issue3august/validationofamathematicalmodelforroadcyclingpower

http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/MartinDocs/Validation%20of%20a%20mathematical%20model%20for%20road%20cycling.pdf

That's a decent model. Nice experimental paper.

John Swanson

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

That's a fantastic shot for what it gets wrong. Neither wheel is spinning. I'd love to see the smoke wand about four inches to the left or right as it hits a leg/knee in motion at 90 rpm. Occasional head position changes. Dude's in the air stream!

Wow.

John Swanson

It was simply to demonstrate they were doing wind tunnel work back before 1992, not as a perfect example of how tunnel testing is done. Like all good aerodynamics guys, I'm sure they worked out the wrinkles with the process and sorted out what worked and didn't work. And of course they were also capturing data from on track riding to validate and complement the tunnel work.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Well it would be interesting to know what model you're using.

I missed this bit before. As mentioned and linked to in an earlier post, I use the Martin et al model (since it's been very well validated).

Please post the Martin model as that's infinitely non-Google-able.

John Swanson

http://journals.humankinetics.com/jab-back-issues/jabvolume14issue3august/validationofamathematicalmodelforroadcyclingpower

http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/MartinDocs/Validation%20of%20a%20mathematical%20model%20for%20road%20cycling.pdf

Thanks for posting the links DW.

John - I wasn't avoiding providing, just thought I'd provided enough reference for a well known model in this space.

There was subsequent paper on validating track data, in particular use of forward integration techniques for predicting speed-power relationships for non-steady state (sprint) cycling:
http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/rchung/20091015204922.PDF

That led onto a documented methodology for field testing of aerodynamics with a power meter, which is appended to the above link (sans the spreadsheet).

I create a user friendly version of the spreadsheet and made it publicly available in April 2006, although velodrome testing methods were already being used by a few that knew how to use the data. Even simple comparison runs plotting speed v power can provide such info. These models helped apply greater rigour to the process. Of course in subsequent years, other field test methods were developed, including, e.g. the virtual elevation modelling approach as described by Professor Chung, another approach I helped people use by providing user friendly sheets for. There were other variation on the energy balance theme that were developed over the years since. This approach ultimately morphed into more sophisticated real time CdA monitoring with the Alphamantis track aero system, which I use regularly today in my aerodynamics testing work.

The upshot is, the ability to derive a rider's aerodynamics properties from data collected in a velodrome is well documented and validated and is being put into practice daily in testing centres around the world.

The lead author of both power validation papers, Jim Martin, posts occasionally on these forums, even complemented me the other week on some of my other power modelling work - in that case assessment of crank velocity variability while pedalling in both steady state and acceleration scenarios, and how that affects power meter accuracy. It uses the exact same principles described in that paper, all I did was to apply a high frequency to the forward integration approach (e.g. 100Hz), something Jim has of course already done and experimentally validated but I wasn't aware of earlier.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

So you're comfortable claiming Boardman was clean?

As I've said before, I'm conformable in saying I don't know. Not enough to really suggest either way for mine.

Besides, we can't say someone never doped, since that's impossible to prove, so there's really not much point in saying so. For instance I know I haven't, but I can't ever prove it to others. No one can.

Is it some clinic requirement to have a definitive belief about every rider one way or another?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

Boardman did 52.27km in 1993 riding a more normal aero position (i.e. similar to Rominger's position) on his Corima. For his 1996 Superman position record on the Lotus he attained 56.375km. Boardman's 1993 power was less than his 1996 power, so a proportion of the gain was from more power, and a proportion due to aerodynamics improvement, and some variability due to environmental differences: air temps were similar, but I don't have data on air pressure differences (there will be a typical range) and a little due to track/tyres but these are small (I think same tyres but someone can correct me - in any case the tyre Crr differences at the pointy end is small).

Based on best info I have right now, Rominger's CdA was ~10-11% (~0.02m^2) higher than Boardman's Superman position CdA, but it was lower than Boardman's 1993 set up by ~5% (0.01m^2).

Using Boardman's 1996 known repeatable SRM measured power from training, and with known environmental conditions on the day of his ride, we have his hour power pegged at ~442W (I'll leave error bars out for now, and add them later into distance estimates).

Assuming same track, environmental conditions and power as for his 1996 ride:

If Boardman the same CdA as Rominger had, Boardman would have ridden ~54.5km +/- 0.3km, or ~1.9 km less, and of course ~0.8km less than Rominger's ride.

Had he used his 1993 set up, Boardman would ride ~53.7km +/- 0.3km, or ~2.7km less, and about 1.6km less than Rominger.

The aerodynamics improvement from the Superman position and better bike gained Boardman something like 2.0 - 2.5km of the 4.1km difference between his 1993 and 1996 ride, with the majority of the balance (1.6 - 2.1km) being from an improvement in power, and some smaller variations due to environmental differences.

Without the aerodynamics improvement made through a lot of position and equipment experimentation and aero testing, he'd have fallen short of Rominger's record by a substantial margin (1.6km +/- 0.3km).

Thanks Alex.

So, his improvement in absolute power would be around 4%?

Can the same comparison be made for Boardman 1991 vs Boardman 1992?

A year later, 1992, he does a 4 min 24 at the Olympics, thats 5% faster. Not even mentioning Stuttgart's track wasnt open like Barcelona's.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

The aerodynamics improvement from the Superman position and better bike gained Boardman something like 2.0 - 2.5km of the 4.1km difference between his 1993 and 1996 ride, with the majority of the balance (1.6 - 2.1km) being from an improvement in power, and some smaller variations due to environmental differences.

This bit doesn't make sense. Only at one extreme of your estimate does an improvement in power (and other factors) account for the majority of the balance and then it's only 100m. Take the other extreme and the difference is 900m in favour of aero improvements. You error bars are too big to claim a majority from either aero or power, but if you are going to, based on your numbers, you would have to side with the majority of the difference coming from aero improvements. Or you have your numbers the wrong way round.

 

[wendybnt]

Re: Re:

So you're comfortable claiming Boardman was clean?

As I've said before, I'm conformable in saying I don't know. Not enough to really suggest either way for mine.

Besides, we can't say someone never doped, since that's impossible to prove, so there's really not much point in saying so. For instance I know I haven't, but I can't ever prove it to others. No one can.

Is it some clinic requirement to have a definitive belief about every rider one way or another?

You keep going. Your postings are very interesting, and I'd guess that most people feel the same, even if there are a couple of noisy hecklers

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

The aerodynamics improvement from the Superman position and better bike gained Boardman something like 2.0 - 2.5km of the 4.1km difference between his 1993 and 1996 ride, with the majority of the balance (1.6 - 2.1km) being from an improvement in power, and some smaller variations due to environmental differences.

This bit doesn't make sense. Only at one extreme of your estimate does an improvement in power (and other factors) account for the majority of the balance and then it's only 100m. Take the other extreme and the difference is 900m in favour of aero improvements. You error bars are too big to claim a majority from either aero or power, but if you are going to, based on your numbers, you would have to side with the majority of the difference coming from aero improvements. Or you have your numbers the wrong way round.

Not sure what doesn't make sense?

He rode 4.1 km further in 1996 than in 1993. I'm suggesting that aero differences accounted for between 2km and 2.5km of that 4.1km improvement, while increased power output was responsible for most of the balance.

Going further in an hour record on similar indoor track surfaces is primarily a function of the ratio of power to CdA (W/m^2) and air density. A few other bits and pieces as well of course but these are smaller factors. It's power, CdA and air density which are the big three factors. Hence to achieve 4.1km more distance, it will be all but due to changes in those three primary factors.

Extreme weather variances might see a 1km difference for the same W/m^2, but these indoor velodromes are not wildly different in temps and they only differ in altitude by ~40 metres, so it's down to air density differentials. Extreme barometric pressure differences can result in up to 900m difference in distance attainable for same W/m^2 but such an extreme variance is unlikely. So a ~500m allowance is about right, that covers an air pressure range of ~30hPa (e.g. stormy weather vs a fine sunny day). I don't have exact measurements for Bordeaux track on that day, but looking at video it wasn't cold - assistants where wearing short sleeve polo shirts and shorts, while officials had full blazers on, so presumably comfortable mid-20s C inside is about what you'd expect (same as Manchester track).

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Thanks Alex.

So, his improvement in absolute power would be around 4%?

I'd estimate ~5% more power, perhaps a bit more, something like 20-30W more. He was aiming for ~420W in '93 and had 442W in '96, but not sure what he actually was able to manage in '93 (while we were told what power he was hitting for '96).

As an aside, I saw a video recently where Boardman mentioned some time in lead up to 1993 he'd tested VO2max at 90ml/kg/min (although he messed up quoting the units, that's what he meant).

Can the same comparison be made for Boardman 1991 vs Boardman 1992?

A year later, 1992, he does a 4 min 24 at the Olympics, thats 5% faster. Not even mentioning Stuttgart's track wasnt open like Barcelona's.

I'd need more details on conditions and context for pursuit comparisons. Pursuits are not always ridden maximally because it's about qualification which was different process at Olympics (often it was about beating your opponent to progress to the next round or setting a fast enough time rather than the best time possible).

Partially exposed / quality outdoor tracks on the right day can be fast. Just needs a really hot day, good surface, very little wind. But nothing beats super hot air on high quality indoor surface of a well shaped track. Just ask Jack Bobridge. I raced at same championships, it was blazing hot, at least 38C inside, quite possibly more.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

The aerodynamics improvement from the Superman position and better bike gained Boardman something like 2.0 - 2.5km of the 4.1km difference between his 1993 and 1996 ride, with the majority of the balance (1.6 - 2.1km) being from an improvement in power, and some smaller variations due to environmental differences.

This bit doesn't make sense. Only at one extreme of your estimate does an improvement in power (and other factors) account for the majority of the balance and then it's only 100m. Take the other extreme and the difference is 900m in favour of aero improvements. You error bars are too big to claim a majority from either aero or power, but if you are going to, based on your numbers, you would have to side with the majority of the difference coming from aero improvements. Or you have your numbers the wrong way round.

Not sure what doesn't make sense?

He rode 4.1 km further in 1996 than in 1993. I'm suggesting that aero differences accounted for between 2km and 2.5km of that 4.1km improvement, while increased power output was responsible for most of the balance.

Going further in an hour record on similar indoor track surfaces is primarily a function of the ratio of power to CdA (W/m^2) and air density. A few other bits and pieces as well of course but these are smaller factors. It's power, CdA and air density which are the big three factors. Hence to achieve 4.1km more distance, it will be all but due to changes in those three primary factors.

Extreme weather variances might see a 1km difference for the same W/m^2, but these indoor velodromes are not wildly different in temps and they only differ in altitude by ~40 metres, so it's down to air density differentials. Extreme barometric pressure differences can result in up to 900m difference in distance attainable for same W/m^2 but such an extreme variance is unlikely. So a ~500m allowance is about right, that covers an air pressure range of ~30hPa (e.g. stormy weather vs a fine sunny day). I don't have exact measurements for Bordeaux track on that day, but looking at video it wasn't cold - assistants where wearing short sleeve polo shirts and shorts, while officials had full blazers on, so presumably comfortable mid-20s C inside is about what you'd expect (same as Manchester track).

Re-reading I think it's an English thing. I was assuming the balance was the difference between the 93 and 96 times, I think you mean the balance is the remaining distance not accounted for by aero efficiency. Is that correct?

 

[Tonton]

Thanks for all that info Alex. Question, off topic maybe, but still: has any research been conducted to simulate road racing positions, probably indoors in order to reduce parameters, in order to quantify the benefits of a great posture on the bike, i.e. the late VDB vs. the likes of Voekler?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Re-reading I think it's an English thing. I was assuming the balance was the difference between the 93 and 96 times, I think you mean the balance is the remaining distance not accounted for by aero efficiency. Is that correct?

Yes. Of the 4.1km extra distance attained in 1996 over 1993, about half of the improvement I estimate to be due to better aerodynamics, the balance down to other factors, of which greater power output is the largest factor (in the vicinity of 20-30W).

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Thanks for all that info Alex. Question, off topic maybe, but still: has any research been conducted to simulate road racing positions, probably indoors in order to reduce parameters, in order to quantify the benefits of a great posture on the bike, i.e. the late VDB vs. the likes of Voekler?

Not sure I completely understand your question.

There is no doubt that some riders are more aerodynamically gifted than others. It's one attribute among many that determines performance and success in the sport. Like most such attributes, it can be worked on and improved.

Certainly bike fitting and aerodynamic testing been done on individual riders to find the optimal set up/position for them. I've done work with pro rider road bike positions, helping them find good positions to use in various scenarios (e.g. early stage lead out trains, creating, bridging across to and maintaining breaks) and tips to reduce energy demand at other times.

Anyway, it is OT, probably better in another thread.

 

[Tonton]

Thanks for all that info Alex. Question, off topic maybe, but still: has any research been conducted to simulate road racing positions, probably indoors in order to reduce parameters, in order to quantify the benefits of a great posture on the bike, i.e. the late VDB vs. the likes of Voekler?

Not sure I completely understand your question.

There is no doubt that some riders are more aerodynamically gifted than others. It's one attribute among many that determines performance and success in the sport. Like most such attributes, it can be worked on and improved.

Certainly bike fitting and aerodynamic testing been done on individual riders to find the optimal set up/position for them. I've done work with pro rider road bike positions, helping them find good positions to use in various scenarios (e.g. early stage lead out trains, creating, bridging across to and maintaining breaks) and tips to reduce energy demand at other times.

Anyway, it is OT, probably better in another thread.

OT yes, however when I see how big a difference changing posture made for Boardman, I was thinking that maybe it had been attempted to test various positions and settings and put numbers on the improvement. For example by taking a panel to an indoor track.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re-Boardman 1991 versus 1992 on his Lotus bike

Yes, the Lotus bike was more aero than the bike of 1991 WC in Stuttgart, but, looking at this picture,

taken from

http://lopro.blogspot.nl/2012/02/chirs-boardman-manchester-wheeelers.html

I find it staggering Boardman found 10 seconds or so within a year on an outside Velodrome, where guys like Lehman - no douche - only found 2 seconds?

Aerodynamics are a big factor in cycling, wonder how hard Lehman would have gone if Mercedes had taken the trouble to design a bike for him.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Doping In Athletics

Great points. When i sit back and contemplate the history of some of these dopers I am struck by the parallels with addictions of various kinds: A person can't imagine themselves becoming an addict, then they start to dabble and eventually get psychologically and sometimes physically dependent on a substance. With doping in sport I can see a person entering a sport swearing they would never dope, then doing it "just one time" to qualify for a Tour spot, contract, etc. They enjoy the experience and the sense of power they get from EPO or another substance and the addiction cycle begins. After a while of not getting caught they are receiving a lot of powerful feedback to continue. I truly believe that some of them believe that they are bulletproof and get quite arrogant, either from side effects of steroids or just from the high that comes from winning. Witness some of the bizarre behavior of the Armstrong cabal or the current kerfuffle involving violence and bullying by the Nike/Salzar/Capriotti mafia in the USA track and field world.

you see, I disagree that a rider like Wiggins wakes up at 32 and decides, I am leaving Columbia, I am going to Garmin and will be a GC rider and if I gotta dope, and I do gotta dope for the results, I gonna gotta dope goddamit alliterations and grammar.

Wiggins, because he has gone full hog, pun intended, I put him into the dope domain when he was a jnr rider at British Cyclng.If Carmichael and USA Cycling can extract of cortisone dope Armstrong at 20 in the jnr espoir national team, see no reason why they dont do it to Wiggins circa 97.Then off to Linda MAcCartney, Wiggins doped, he knows he doped, we know he doped, we know, he knows, we know. Value neutral. no need to project upon person a lesser character trait cos he took PEDS. that is absurd. But Wiggo did not wake up one morning, in 2010, and decide to dope. Nope, it does not happen this way. He did to do more than dip his toe in tho, he did decide to do full *** and try to pull down a big GC monument and secure his economic riches and future. That changed. But it did not change that he just started to dope. Which is what makes it so galling and hypocritical when he went Christiano Moleni his teammate on Cofidis when he was busted circa 2007 at the Tour. Did he also "go" Rob Hayles? Or David Miller? bother were teammates of his...