Cycling thread

[DaChunk]

Right... landa was a great climber. Far better than anything in this field. Like I've said this tour is full of bang average climbers. Pogacar is 7% better than any of these. Is he 7% better than a fit roglic? Or bernal? No.

A donkey like froome taking near 2 mins on contador is far less credible than what we have seen this weekend. Your complete blinkers to anything froome or team sky is pathetic to be honest

Didn't Contador legit get caught doping?

 

[Wizard]

Didn't Contador legit get caught doping?

Yes, twice. The first he was cleared of and the second resulted in him being stripped of a TdF and Giro win.

The sport is so bent. But I’m of the opinion that most sports are, especially individual sports.

 

[DaChunk]

Yes, twice. The first he was cleared of and the second resulted in him being stripped of a TdF and Giro win.

The sport is so bent. But I’m of the opinion that most sports are, especially individual sports.

For sure, just thought it was quite ironic given the tone of his post haha. Do you think the sport today is cleaner than the 2000's era?

 

[Wizard]

For sure, just thought it was quite ironic given the tone of his post haha. Do you think the sport today is cleaner than the 2000's era?

I’ll be honest, I’d don’t follow cycling that closely. So can’t say with any certainty. But I do follow a lot of sports a bit casually and I am very interested in the doping culture. And I think it is rife. As I said, especially in individual sports. And the doping agencies like WADA or USADA are not fit for purpose.

Froome, Wiggins, Farah, Djokovic, Nadal are all athletes that I have followed quite closely and I think they are all at it. Too many runners to mention. Sha’Carri Richardson’s ban for weed is ludicrous but her coach is a well known drug cheat.

In terms of cycling the one I really hope isn’t doing it is Cavendish. Because he has been so outspoken about drug cheats.

But as I say, I don’t follow cycling that closely so happy to be schooled by Bruce or anyone else on here that is very into it.

 

[arminisgod]

For sure, just thought it was quite ironic given the tone of his post haha. Do you think the sport today is cleaner than the 2000's era?

I've already said they are all juiced mate

 

[arminisgod]

Landa, best place 3rd in the Giro, better than Carapaz, Giro winner and 2nd in last year's Vuelta having outclimbed Roglic. I'm not sure you really watch cycling Landa was also in last year's Tour, when he was outclimbed by Richie Porte.

Landa was a great climber when on form. He couldn't time trial so never had a chance to win a gc

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Landa was a great climber when on form. He couldn't time trial so never had a chance to win a gc

Which could also describe Carapaz.

Incidentally, Pogacar had a VAM on Saturday of around 1850

 

[BlueToff]

I've already said they are all juiced mate

Really?

I've only got properly into cycling in the last year but I really do think sports science and everything around rehab and recovery and training has come such a long way in the last decade, that it isn't just that they're all juiced up.

These are naturally talented athletes who have trained all their lives but are now trained to within an inch of their life, every little tiny thing they do measured and specified.

 

[arminisgod]

Really?

I've only got properly into cycling in the last year but I really do think sports science and everything around rehab and recovery and training has come such a long way in the last decade, that it isn't just that they're all juiced up.

These are naturally talented athletes who have trained all their lives but are now trained to within an inch of their life, every little tiny thing they do measured and specified.

Everyone at the sharp end is juiced mate. Cycling has and will always be juiced. Don't believe the garbage spouted by teams like sky.

 

[BlueToff]

Everyone at the sharp end is juiced mate. Cycling has and will always be juiced. Don't believe the garbage spouted by teams like sky.

I don't believe anything by the teams. I just love watching and learning and reading up on training. The amount I've improved from specific training blocks, for example, in the last few months. I can only think how magnified that would be if you have everything specified perfectly and you're a professional athlete.

I suppose if there's an element of everyone juicing, if that is correct, then it's a level playing field anyway.

 

[Black Belt Jones]

I don't believe anything by the teams. I just love watching and learning and reading up on training. The amount I've improved from specific training blocks, for example, in the last few months. I can only think how magnified that would be if you have everything specified perfectly and you're a professional athlete.

I suppose if there's an element of everyone juicing, if that is correct, then it's a level playing field anyway.

It's not correct, and it wouldn't be a level playing field - that is why doping is so pernicious.

Athletes physiologies are very different and some will see a massive response with things like blood doping or EPO (both now impossible to do on the scale of yesteryear), others will see only moderate changes. In cycling the very best are capped out at around 7 W/kg ftp (for a climber) or 450-500 W ftp absolute output (for a monster rouleur or time trialist). If someone is sitting close to those limits then doping isn't going to do much to raise the ceiling of performance (but it will for recovery and repetition of performance). But someone else at the tier below can be transformed into a GC rider through doping, e.g. Lance Armstrong.

To give a counter example where it would be a level playing field - There's a UCI rule in downhill mountain biking that riders can't wear skinsuits - very ridiculous on the face of it because it means they're all doing a time trial in baggy clothes that slow them down. It's to do with marketing the sport and not having pro DHers looking stupid in a skinsuit and crash helmet on a DH bike.

But if you did away with this silly rule all that would happen is that everyone goes 5% faster - the same 5% for everyone because no DH team has the budget to develop a proprietary skinsuit technology that would be any good. So they all wear a nopinz suit and nothing changes except they look funny. But doping is a different kettle of fish.

 

[DaChunk]

I've already said they are all juiced mate

Then I don't get why you seem to have more dislike towards certain riders and teams?

 

[SerenityNigh]

Really?

I've only got properly into cycling in the last year but I really do think sports science and everything around rehab and recovery and training has come such a long way in the last decade, that it isn't just that they're all juiced up.

These are naturally talented athletes who have trained all their lives but are now trained to within an inch of their life, every little tiny thing they do measured and specified.

Cycling invented most of the good PEDs and have been using them longer than most, although T&F/Athletics puts in a reasonable effort to keep up. And American football has its own schemes, but these have an entirely different aim so aren't really comparable.

 

[BlueToff]

Anyway, I'm gonna have a drive out to the hills tonight and do a bit of climbing.

Cheating a bit, but my knee has been playing up lately so think I might treat this week as an early recovery week - will see how it goes.

Will still do 35k, but if I ride from mine that turns into a 60k ride and not sure I've got that in me today.

 

[SerenityNigh]

It's not correct, and it wouldn't be a level playing field - that is why doping is so pernicious.

Athletes physiologies are very different and some will see a massive response with things like blood doping or EPO (both now impossible to do on the scale of yesteryear), others will see only moderate changes. In cycling the very best are capped out at around 7 W/kg ftp (for a climber) or 450-500 W ftp absolute output (for a monster rouleur or time trialist). If someone is sitting close to those limits then doping isn't going to do much to raise the ceiling of performance (but it will for recovery and repetition of performance). But someone else at the tier below can be transformed into a GC rider through doping, e.g. Lance Armstrong.

To give a counter example where it would be a level playing field - There's a UCI rule in downhill mountain biking that riders can't wear skinsuits - very ridiculous on the face of it because it means they're all doing a time trial in baggy clothes that slow them down. It's to do with marketing the sport and not having pro DHers looking stupid in a skinsuit and crash helmet on a DH bike.

But if you did away with this silly rule all that would happen is that everyone goes 5% faster - the same 5% for everyone because no DH team has the budget to develop a proprietary skinsuit technology that would be any good. So they all wear a nopinz suit and nothing changes except they look funny. But doping is a different kettle of fish.

I think the greatest athletes will see the greatest benefit of PEDs, but as you say it's with recovery and the ability to repeat intense performances. These can appear to be marginal gains, but the margins actually become quite large at this end of the spectrum.