[Closed] Wiggins v Froome - handbags at dawn?

Weird.

[b]Hora[/b] defended Lance for so long, in the face of pretty damning evidence from 2004 onwards.

When unable to ignore the truth any more, then suddenly [i]everyone[/i] must be doping... because his hero couldn't be that different 😥

There are plenty of sports in which most don't dope and some have. This too is possible in Cycling. Hill climbs and changing speeds support the idea that cycling is becoming cleaner... Was

As for Froome... it is going to be interesting, but the idea that because someone improves in their mid 20s they are doping ignores the reason why the TdF has a young rider competition for people below the age of 26. Yes, some people have won the GC and the White Jersey, but only 3 since 1987. For endurance events, including Marathons, often people improve in their late 20s.

They have not slowed down. A Current rider, Cantador, holds the record for the fastest climbing rate. Both Froome and Wiggins have sustained climbing rates that are high enough for long enough to show they are capable of climbing cols as fast as the previous generation even if they appear careful not too. Armstrong had his team attack from the bottom of the climb but these days riders take it easy up the first ramps of a climb so their times for the climb don't create suspicion.

When Riis, Pantani and Ulrich set their records they dropped the peloton as soon as the climb started. Theses days the lead riders sit in the peloton pedaling on eggs then attack when the average climb rate won't be a record.

Hora defended Lance for so long, in the face of pretty damning evidence from 2004 onwards.

1999 onwards. The cortisone positive.

Edukator - Member
They have not slowed down. A Current rider, Cantador, holds the record for the fastest climbing rate. Both Froome and Wiggins have sustained climbing rates that are high enough for long enough to show they are capable of climbing cols as fast as the previous generation even if they appear careful not too. Armstrong had his team attack from the bottom of the climb but these days riders take it easy up the first ramps of a climb so their times for the climb don't create suspicion.

When Riis, Pantani and Ulrich set their records they dropped the peloton as soon as the climb started. Theses days the lead riders sit in the peloton pedaling on eggs then attack when the average climb rate won't be a record.

HA HA HA HA.

That is all.

[b]Edukator[/b] err...

are you saying Contador is clean? Or that many of us would believe him to be? Small matter of a 2 year ban? His climbing rate argues against you, not for you.

Your switch to saying that 'if Lance wasn't clean then no-one can be' is only barely more logical than your staunch defence of him despite reams of evidence he was cheating.

Edukator we have done this BUT

They have not slowed down. A Current rider, Cantador, holds the record for the fastest climbing rate.

Both Froome and Wiggins have sustained climbing rates that are high enough for long enough to show they are capable of climbing cols as fast as the previous generation even if they appear careful not too.

Armstrong had his team attack from the bottom of the climb but these days riders take it easy up the first ramps of a climb so their times for the climb don't create suspicion.

Or they simply lack the power to be able to do this .... given they are drug tested anyway why would they be worried that riding fast would be suspicious it is after all a race- your "reasoning is rather funny tbh again the proof is they dont

When Riis, Pantani and Ulrich set their records they dropped the peloton as soon as the climb started. Theses days the lead riders sit in the peloton pedaling on eggs then attack when the average climb rate won't be a record.

You do bang on anbout this but is as reasonable and well argued as Horas position

...possibly slower than clean riders - Indurain for example

Ya think??? Big Mig's all but admitted to doping!

There isn't any hard and fast 'evidence' to implicate anyone. That much is obvious.

The big problem is that there are some 'incredible' improvements across the Sky team, which individually don't really seem that much (well apart from the Tour double!) but if you view the whole lot from the perspective of the USADA reasoned decision and Hamilton's/Landis' admissions and all that was kicked up in the aftermath then what question pops up in my mind is 'are we really seeing clean cycling or is it just another 'New Dawn'?' i.e. just like in '99 after Festina, '06 after Armstrong, etc., etc....

Now if you come up with, 'sure of course it is', then good luck to you.

Just remember and keep in touch with Hora when it all goes tits up and shock horror we find out doping hasn't actually disappeared. Again. (ETA 😉 )

The dopers are always ahead of the testers. Always.

he actually failed a drug test as well for glenbutorol iirc in a race but got a prescription for it. I did expect a reaction to that one but from Edukator.
tbh I would not be surprised to discover he doped - frankly given what has happened in Spain re blood doping and Bertie I would not be surprised by any Spanish rider, now or in the past saddly.

I think Cadel was the first one I would have bet my house on tbh and he was about 4 minutes slower

RE SKY

i think the greatest damage LA has sone is that anytime someone good comes along they will be suspected of cheating and if a ggod team comes along then the same
Yes there are parallels with LA and Postal but they have also made some pretty clear statements on drugs as has Wiggo all his career. It is not impossible that they are systematically exploiting the naive public and doping to the eyeballs but i require more proof than it is a bit like Postal and LA.
yet to se eeven a whif of a smoking gun let alone the smoking gun [ staff personel choice aside]- have you any hard evidence?

So Cantador is a drug cheat that holds the climbing record because of drugs but a rider that drops him isn't. I'm afraid we're back to the kind of support Armstrong got on Anglo-Saxon forums even post 99.

I think Cadel was the first one I would have bet my house on tbh and he was about 4 minutes slower

I admire your spunk young man, I'd be wary of claiming anybody after Lemond!

Wasn't there some interview with Mig where he was asked about doping and being told silence would speak volumes and when asked replied with a deafening silence? Or am I out of my mind on PED's and just imagining it all.

Big guys just can't climb like that. Which is a pity as I'm (still) a big Ulrich fan... hey ho.

I am struggling to understand how Contador holds the climbing record and yet he gets dropped - any chance you could explain your logic here?
Pretty sure on Cuddles , Wiggo and Cav and I would say Nibali and some of the others tbh Spartacus, Shut up legs etc

Look at Cuddles he never got faster they all just got slower but in Edukator world perhaps he just had slower acting drugs 😉

[url= http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/froomes-tour-de-france-confidence-grows-after-beating-contador ]Fromme drops Cantador (not for the first time)[/url]

When Riis, Pantani and Ulrich set their records they dropped the peloton as soon as the climb started. Theses days the lead riders sit in the peloton pedaling on eggs then attack when the average climb rate won't be a record.

Or perhaps they attack when they know they've got the actual energy to sustain it?

I'm very happy to believe Cuddles has been clean through his career. I suspect it goes part of the way to explaining why he can be a difficult character. He's spent his adult life doing what he thought he'd love knowing he was being beaten by cheats.

I'm also prepared to believe Sastre was clean. AFAIK the only 'evidence' against him was that he rode a bike quickly in an era when everyone else quick was on it.

I think you have to go with the fact that there is little or no "evidence" that would suggest much of the pro-peleton is doping anymore, perhaps even innocent till proven guilty? edit: or rather that those who have been caught lately no longer seem to have the power & pace they had before they were caught..

Having said that I would be very surprised if it had managed to clean its act up in just a few years. Still, one can only keep ones fingers crossed & hope for the best... 😕

No evidence. The Spanish court refused to release the names of 200 Fuentes blood-doping customers yesterday. There's plenty of evidence but no-one is allowed to see it.

right so a no longer doped Contador is getting dropped - How exactly does that prove everyone else is cheating? Does it not suggest he is no longer cheating?
Ps By dropped you mean being slightly ahead in a sprint finish [stage 5] so he did not really drop him now did he?
Still not getting your logic tbh but dropped is an OTT description of a sprint finish and it is more accurate to say Bertie failed to drop Froome tbh

The blood seized is what 8 years old now so may not be indicative of what is happening now

I am really struggling to see the point of what you say but it is not well thought out

Personally I don't have much faith in any cyclists, including Team Sky. The dramatic rise from being distinctly average GC stage racers / climbers to being world class for both Wiggins and Froome is pretty suspicious - Froome went from being a nobody to beating Cancellara in a time trial and being able to drop the world's best climbers. Wiggins went from being a pretty ordinary climber to suddenly being able to climb with the best and finishing 3rd in the TDF amongst the Schleck Brothers, Contador and Armstrong. Team Sky now ride with a dominance very similar to that of US Postal, with domestiques out climbing rival team's GC contenders. Contador was struggling to hold Porte's wheel the other day.

Despite their zero tolerance hiring promise, they've already had to let 6 or 7 staff go, including Dr Geert Leinders who organised systematic doping at Rabobank. Wiggins now seems to have forgotten his quote from before the Leinders story broke:

[i]"I think they have to take a strong look at who they invite to the race in the next few years; if there is one per cent suspicion or doubt that a team is involved in doping, or (are) working with certain doctors who are under suspicion of doping, then they shouldn’t be invited to the Tour de France, it’s as simple as that. They shouldn’t even be given a racing licence until they can prove that they are not involved in wrongdoing."[/i]

If history has taught us anything, remarkable transformations and performances are usually followed by a scandal in cycling. Personally the only person in cycling I trust is Vaughters - he's realistic and answers questions from the fans, including the cynics.

Oh and for the record, I think Wiggins will struggle against Nibali in the mountains at the Giro (lost 1min 40 to him the other day), so by the time the TDF comes around Froome will be leading.

No evidence. The Spanish court refused to release the names of 200 Fuentes blood-doping customers yesterday. There's plenty of evidence but no-one is allowed to see it.

Shocking I know. That evidence REALLY needs to come out!

No evidence. The Spanish court refused to release the names of 200 Fuentes blood-doping customers yesterday. There's plenty of evidence but no-one is allowed to see it.

Shocking I know. That evidence REALLY needs to come out!

If it was just cyclists, then it would be released. Most of the cyclists have been named IIRC, it's the footballers and tennis players that are being protected, especially considering it's Spain's Olympic bid this year.

Wiggins went from being a pretty ordinary climber

Wiggins went from being a record breaking Olympic cyclist with a near peerles record at endurance [ sprinting events] with occasional road rides till he diedciated himself to the road.

It was not like he was an avergae rider just that he did not specialise in the road

As for this average riders and SKY made them awesome

with domestiques out climbing rival team's GC contenders

Froome was a reasonable to good young rider who has matured well it is not unheard of it but it will raise suspicions due to previous athletes.he is not as bad as some say but yes he has got better but improving endurance with age is not unheard of without drugs and it alone is not proof of anything

And yes we should see the blood from the case mentioned

Team Sky now ride with a dominance very similar to that of US Postal, with domestiques out climbing rival team's GC contenders. Contador was struggling to hold Porte's wheel the other day.

Comparisons to Contador are misleading. We know he was doping and assume now he's not, so would expect to see his performance drop off. Without the drugs maybe he would have been a domestique himself.

When racing SKY are similar in the way they control the peloton but that's about where it ends. There's no reason they need drugs to do this (assuming most teams are clean) just good tactics and a strong team, something which they have the budget for.

You don't see Wiggins making repeated attacks on climbs the way Lance used to, or climb at the front day after day without looking tired.

The other way SKY and Postal resemble each other is the minute detail and dedication to training. Both teams have taken these things further than any of the competition. Again this helps with the results and is nothing to do with drugs.

JoeyDeacon; generally I think it's fair enough to be suspicious after the number of let downs from the pro peloton but I think a couple of the points raised are a little unfair.

Team Sky now ride with a dominance very similar to that of US Postal, with domestiques out climbing rival team's GC contenders.

Sky are a big bucks team, there domestiques would be other teams GC contenders, Porte could walk in to most teams and be a protected rider for a grand tour.

Oh and for the record, I think Wiggins will struggle against Nibali in the mountains at the Giro (lost 1min 40 to him the other day)

Is that when he was standing around waiting for a new bike from the team car? On the previous day nibali couldn't shake him off and Wiggins wouldn't attack as sky had the eventual stage winner up the road. So overall i don't think we can read too much in to that.

Wiggins went from being a record breaking Olympic cyclist with a near peerles record at endurance [ sprinting events] with occasional road rides till he diedciated himself to the road.

Wiggins went from being a world class 4 minute rider, who couldn't climb, to a world class 3 week rider who could keep up with the best doping riders pretty much overnight. Look at his GC results before 2009.

It's not far off Usain Bolt suddenly contending to win the London Marathon.

Is that when he was standing around waiting for a new bike from the team car? On the previous day nibali couldn't shake him off and Wiggins wouldn't attack as sky had the eventual stage winner up the road. So overall i don't think we can read too much in to that.

Granted he did lose around 30 seconds due to bike, but lost another minute on the climb, and not just to Nibali either. I don't think Wiggins will be as good this year - he spent a lot of time partying at the end of last season, (and to be fair he'd achieved some amazing things) - and has never had 2 good seasons running on the road. I think he's lost a bit of hunger this year, but will back next year. May well be wrong though, we'll see!

Wiggins will not win the Giro or the TdF. Froome will not win the TdF, he will crack under the pressure from others and his own activities.

Why would someone give up doping when they've got a system that works? Cantador got caught because he autotransfused blood from pre-season doping. Now he knows to avoid that. He denied and lied throughout the whole saga, and you're trying to tell me he's a reformed character, Junkyard. Business as usual.

If we learn anything from the Armstrong saga it should be that testing doesn't work and athletes dope up to the eyeballs and don't test positive. Gendarmes, tax inspectors, wives, girlfriends, customs officers, journalists and betrayed "friends" have resulted in far more athletes being outed or confessing than the labs, British Cycling and the UCI put together.

Oh shit, I find myself *almost* agreeing with Edukator. Oh no...

I find it quite heart warming that there's a whole bunch of you ready to believe it's all better now (even bet their houses on it, apparently).

Which scenario do you think is most likely?

1. The UCI are shit hot and their blood passpot scheme is the biz and (despite not flagging Armstrongs come back results for expert scrutiny!) so dopers will all be caught so no one dopes anymore. Basically, cycling is now clean.

2. The blood passport scheme means that the dopers have to rein it in and be a lot smarter and take more precautions so as not trigger the *Feds* (i.e. Bandwidth doping) and as a consequence genuine talents have the chance of actually winning something.

3. The blood passport is a smokescreen so we can all hide behind it and claim that cycling really is clean now whilst the dopers are still at it (albeit reined in for the obvious reason that we all know what an epo-fuelled charge looks like these days) and everybody is happy (i.e. Business as usual)

Well scenario 3 would be very sponsor friendly... hmmm.

Wiggins went from being a world class 4 minute rider, who couldn't climb, to a world class 3 week rider who could keep up with the best doping riders pretty much overnight. Look at his GC results before 2009.

It's not far off Usain Bolt suddenly contending to win the London Marathon.

He denied and lied throughout the whole saga, and you're trying to tell me he's a reformed character, Junkyard.

I shall of course be persuaded by the overwhelming body off evidence you have to go with your innuendo and smears that everyone else is cheating FFS even proxy measures such as the averages are down and watts per kg so all you can do is this.

2 is the most likely scenario but some athletes are definitely clean and I believe them. Some I would never believe now and in the past I would not have believed any of them as being clean. It is better it is not perfect. Despite this it is daft to just assume the best must be cheating. To use usain again it is like saying he is a cheat because Ben Johnson was...that is what your evidence is at present.

A Swiss guy has been monitoring cycling for year. He's got a web site I cna't find at the moment. He plots climbing rates all the way up climbs based on video for the major tour climbs. His conclusion on the last tour was that the top 15 on the 2012 TDF had performances that indicated sophisticated doping. One example I remember is that an injured Voeckler performed as well as Virenque at his best in the 2012 TDF. The Lille protocol (named after the Festina trial) gave athletes 10-15% more power.

It is not that remarkable given he is a remarkable cyclist - still world record holder for 4000 km and only cyclist to win the TdF and the Olympic Time Trial so yes he must be a cheat

The alternative is that he is more powerful than the other best cyclists in the world even though the others we know were using doping protocols that gave them an extra 50W

The alternative has no evidence though which is a rather important fact and we do not know that the riders wiggo beat this year were all doping you just keep saying they were and present no evidence for it.
Re wattages

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18921784
It is the BBC so you will like it as source 😉

Today they can do the peak of the drug cheats just for shorter times and needing more recovery that is where PEDS generally gave the benefits namely recoveryor stamina if you prefer. If a top athlete rode only one stage of the Tdf Say Nibali or Contador they could rip the legs of folk on that stage [ and get huge peak wattages] but not recover for the next day

I prefer 60 minutes:

Voeckler n'est pas seul à affoler les statistiques. Wiggins et Froome ont également impressionné, développant 430 watts de moyenne dans le col de Peyresourde. Le duo a fait encore plus fort vers Peyragudes (2,95?km à 7,93% de moyenne). Il a atteint 470 watts pendant 7'03''. Si Froome n'avait pas attendu son leader, il aurait pu titiller les 500 watts que seuls jusqu'ici Armstrong, Contador et Pantani ont dépassé.

As for the Beeb they produced a programme in the early nineties in which they exposed how athletes training with colds were killing themselves. It was of course EPO. Then the Beeb followed Armstrong's lie that his improved power to weight ratio was due to weight loss. The Beeb swallows just anbout about any nonsense athletes dream up and regurgitaes it for the public..

ok we have reached the point where you quote in a language i dont speak and berate the BBC - that article quoted scientists and everything BTW.

nos da

Welsh for goodnight - see pointless

Why would someone give up doping when they've got a system that works?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/22363860

Hmmm

Bora da, I lived in Aberystwyth for 7 years. I assume people use auto translators these days.

Even if you are too lazy to translate it you can see Wiggins/Froome, 470W 7'03". The last bit says Froome would have equalled the 500W of Armstrong, Cantador and Pantani if he hadn't slowed down to wait for Wiggins.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03/biological-passport-effective-fight-or.html?m=1
Posting from phone, but I hope this will show an alternative opinion..

I'm no Wiggins fan, and had been deeply suspicious of Armstrong for years, but I'm not convinced that things are still the same.
I reckon that the sport is cleaner than it has been for years. How long this will last remains to ne seen.

Urrgghh just typed a really long reply and accidentally closed the window. To summarise..

No failed tests - but to be fair this isn't necessarily indicative of being clean.
Wiggins, Thomas, Rogers, Siutsou etc all ranked very highly in UCI suspicious list based on performances and blood data.
Overall performances are pretty dominating (both individual and as a team), and are very reminiscent of USPS's train
Regularly beating doping riders, often comprehensively
Hiring ex dopers and doping doctors - either Sky are very naive or they turned a blind eye to their staff's past.
Sudden improvements to their rider's performances upon joining, which seem to drop off as soon as they leave Sky

BTW I don't mean this to be an anti Sky post - other teams are just as bad if not worse - I'm just pointing out that they're not as squeaky clean as they claim to be. Maybe they are clean, and their spectacular performances are legit. I just find them hard to believe, in a sport that's historically been dominated by widespread doping.

Either way, if you agree with me or not, there's a nice piece by Robert Millar [url= http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/robert-millar/giro-ditalia-2013-la-guerra-gelato ]here[/url] about the Giro.

As for quoting scientists, you yourself have spent a lot of time and effort on here demonstrating that the sold-out scientists claiming climatic change is just a natural cycle rather than man made are not making objective use of the evidence. Scientists are rarely impartial or objective. Everyone in France had non stop tour coverage from which to calculate climbing rates and many did. They all came to the same conclusion; Voeckler, Froome and Wiggins were climbing faster than is physiologically possible unless... .

Try Googling "Voeckler doping" with your Google settings changed to French. You'll find that every serious media source in France carried stories about Voeckler's improbable performances. French media doubting a French cyclist. The articles only mentioned Froome and Wiggins to say they'd done even better and ultimately won.

Robert Millar tested positive for testosterone. (cyclimsme-dopage.com)

jesus wept Edukator is there a conspiracy you dont want to include in this thread? as for scientists not being impartial they work with data have you actually got any ? that is rhetorical BTW
What about moon landing fakery what does that have to say on this ...we know the bbc are corrupt and scientist cannot be trusted what next??

No failed tests - but to be fair this isn't necessarily indicative of being clean.- YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE AND IT CERTSAINLY DOES NOT MEAN THEY CHEAT. WHAT ELSE CAN THEY DO BUT NOT FAIL TESTS?
Wiggins, Thomas, Rogers, Siutsou etc all ranked very highly in UCI suspicious list based on performances and blood data. VERY HIGHLY IS OVERSTATING IT BUT WIGGO WAS SUSPICIOUS IIRC ALSO THIS WAS 2010 AND ,ILLER WAS A 4 AND WIGGINS A 5 CONTADOR WAS 5 ARMSTRONG 4 - USADA CLAIMED HE DOPED THEN SO THE LIST MAY BE ERRATIC
Overall performances are pretty dominating (both individual and as a team), and are very reminiscent of USPS's train AGAIN SO WHAT PROOF OF NOTHING EXCEPT BOTH TEAMS WON
Regularly beating doping riders, often comprehensively- WHO ARE THESE DOPING RIDERS THE CLAIM KEEP BEEING MADE THAT EVERYONE THEY BEAT IS DOPING IT IS, TOO BE AS POLITE AS I CAN, UTTERLY FABRICATED YET YOU AND OTHERS KEEP REAPEATING IT
Hiring ex dopers and doping doctors - either Sky are very naive or they turned a blind eye to their staff's past. POOR DECISION FOR SURE I OFFERN NO DEFENCE BUT IT IS NOT PROOF THEY CHEATED BUT THEY DID HIRE CHEATS - I ASSUME EVERY TEAM HAS TBH BUT YES VERY POOR
Sudden improvements to their rider's performances upon joining, which seem to drop off as soon as they leave Sky - YES LOOK AT THAT CAV FELLOW HE WAS NOWHERE THEN AWESOME AND NOW BACK TO SHIT

NAME THE RIDERS PLEASE TO WHICH YOU REFER PLEASE- SHOULD KEEP YOU GOOGLING FOR A WHILE I IMAGINE

Not shouting just easier than quoting

Junky, step away from the keyboard. Leave the [s]blinkered[/s] omniscient one alone. He is so wise, you can never know as many FACTS as him.

FFS, it's like the bad old days in here.

Did any of you read the article about the sportive rider who took EPO? He said it wasn't so much about extra power but the ability to keep working at maximum power for a long time, day after day.

So looking at individual climbs is probably less useful - what is useful is how often a particular rider goes on a huge attack in the mountains.

I seem to remember last year's tour being a rather cagey affair with people banking on gaining seconds at a few key points. Almost as if, I dunno.. maybe they knew they only had enough energy for a couple of big efforts...

To be fair to Edukator he was telling us LA was a cheat for more years than I care to remember whilst I believed in his cleaness. I do prefer to think good about people unless proven otherwise so that was very disappointing. Ed is well placed to provide accurate assessments but I'd stll prefer to believe the alternative views.

What do any of us really know.... Bugger all really, but I have to believe our Brits are clean including Froome.

The other factor that has not been discussed is motivation, effort and fitness. You need all three to do your best so we can't compare every performance as if each rider is achieving 100% of those three aspects.

FFS, it's like the [s]bad[/s] good old days in here.

FTFY

1. I put the No Failed Tests bit in as that's the usual defence from Sky fans - I'm not saying no failed tests = doping, I'm just stating that it doesn't necessarily mean they're clean.
2. You (or someone) asked for evidence - I provided some which implies that certain riders may not be as clean as they'd have us believe. Totally agree it's not conclusive, however the riders I quoted were all considered in the top 20% of suspicious by the governing body.
3. USPS train's performances were very suspicious - the way they blew away dopers such as Vino, Ullrich, Valverde etc. Sky are now doing a similar thing to the newer generation of GC riders.
4. Known dopers include Basso, Kloden, Vino, Basso etc - as per most years there were a lot of dopers riding last year's TDF, all of whom got dominated. In smaller stage races Contador has been comprehensively beaten by Froome a couple of times. A clean rider beating the almost certainly doping and arguably most talented stage racer of his generation at his own game doesn't really add up.
5. n/a
6. Look at Rogers this year - amazing in the mountains last year, rubbish now.

Appreciate we don't agree on this - all I'm saying is to automatically assume Sky are clean is very naive, especially given the history of cycling. A lot of Lance's fans were using the "no proof" line for years, despite the highly suspicious performances.

The only person talking sense who's still involved in professional cycling is Vaughters. Check cyclingnews forum for user jv1973 for his opinions / answers to cycling fans.

I seem to remember last year's tour being a rather cagey affair with people banking on gaining seconds at a few key points. Almost as if, I dunno.. maybe they knew they only had enough energy for a couple of big efforts...

Exactly my feeling too - less exciting surges for victory on major climbs.
Bring back the dope! 😉

One more thing to consider.

A doping rider isn't necessarily always getting his doping spot on. It could be that at some point he almost gets rumbled or runs out of syringes or something and that cocks up the programme.

Doping isn't just popping pills, after all - it's a carefully managed process just like training is. If you overdo or under-do it at a critical time, you could be left well down on your possible best, as with normal training.

FWIW, re Sky, seems to me they'd be acutely aware that the British public would far rather them lose clean than win doped. So there really is little point in them doping. Wiggo said as much too IIRC.

Junky, step away from the keyboard. Leave the blinkered omniscient one alone. He is so wise, you can never know as many FACTS as him.

FFS, it's like the bad old days in here.

CTRl V 😉
what molly said- short burts many of us could exceed 6 watts per kg [seconds for me to be fair] it is pointless to look at one short bit
I thought they were all cheats from that era as well as no way was he beating a cheat of the quality of Pantani - who never failed a test [ over 50% for haemacrits only]. Anyone who followed it closely knew it was obvious tbh. Now I dont know but I do beleive many are clean - what % who knows
It is poosible the top riders all cheat but the only evidence here seems to be they did in the past

Compare Lance's cool over-the-shoulder glance with the faces on last year's Tour. They were all visibly ****ing knackered.

Anyone who followed it closely knew it was obvious tbh.

So why isn't it obvious now when Froome matches Pantani?

I just get fed up with the line we get fed from the riders after every doping scandal.. "We're the new clean generation etc" and every single time up to now it's been proven otherwise.

The only solution is as Vaughters said, an external and completely impartial body to handle the testing and punishments - cycling has proven it can't govern itself.

...if there's a level playing field and it's entertaining, why do you care? I don't care if Daniel Craig was up to his eyes on coke or teetotal when he filmed the last Bond film, I just wanted to see an entertaining film. Why do you treat sport differently?

Personally, I care because it is a sport that I participate in, and the same rules apply to everyone, from pros to weekend warriors. Racing is all about trying to win within the boundaries of the rules. Without those boundaries, competition becomes meaningless. The "level playing field" scenario that people keep referring just opens up an unregulated mess where riders will take increasing risks as they explore the limits of performance enhancing drugs. I don't want a sport where I need to take drugs to compete with my peers, and if you fail to keep fighting pro cheating, that culture will trickle right down through the sport:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/493401/british-rider-dan-staite-banned-after-testing-positive-for-epo.html

Pretty much every one of my cycling heroes has been directly or indirectly implicated in doping over the past 25 years. I think we are at a point where that culture [b]could[/b] change, but I've yet to be convinced it is really happening, so I still can't take pro cycling completely seriously.

Personally the only person in cycling I trust is Vaughters

So why isn't it obvious now when Froome matches Pantani?

[b]he matches him for short periods- how many times do you need to be told that average times and average wattas are dropping - see th etimes for alpe D huez I linked to where pantini is literally 4 minutes ahead of Cadel - it is just not true so please stop saying it [/b] see alpe d'Huez climbs for example 🙄
To keep repeating short burst of peak [ ish watts] as a reply is to fail to graps the subject matter at hand or what is being said.

It is really quite daft to keep doing this and it isjust not true average watts, speeds, times and watts per kg are all dropping

agrees with CPt leaves it to molly

Just a reminder that Dave Brailsford is in charge of SKY Professional cycling team and runs it in the same way as British Cycling.....so if the sky riders are doped and so are the rest of the British Cyclists from the last three olympics by implications.

IMHO Wiggins....Cav...Froome...Thomas...Swift....Kennaugh are clean....have you not read or realised that the attention of detail they go to in diet.....and structured coaching which has been revolutionary to what has been done before ie no coaching just pump them with drugs...has improved the riders legally....Team SKY arenot infallible they got it wrong for the classics...and other teams have been attacking them differently in the stage races I have seen.

Do you really think that Wiggins is the same as LA I dont think so for one minute......and would Brailsford want to jeopardise the sky funding for British Cycling as well whilst running a doped professional team ...er I don't think so....

Keep an eye on David Walsh articles upcoming he's with Team Sky for both the Giro and TDF and he defo doesnot like doping !!

Ok then, look at the Peyresourde times for the complete climb despite a lazy start to it. Research has been done on the physiological limits for various durations of effort. 470W for 7mins is well into the suspicious zone.

I'm convinced riders have been warned off setting records for whole climbs as it proves doping. Why did Sky order Froome to slow down? Wiggins was quite happy on his own.

In this particular debate I don't think either side are going to convince the other. My main point is that in virtually every instance where a team or individuals have dominated a grand tour like Sky did, it has subsequently been proven to be down to doping. I hope Sky are clean, and hope that cycling has turned over a new leaf. But it has claimed to have done that after Festina, Ullrich, Basso, Landis, Contador etc and call me cynical, but I can't see it being any different after Lance.

..have you not read or realised that the attention of detail they go to in diet.....and structured coaching

Old hat presented as something new. Renault Gitane had dieticians, ergonomists, the Renault wind tunnel and a highly "scientific' approach to training that was carried through to La Vie Claire with Lemond and Hinault.

How was the doped rider able to attack the other doped rider is surely the question you should want to ask

Are you really asking why the support guy was asked not to attack the team leader and winner and concluding that the ONLY reason was drug doping - comedy gold

TBH why on earth would they dope if they were then just going to take it easy ? Now that is as daft as your argument tbh

PS 470 watts for 7 mins is short term effort so can you show me that for say I dont know an entire tour like what that LA fella did ...of course you cannot.

Deffo going now but that has made me chuckle

he actually failed a drug test as well for glenbutorol iirc in a race but got a prescription for it. I did expect a reaction to that one but from Edukator.
tbh I would not be surprised to discover he doped - frankly given what has happened in Spain re blood doping and Bertie I would not be surprised by any Spanish rider, now or in the past saddly.

It was actually Salbutamol (ventolin), which has absolutely no performance enhancing effect whatsoever on a trained athlete. It's effect is only really measurable in asthmatics where it helps dilate the bronchial passage. This only works where they're constricted and if yours are already dilated (a non asthmatic for example), then Salbutamol will not help.

Apparently, it only got on the banned list due to it being on the French banned list. I'm yet to see any evidence of salbutamol providing any performance enhancement; it can only level the playing field. Put simply, if you don't need it, then it will not do anything for you.

Where are these calculations Ed? You're convinced they're correct (obviously) but what if they're way off, aerodynamic drag is still a factor on climbs and Froome is possibly the skinniest stick like thing I've ever seen (behind myself possibly). Maybe he's just uber aero 😛

Wiggo is clean, he's got far too much to loose. If not then Weller and Gallagher would probably be his only mates.

Un bon coureur de 70kg peut développer 1.200 watts pendant 15 secondes, 450 watts pendant 6 minutes, 400 watts pendant 30 minutes. Sur le triathlon d’Hawaii, la puissance sur la portion de vélo a déjà été évaluée pour le vainqueur à 300 watts pendant cinq heures. Plus la durée d’effort est longue, moins la puissance moyenne est élevée.

I don't think that needs translating. When guys that have been riding for several hours, have been at around 400W for half an hour then put in 7 minutes at 470W, questions need to asked. Nearly every media source in France was asking questions anyhow. At the point they should have been showing signs of fatigue they accelerated.

Wiggo is clean, he's got far too much to loose.

Like Ulrich, Armstrong, Cantador and every other rider that already has a few wins.

Tall riders make lousy cyclists because they take a lot of wind and have a lot of bones and muscles in relation to their heart and lung capacity. Before blood doping the most successful riders had builds like Hinault, Lemond and Merckx, they could time trial well and get up the mountains fast enough to hold off the specific climbers for GC. Climbers were shorter. EPO changed all that and gangly things like 60% Riis and 550W Mig could suddenly climb better than the short-arse specific climbers..

I don't think that needs translating

Patronising asshat.

yes and wrong as well whihc is more important

Without boring you too much with the technicalities I averaged 456 watts for 55 minutes at the Worlds last year against Tony [MARTIN} and still finished 1min 20sec behind.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/cycling/9442119/Bradley-Wiggins-hopes-cycling-in-a-higher-gear-will-help-him-to-emulate-hero-in-Olympic-time-trial.html

http://www.cyclingpowerlab.com/OlympicTimeTrial.aspx
this claims slightly lower FWIW and Martin @ 481 for 50 ish minutes so your figure for an hour seems way off as top ten were all over 400 for basically an hour [ ok 10 th was 399 for clarity]@ 57 :14 time not sure where you get to have 300 watts - I can only assume you take this as yet more proof of widespread cheating and part of the global conspiracy 😕

I love you too, Flash. How about putting a counter argument together rather than insulting me. I really don't think those numbers need translating. I'll remove the text and just quote the self-explanatory numbers:

70jg
15s 1200W
6min 450W
30min 400W
5h 300W

Thank you for the evidence that riders are still producing as much power as at the height of the Festina doping programme, Junkyard.

You now seem to be agreeing that riders haven't slowed down having spent most of the thread caliming they are now less powerful than before.

481W for 50min is firmly in the highly suspicious zone.

You cannot even follow an argument can you - is that deliberate ?
To repeat
They are as powerful for short bursts as they always were because the PEDS improve recovery or stamina on long tours with day after day of activity - you do know hamecrit drops dont you on tour for example as does testoreone etc without doping and therefore perfomance?
A TT is not a great example of endurance what with it being short and one day 🙄 there will be no difference and it is not suspicious at all it is used to show your wattage figures are just wrong - as i suspected proving this to you just fuels your conspiracist view rather than make you question the actual basis or foundation on which your view stands
SO lets see your evidence for the grand tours then and how much faster they get you have none for they are slower, average less have lower watts per kg. go up mountains slower though they can off course hit LA levels for short periods but not the whole tour which is the point you miss as well as giving a very low [ polite for wrong]watts threshold for "proof" of doping

It is clear facts wont alter your view and you cannot follow what is being said

Not sure how much you can read into this, but the average speed of the last four TDFs (2009-2012 inclusive) works out at 39.87km/hr.

The average speed for the EPO era of 1990-99 works out as an average of 39.151km/hr

So overall, today's race is faster than the dirtiest period in cycling history. Maybe that's down to equipment, maybe not.

back to the original topic, i reckon the outcome of fight between froome and wiggo will depend on the temperature when they come to climb Ventoux a blistering hot day could be bad news for Brad.

I get 39.5 - 2009 - 2012 which includes cheating contador BTW
Why do you think the EPO era was pre LA and the Dirtiest time and started in 1990 ? Le mond won that year - everyone accepts he was clean - very odd choice of dates and i would say a bit of cherry picking not to mention odd

Full data here FWIW i could nto be bothered doing the maths but a quick glance shows it has slowed but clearly not significantly

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/23/tour-de-france-winner-list-garin-wiggins

470W for 7mins is well into the suspicious zone.

481W for 50min is firmly in the highly suspicious zone.

What do you make of 462W for an hour? Possible by a clean athlete?

I was using data from [url= http://bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfstats.html ]here[/url], and used the 90's as it is widely considered the dirtiest era - virtually the whole peleton was using EPO, and there was no test for it - it was basically a free for all.

1. wiggo vs froome? makes a good story, get's people ranting on forums, classic sports psychology at play
2. is wiggo clean? Pointless debate, only time will tell.
3. spanish judge ordering doped blood to be destroyed? smells like football and boxing cover up, sports even more corrupt than cycling

Sorry, just realised left out two of your questions - chose 2009-2012 as 2009 was Wiggins break through year (4th since upgraded to 3rd) - before that he wasn't considered a contender.. Chose 1990 onwards just so there was a large enough group not to be skewed by one or two results. For example, pretty sure there were longer time trials in the early 90's, favouring Mig, which would have pushed the average up slightly.

Sadly, and IMO, the most sensible view is to be highly cynical about all pro sports and especially cycling. That is the legacy of the LA (and others) era. Read Tyler Hamilton's description of how they rode hills and the watch out heros last year and difficult not to note the similarities!?! Sad, but it will take a good generation of clean riding not a few nice young Brits before I will remove my cynical blinkers.

The current Spanish cover up (football, tennis, athletics) etc hardly fills one with confidence.

Any way back to the OP. Beware the scorned girlfriend/fiancée. Handbags on the web. Classy!! I hope Wiggo wins the Giro, that they compete at the start of he tour and then go with the better rider mid way thru the TDF. Lets have some combat, fully juiced or not!

Sorry, just realised left out two of your questions - chose 2009-2012 as 2009 was Wiggins break through year (4th since upgraded to 3rd) - before that he wasn't considered a contender.

Chose 1990 onwards just so there was a large enough group not to be skewed by one or two results. For example, pretty sure there were longer time trials in the early 90's, favouring Mig, which would have pushed the average up slightly.

Cheers for the link interesting how the stuff differs!
FWIW the difference in average speed is negligible tbh so probably better to look at Watts per kg
As far as that goes the peak of LA was circa 6.5- 7 and it is assumed that 6 watts/kg is the best natural- Niballi for example was doing about 5.7 in the BBC link I gave and the others tend to not publish the data so the Wiggo would have been the same ish - I assume under 6.
FWIW given Wiggos weight this would give us 414 watts - this is an average edukator not a TT one @ 6 345Watts@ 5, 4.3 gives 303.6

I have no idea why Edukator insits that 300 is the norm as it is a pretty low value tbh and to assume anything above this is proof of cheating would mean every single cyclist since the 60s say in all disciplines is and was a cheat

Handbags on the web. Classy!

I agree the legacy is what leads to us all being supicious but I really do believe we have turned a corner in cycling and some are clean now. I do agree many other sports are still in the dark days of turning a blind eye as the UCI were doing [ IMHO] and that some are still cheating.It does not seem to make sense to just assume that every winner must a be a cheat anymore that it makes sense to assume Bolt cheated beacause Ben Johnson did - iirc every sprinter in that race has tested positive at some point in their career so it wa snot just cycling that had issues then or now