Official pro cycling "WTF are they on?" thread

xdcx said:
Mo Farah gets the same ****.
I can totally understand why everyone hates the British though :p
Click to expand...

Mo Farah is only getting stick at the minute because he has failed to distance himself from a coach who will now regardless of the lack of conviction be tainted by doping. Farah should have walked away as soon as the story broke he has damaged his own reputation.

The French just need a winner at the tour and are bound to hate anyone that stands in the way, would be interesting to see what happens if SKY field a French GC contender which David Brailsford has suggested in the past is a challenge that interests him. It would be nice to see the Muppets all suddenly screaming allez SKY!
 
a1ex2001 said:
Mo Farah is only getting stick at the minute because he has failed to distance himself from a coach who will now regardless of the lack of conviction be tainted by doping. Farah should have walked away as soon as the story broke he has damaged his own reputation.

The French just need a winner at the tour and are bound to hate anyone that stands in the way, would be interesting to see what happens if SKY field a French GC contender which David Brailsford has suggested in the past is a challenge that interests him. It would be nice to see the Muppets all suddenly screaming allez SKY!
Click to expand...

Not at all true about Mo Farah. These accusations, stories and rumours have been about for a lot of years about him, Salazar and Rupp. It's only recently broke onto main stream media properly to get to this extent but within athletics he has had the suspicion around him for a very long time. Granted though you are correct it is more so surrounding his coach and group than specifically Mo himself.

The second he moved to Oregon he was off seeing the highly sketch Dr Brown in Texas which got alarm bells ringing.

I would LOVE to see a French rider for Sky to see what the heck would happen. Would they still hate one of their own or magically turn around and start loving the team? ;) Saying that, there is a heap of support for Sky and Froome, a lot of it will be from the French and any no Brits really, as usual minority of bad un's are the focus rather than the majority good un's.
 
Making this out to be a nationality thing wilfully misses the point... There's plenty of smoke around Farah (moreso than Froome), it's irrelevant that he's British.

The French anti doping laws make it harder for their riders to cheat, which is why Pinot etc will probably never win the Tour despite being hugely talented.

As for Sagan, his performances are pretty incredible but his career has followed a natural arc and he's still yet to win anything significant. He lost a chunk of time on the climb yday and more riders probably would have got away if they weren't content to sit on his wheel.
 
xdcx said:
Not at all true about Mo Farah. These accusations, stories and rumours have been about for a lot of years about him, Salazar and Rupp. It's only recently broke onto main stream media properly to get to this extent but within athletics he has had the suspicion around him for a very long time. Granted though you are correct it is more so surrounding his coach and group than specifically Mo himself.

The second he moved to Oregon he was off seeing the highly sketch Dr Brown in Texas which got alarm bells ringing.

I would LOVE to see a French rider for Sky to see what the heck would happen. Would they still hate one of their own or magically turn around and start loving the team? ;) Saying that, there is a heap of support for Sky and Froome, a lot of it will be from the French and any no Brits really, as usual minority of bad un's are the focus rather than the majority good un's.
Click to expand...

We agree on the Farah situation he is being tainted by association rather than any real evidence he is a cheat he should either distance himself completely from Salazar and the smouldering fires or accept that he will be forever under suspicion!

If SKY are cheating on the level people imply then it will eventually crack and the scandal will be bigger than the US postal Armstrong fiasco I just can't swallow that Brailsford is running a massive doping ring and has convinced the cream of British cycling to follow him G for example just doesn't seem the right type but he would have to be doping to work as Froome's wingman if Froome is cooked.
 
One More Solo said:
I think Hutch was being very modest, I think the top amateur time triallists would be a match for a lot of pros, although mainly because they focus on their aero positions a good deal more than all but the TT specialists.
Click to expand...

You need to read his book "Faster" - he has great VO2 but doesn't get at it within his cells like some real superstars do. VO2 max is just a marker, not the single stat that controls everything.
 
Vonhelmet said:
Can you be a bit more specific? Who else have we seen numbers from for that stage?
Click to expand...

Guessing produced 6.1W/kg according to his numbers and lost 1:33, Adam Yates around 5.8W/kg and lost 2:04:
https://www.strava.com/segments/1624487?filter=overall

http://sportsscientists.com/2015/07/great-power-great-responsibility-less-power-greater-speeds/

Sky's numbers don't really seem to add up with the rest of the riders, only explanation is Froome is lighter than stated or all the other riders have duff power meters. It would also explain why Sky's numbers were so far out from the estimated power of 6.1W/kg using a method which has been proven over and over to produce sound results
 
Based on the sportsscientists article though, his whole thinking is based around assumption that Kerrison reduced the overall avg watts for the climb by 6% which is unfounded. The other riders data being compared to is Strava interpreted data primarily from a Pioneer PM on the Lotto rider Gesink. Until anyone knows if the data from Froome's meter was manipulated prior to handing it out, this is a pretty silly argument to try and prove anything.

It's getting annoying because you had guys making up ridiculous 7w/kg nonsense. Sky wanted to squash that with this release of data and now all we have is people saying the data can't be correct and people wanting them to admit the full story. I honestly think this is a losing battle for the team, skeptics and just anyone interested.... The ONLY thing everyone is agree'd on and can come to any sort of conclusion on is that no matter what data is shown, what data is true and what data is false... It is in no way a means of determining if someone is doping.
 
I think unless you are comparing riders weighed on the same scales and using the same power meters it's very difficult to compare them. The use of power in cycling is still not an exact science, so it seems pointless to be comparing it with so many unknowns between riders.
 
Vonhelmet said:
I think unless you are comparing riders weighed on the same scales and using the same power meters it's very difficult to compare them. The use of power in cycling is still not an exact science, so it seems pointless to be comparing it with so many unknowns between riders.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Boardman make a good point on that last night comparing it to bathroom scales, there is a lot of brands and variants out there and they can be altered and manipulated to show varying results in different ways, so you absolutely cannot draw and exact definitive line to compare this.

I just watched the video again from the press conf. I still can't tell from that if he has taken that 6% and altered or if he is giving the data as logged. The info he gives is good including comparisons to previous years etc, but not crystal clear really. He was stuck in the place of trying to give out figures but also making it understandable to everyone who may not understand it so well.
 
Thomas. PLease. said:
Thing is, with a stages and using osymetric rings the numbers are as good as garbage anyway.
Click to expand...

What is it you have against Stages PM's? Every PM has a % +/- when compared to other PM's.

DC's Rainmakers tests is a good comparison - the difference between them all is pretty minimal.

Indoors
19909609572_d15c2d3dcf_o.png


Outdoors
19294536614_35bd876aea_o.png


Full data : http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2013/06/stages-review-update.html
 
SDK^ said:
What is it you have against Stages PM's? Every PM has a % +/- when compared to other PM's.

DC's Rainmakers tests is a good comparison - the difference between them all is pretty minimal.

Indoors
19909609572_d15c2d3dcf_o.png


Outdoors
19294536614_35bd876aea_o.png


Full data : http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2013/06/stages-review-update.html
Click to expand...

Because every other PM used in the pro peleton is a full power meter reading data from both sides, most of those are using round rings too. Even the worlds greatest are likely to have some potential imbalance which could be as much as +/- 3%, in addition to a +/-2% error rate in the device, and a further c.+/-3% over read from osymetric rings could in fact wind up as being a whole c.8% out.

On 400+w thats a total potential 64w out, and in terms of w/kg for froome, potentially the difference between 6.44w/kg and 5.49w/kg.

Let me guess, you've got a stages? And you're happy with it, as is every power meter owner, unless it actually fails to work. Sure for the average cyclist its good enough to be within a range for interval training. But for comparing like for like on the grand tour stage, its absolutley useless.
 
Last edited:
Vonhelmet said:
And they've never been intended for that purpose. Unless we mandate that all contenders use the same power meters, that's never going to work.
Click to expand...

The only thing that seems to be consistent for comparison are the power estimation models used by folk who Dave Brailsford likes to brand 'pseudoscientists'. They might realise such models could be useful when comparing riders within their own team..
 
Pinning the numbers on power meter accuracy doesn't seem stack up for me. It's also weird that Kerrison and Froome seem to be confused over how much the latter weighs.

The lack of professional scepticism in the press for Froome's data vs the Ventoux video is a bit of an eye opener. It seems only Paul Kimmage is willing to put his head above the parapet.
 
One More Solo said:
Pinning the numbers on power meter accuracy doesn't seem stack up for me. It's also weird that Kerrison and Froome seem to be confused over how much the latter weighs.

The lack of professional scepticism in the press for Froome's data vs the Ventoux video is a bit of an eye opener. It seems only Paul Kimmage is willing to put his head above the parapet.
Click to expand...

The British press seem to have clubbed together and decided to just dismiss everything that Tucker et al are saying. As an example in the Guardian they laughed off a 7w/kg figure produced as an estimate by a French doctor as if such methods are inaccurate, but that figure wasn't related to this 40m climb.

I really, really don't think there's any kind of systematic doping at Sky - for the simple fact that somebody from the inside would have said something by now. But I do think it's important to perform this analysis which could be used to potentially question riders performances over the course of a tour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom