I agree on the systematic doping point, but I do think that the bigger teams likely have access to some stuff that is ethically a bit of a grey area.
Official pro cycling "WTF are they on?" thread
- Thread starter One More Solo
- Start date
I've said it all along regards athletics and cycling. The best of the best are absolutely pushing the boundaries, they aren't breaking rules and are not cheating, but they most certainly have stuff up their sleeve that they are doing which may eventually be banned, or would be quistionable. It's part of the game, they have to be at the forefront and pushing these boundaries to enhance performance that 1%.
Great example was the Russions puffing Xenon gas. It was not illegal, it was not banned and they weren't breaking the rules. But the performance gains of Xenon were massive. It was grey area, it was suspect and it has now been banned, along with Argon. But that's a simple example of these teams, agencies, federations, whatever, pushing the boundaries and operating in the grey area for that advantage.
Great example was the Russions puffing Xenon gas. It was not illegal, it was not banned and they weren't breaking the rules. But the performance gains of Xenon were massive. It was grey area, it was suspect and it has now been banned, along with Argon. But that's a simple example of these teams, agencies, federations, whatever, pushing the boundaries and operating in the grey area for that advantage.
...except the WADA code includes the catch all that "artificially enhancing the uptake, transport or delivery of oxygen" is prohibited.
Couple that to the fact that these power meters are NOT calibrated, PLUS the variation between models and brands... I really think any kind of comparison between riders to be used specifically as some kind of "proof" is almost meaningless. It just can't be done. Especially when they are stating +/- 3-4% error on the machines themselves and then a further 5% shown between the way different brands read anyway. That alone makes up more than the difference in the figures Frome has posted. It's just meaningless data. It's useful for HIM, because it's consistent for HIM and he can use it to baseline for HIMSELF, but as a comparison between other riders it means nothing.
It would be like me using four different uncalibrated digital micrometers to make measurements on my specimens and then testing on four different uncalibrated machines machines and me wondering why my results were all over the place. You have no idea if one is up or down or whatever.
Until every rider uses the same power meter and they are all calibrated, there is simply no comparison. Sorry folks.
I agree in principle, but I don't necessarily buy the argument that these guys are running power meters that are massively out of whack. You'd get a bit of a shock turning up at the Tour thinking you were pushing 400w+ at threshold and discovering it was actually 350w due to calibration errors.
I'd say you have a decent population of riders that have data which suggests they were riding in the region of 5.7-5.8w/kg, and finished a good chunk down on Froome. It could be the case that all of those guys power meters are wrong, but it seems more likely to me that one would be wrong and everyone else's would be there or thereabouts.
FWIW, I think the power numbers Sky gave for Froome were relatively accurate until they adjusted them by too much to account for Q rings (most sources say error of 2-4% is introduced rather than 6-7%) and divided them by the wrong weight (Froome himself said he's 66kg, not 67.5kg). Even adjusting for those, the w/kg is about 6 which is very much elite but also within the bounds of probability.
I just think Sky do themselves no favours presenting things the way they do.
I'd say you have a decent population of riders that have data which suggests they were riding in the region of 5.7-5.8w/kg, and finished a good chunk down on Froome. It could be the case that all of those guys power meters are wrong, but it seems more likely to me that one would be wrong and everyone else's would be there or thereabouts.
FWIW, I think the power numbers Sky gave for Froome were relatively accurate until they adjusted them by too much to account for Q rings (most sources say error of 2-4% is introduced rather than 6-7%) and divided them by the wrong weight (Froome himself said he's 66kg, not 67.5kg). Even adjusting for those, the w/kg is about 6 which is very much elite but also within the bounds of probability.
I just think Sky do themselves no favours presenting things the way they do.
Caporegime
The thing is no one is there because they can push 400W, so it doesn't really matter. They're there because they can ride in a particular way and they're up to the job. The DS' aren't there looking at the numbers that a £500 of unproven plastic is spitting out and basing their decisions on that. It's not like Sky are picking Froome over, I don't know, Kiryienka just because Froome's numbers from his Stages power meter look better.
All that matters is that Froome or whoever has trained at an effort that his power meter reads as 400W or whatever, and then when he's on the climb he knows he needs to ride at an efforct that his power meter reads as the same amount. Any other comparisons are meaningless and unimportant.
All that matters is that Froome or whoever has trained at an effort that his power meter reads as 400W or whatever, and then when he's on the climb he knows he needs to ride at an efforct that his power meter reads as the same amount. Any other comparisons are meaningless and unimportant.
I'm not sure that's quite right. Winning a Grand Tour takes a number of characteristics, but one of them is being able to deliver a relatively specific number of watts per kilo in the mountains. Armstrong knew once he could ride up the Madone at a set number of watts he would win the Tour, and the same is pretty much true of any GC rider (barring injury, illness or other misfortune).
Caporegime
But clearly it's not the be all and end all, otherwise it would be an even bigger deal that there's huge variations between power meters and the resultant power ratings, rather than it just being people having a paddy because someone is winning a bike race.
Apparently Newsnight invited Paul Kimmage on to talk about the Tour last night, but then pulled the invitation at the last minute claiming the piece had been cancelled (obviously it wasn't).
Top marks for journalistic integrity and balanced reporting!
Top marks for journalistic integrity and balanced reporting!
@Hotwired
I'm under no illusion as to what it takes to be a pro cyclist, they are probably the most elite of all endurance athletes. What follows from that, is it's frankly insulting to the rest of the peloton to claim what separates Sky from the rest is pillows, juicers and motor homes. Pinot and Bardet must be furious the French teams won't give them a few quid for their own bedding. Tough luck guys, you trained hard but maybe a new mattress will give you 40 extra watts!
I also wouldn't be frustrated if Sky and Brian Cookson hadn't come in to the sport claiming that things would change only to quietly accept the status quo once they were firmly embedded in the sport.
It also frustrates me that:
The same people that didn't believe Astana in the Giro praise Sky for controlling the race.
People can't see known former dopers like Valverde riding as well as ever and being beaten by "clean" riders.
Sky have never explained how Froome transformed from on the verge of losing his contract to a Vuelta podium.
Certain riders winning TTs and then dropping 55kg mountain goats.
People like Vinokurov and Yates still in the cycling hierarchy.
The opinions of former dopers being dismissed when these are the first guys I would go to if I wanted to know about doping.
Etc
It's the hypocrisy I can't stand and the fact this feels like the past repeating itself, with the same dissenting voices being shot down.
@Moses
The Steve Smith VT was a poorly researched puff piece though Moses, no one claimed Froome was doing 7w/kg and there was zero argument as to why people might find his performances a bit suspicious other than "jealous Frenchies". Ironically that was what the American press used to say about Armstrong. It was very unbalanced as a standalone piece, but people are seemingly afraid to say otherwise in the press.
I'm under no illusion as to what it takes to be a pro cyclist, they are probably the most elite of all endurance athletes. What follows from that, is it's frankly insulting to the rest of the peloton to claim what separates Sky from the rest is pillows, juicers and motor homes. Pinot and Bardet must be furious the French teams won't give them a few quid for their own bedding. Tough luck guys, you trained hard but maybe a new mattress will give you 40 extra watts!
I also wouldn't be frustrated if Sky and Brian Cookson hadn't come in to the sport claiming that things would change only to quietly accept the status quo once they were firmly embedded in the sport.
It also frustrates me that:
The same people that didn't believe Astana in the Giro praise Sky for controlling the race.
People can't see known former dopers like Valverde riding as well as ever and being beaten by "clean" riders.
Sky have never explained how Froome transformed from on the verge of losing his contract to a Vuelta podium.
Certain riders winning TTs and then dropping 55kg mountain goats.
People like Vinokurov and Yates still in the cycling hierarchy.
The opinions of former dopers being dismissed when these are the first guys I would go to if I wanted to know about doping.
Etc
It's the hypocrisy I can't stand and the fact this feels like the past repeating itself, with the same dissenting voices being shot down.
@Moses
The Steve Smith VT was a poorly researched puff piece though Moses, no one claimed Froome was doing 7w/kg and there was zero argument as to why people might find his performances a bit suspicious other than "jealous Frenchies". Ironically that was what the American press used to say about Armstrong. It was very unbalanced as a standalone piece, but people are seemingly afraid to say otherwise in the press.
Last edited:
Don
So, all this hoo-ha is due to teams comparing power data from uncalibrated power meters?
Oh dear.
Oh dear.
Caporegime
Not even teams, just fans and pundits. Teams know that's a stupid idea.
Honestly, the only thing more likely to destroy pro cycling than doping is the fans who will never believe it's gone. In which case the damage is already long since done. Pack it up, we're done.
Last edited:
No.
Caporegime
Of course, it's also because Froome won a stage. If there's one thing that's suspicious in cycling it's top cyclists winning races.
err yeah they did. he had a tropical virus if i remember rightly.
Soldato
Aye he had Bilharzia.
Quintana in the top 25 of all times up the Alpe, beating Riis and Indurain in the process, and that after setting a new record up the Croix de Fer! He must be quite the natural talent. 
Which apparently wasn't cured till 2012/13 so doesn't explain what happened in 2011.
Which apparently wasn't cured till 2012/13 so doesn't explain what happened in 2011.
Quintana in the top 25 of all times up the Alpe, beating Riis and Indurain in the process, and that after setting a new record up the Croix de Fer! He must be quite the natural talent.
A tiny climber being faster than two large time trialers up a mountain seems perfectly reasonable, even if they were drugged to the eye balls. He weights over 25% less than Indurain for example who was never regarded as a great climber. Todays stage was also fairly short and he didn't need to save anything for tomorrow.
Soldato
He also had Valverde pulling him then Anacona.