[buddy]

Well it seems that the commentators and "experts" are saying that this year was a cleaner tour.

That gives me hope. I certainly hope that the winner was clean. I have never had any reason to suspect otherwise.

What I did find interesting this year was how strong Cadel Evans was through the whole race ...... or appeared to be. (no not because I think he doped ... read on)

In years gone by Evans was always in trouble on the high mountain stages. This is from a guy who has an exception physiology and very high Vo2 max (sorry don't know the exact numbers). It is why he excelled ay mountain bike riding and why a guy like Aldo Sassi thought so highly of his chances of winning GT events.

Now in years gone by Evans was always seen to be toiling in a larger gear than the mountain climbers around him. They would then dance away at their high cadence in an attack that he would have trouble responding to. Sometimes he could be seen to grind away and slowly bring it back until the opposition danced away for good leaving Evans to grind away behind. He was alwys at their mercy on the high mountains and always riding to survive. Hence he got the reputation as a wheelsuck. A man who didn't ride with any panache ..... a rider who never took a chance.

Why ..... he was on his limit already.

I have long thought that the riders who could ride these high cadence climbs did so due to the benefits of the extra red blood cells swimming in their arteries whether by EPO or by blood doping. Riders who were clean couldn't pedal like that or they would go over their red line so quickly they would blow and not come back. Conesquently they had to grind. Gear down a little, slow the cadence and put more pressure on the muscles and less on the aerobic system ... at the expense of muscle fatigue.

Now to the tour just gone. It seems from the experts that some riders have slowed down this year. It is not that Evans sped up. It was certainly apparent this year that Evans red line was more in keeping with the other contenders and in many instances above. Consequently he looked good by comparison.

Basically he was just doing what he has always done based upon his exceptional physiology. It is just that this year everyone else came back to his level.

I am hopeful that this can continue and it is a sign that cycling is becoming a cleaner sport. Yay

Thanks,

Buddy

[Veloflash]

Cadel Evans trains on Powercranks which, IMHO from experience, induces a slower more deliberate cadence as witnessed on the climbs and ITT.

It may be also the culprit that causes the gaps he has to chase down in mountain attacks through the slower higher gear cadence stifling a snappy jump..

[buddy]

You say that but this year he has looked his best ever when having to close gaps. He was able to close gaps this year with an ease that he has never displayed before.

IMHO I do not think you can put it down to the cranks.

Another point was whenever both Cotador and Schleck (both of them) did jump on the pedals and accelerate they couldn't sustain the high cadence attack for very long. It seemd they quickly hit the red line and had to back off.

It appeared gone were the days of just jumping and pedalling away from everyone.

Thanks,

Buddy

[Burkni]

buddy, on 26 July 2011 - 07:54 AM, said:

You say that but this year he has looked his best ever when having to close gaps. He was able to close gaps this year with an ease that he has never displayed before.

He did some very, very impressive closing work in last year's Giro, in the first chaotic stages in Holland.

[VdB]

Disclaimer: I do not know whether anyone is clean or not, and I will not bet (more) than a buck on anyone's cleanliness.


Having said that...I agree. There are a few signs that, for me, seem to be pointing towards a more level playing field and less blatant doping. Not just at the Tour, but for most of the season. Signs at the Tour:

- Lack of 'mountain trains', or 'normal' racers turned into mountain domestiques if you will
- General performance of the French riders. Only one stage win, but they were there. Two Frenchmen in the top 10, and one winning the white jersey! Jeez.
- No robotic GC riders. Logical and normal performances. Contador is dropped on the Galibier, goes on the attack the next day but fades. Etc.
- General resurgence of riders like Gilbert and Evans, both riders with a clean image.
- Riders like Vanendert riding strong in the first 2 weeks but fading in the third. Much unlike a Schumacher, or a Riccò.

Obviously none of this is anywhere near hard evidence. But I've been seeing the same trend for much of the season.

Oh and one other thing: I was listening to a radio report for the finish to L'Alpe, and when Rolland dropped Sanchez and Contador and sprinted towards the win, the commentator went "and Pierre Rolland is going to win on l'Alpe...I'm not sure what to think of that." I was so ####ing pissed at the guy. You don't know "what to think" about a 24-yr old rider, a noted talent who ended 21 in his first Tour at age 22 (!) winning his first big win?! While I'm ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN he wouldn't have made a disclaimer if a Contador would have won, a rider who's actively involved in a doping case for ####'s sake. This way, we're never gonna move away from the stigma.

P.S. Rolland may be dirty as sin, of course. I'm just saying he didn't deserve such a snide remark.

[Leafcake]

As I take cleanliness to be a matter of dilution, I agree with the impression of a cleaner Tour. Nonetheless, I have a hard time buying Gilbert's clean image, nor that Evans hasn't been in on it ('it' being qualitative) over the years. One of the rides that stood out to me this Tour, was A.Schleck's ride to the Galibier. He had many things working for him that day, but the ease with which he opened the gap on the Izoard, how he essentially maintained it going up the Galibier and the way he looked at the finish had impressed me.

Just because there are less crazy performances, doesn't mean a good chunk isn't still on a program. For some riders I had the feeling that maybe doping is more limited to the training and time before the Tour, but once that fades there is less of a top up.

And, in respect to the discussion going on about A.Schleck in the cycling board, i'd like to add a comment. A.Schleck has been portrayed as an easy going person. I wonder whether the meticulousness which would be required to overcome the hurdles of the bio-passport while using PES may deter riders from performing well in more races. Why also would A.Schleck's level in the TdS be so much less than Cunego's and Leipheimer's, who targeted the TdF all the same. Of course a short racing program would have a different set of targets then a longer one, and any of the results are by no means an indication of anything but racing results. Yet, if the top echelon is still doping, I cannot but think that such an activity requires a level of “professionalism” as well.

[VdB]

Leafcake, on 26 July 2011 - 12:57 PM, said:

Nonetheless, I have a hard time buying Gilbert's clean image, nor that Evans hasn't been in on it ('it' being qualitative) over the years.

I know what you mean - I have/had similar doubts about Gilbert, especially when he announced he might try for a good GC if he can after the first Tour week. There are some things that ease my mind, however. For one, he hardly comes out of nowhere - if the biological passport has the influence we (some) think it may have, him getting a year older/stronger + the competition being weaker could very well result in the required % difference between being a dominant winner and merely a contender. At the top level, the difference is so small that the impact could be profound. On another note, he won most of his races with an explosive attack in the last kms, so he's not demolishing the field either.

The fact that he's competitive all year round is a slight comfort too (harder to dodge passport), and at the Tour he clearly faded away a bit in the third week and didn't suddenly become a climber or TT specialist.

I'm perhaps hoping a but too hard that he may be clean(er than most), but still, I don't see any clear signs of him being a fraud. It's not like Andy who is #### the entire year and then becomes a dominant racer at the Tour.

[buddy]

In fairness to Andy I can understand that he can be #### in earlier races and still be great at the tour. Lets face it, Andy Schleck has one thing going for him and that is he climbs very well.

Now in the lead up to the tour a rider targeting the third week of the tour doesn't necessarily want to be brilliant in the early season events. They are basically in training mode up to the TdF starting. What they will want to see is progressive improvement as they get closer to the event they are targeting.

In days gone by riders used to race all the time. They were expected too. This probably meant that they weren't as specifically trained for the TdF as todays riders are. Now Andy Schleck may have had certain training goals to hit during the TdS and that was it. Once he did his test rides it was just work on the training not racing. I can understand that a rider could take that course of action and am not surprised when they are much better in the event they designed their training to peak for. I don't yhink it necessarily means they are doping. Just training scientifically.

Unlike Leafcake I have no reason to suspect that Evans has been on "it" over the years. I think his riding style over the years has been a good indicator as to the fact that he was likely NOT to be on "it". Evans over the years has always had the look of extreme pain on his face on the monster climbs and then he would get dropped by a rider who just looked like they are pedalling to the corner shop their efforts seemed so easy. Then they would finish the climb and look almost refreshed whilst I don't think I have ever seen Evans looking like that after a climb.

I certainly hope that Gilbert is clean. His season has been sensational. Like Evans he may be the recipient of a cleaner peloton. Maybe now the true stars are being allowed to shine.

Thanks,

Buddy

[micomico]

buddy, on 27 July 2011 - 12:35 AM, said:

I certainly hope that Gilbert is clean. His season has been sensational. Like Evans he may be the recipient of a cleaner peloton. Maybe now the true stars are being allowed to shine.
Buddy

The day a frenchman riding for a french team, perhaps someone like Roland, wins the Tour, then you know you got a very clean Tour. Evans as a winner may be an encouraging sign. So far only one positive, by next week we should have a stronger indication.

Prudhomme was over the top with his win, which says something, apart from the fact that Cadel does not just ride the Tour, like AS or LA.
The entire organization must have shuddered at the thought of AC lining up to win again, and a lesser shudder at the thought of him occupying a podium placing.

[bontempi]

buddy, on 27 July 2011 - 12:35 AM, said:

Unlike Leafcake I have no reason to suspect that Evans has been on "it" over the years. I think his riding style over the years has been a good indicator as to the fact that he was likely NOT to be on "it". Evans over the years has always had the look of extreme pain on his face on the monster climbs and then he would get dropped by a rider who just looked like they are pedalling to the corner shop their efforts seemed so easy. Then they would finish the climb and look almost refreshed whilst I don't think I have ever seen Evans looking like that after a climb.

I think that Evans is "relatively" clean but I'm not sure I would draw that conclusion based on how much he appears to suffer relative to others. That could simply be because he's been punching above his weight all these years. Also, as a TTer first and foremost, one would expect him to be hanging in there and suffering in the mountains compared to pure climbers. To illustrate the point, the above could equally apply to someone like Menchov who, whilst I like as I rider, I wouldn't proclaim to be clean.

[Burkni]

Now it's 2012 and we see this on the CNews ticker on a flat stage:

Quote

Just had a reading for the fourth hour of racing - it was the quickest of the day so far with an average speed of 39.2km/h.

Rather slow, wouldn't one say?

[VdB]

There's an interesting opinion piece in my Tour guide this year, by a usually rather critical journalist when it comes to doping in cycling. I'm not gonna translate the entire piece (it's not very well written imho), but it does give some very interesting facts about the current situation re: doping and performances. I'll translate them below:

For the Tour:

Fact 1: In last year's Tour (2011) not a single col was climbed at an output of over 5.7 watts per kilogram of body weight. During the EPO years this was often above 6.2 and easily reached peaks of 6.5. Lance Armstrong and Marco Pantani even reached 7.1 watts per kilogram. Physiologists presume that 6.2 must be more or less the dividing line between what is possible clean and what isn't.

Fact 2: L'Alpe D'Huez last year. The fastest time was put down by Samuel Sanchez, 41'21". Contador rode a 41'30". This puts them in a 24th and 25th spot respectively in the list of all-time fastest climbs of L'Alpe. Who are one and two? Climber Pantani (1997) and 'powerbiker' Armstrong (2004), in -gasp- 37'35" and 37'36". The fact that Armstrong was riding a mountain TT and Sanchez/Contador were riding it as the final col of a Tour stage can't be the only explanation for such an immense difference at this level.

Fact 3: Contador and Evans won the last two Tours with an average of 39,6 and 39,8 kph. They are the 'slowest' Tours ridden this century, apart from 2007 when again Contador finished the Tour at an average of 39 kph. And this while the peloton is increasingly well-trained and more competitive. The fastest Tours were those between 1999 and 2005, the seven labors of Armstrong, with 2005 taking the crown (41,7 kph).

In general:

Fact 3: In 2001 14% of the riders' blood values were deemed suspicious, 12% of of which extremely suspicious. In 2011 this was only 2%, with a mere 0.3% in the extreme range. And no, blood values can't be manipulated, at least not without reducing their value for a competitive edge anyway. So the turnaround moment was the introduction of the blood passport in 2007 and 2008.

[il_hombre]

VdB, on 04 July 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

There's an interesting opinion piece in my Tour guide this year, by a usually rather critical journalist when it comes to doping in cycling. I'm not gonna translate the entire piece (it's not very well written imho), but it does give some very interesting facts about the current situation re: doping and performances. I'll translate them below:

For the Tour:

Fact 1: In last year's Tour (2011) not a single col was climbed at an output of over 5.7 watts per kilogram of body weight. During the EPO years this was often above 6.2 and easily reached peaks of 6.5. Lance Armstrong and Marco Pantani even reached 7.1 watts per kilogram. Physiologists presume that 6.2 must be more or less the dividing line between what is possible clean and what isn't.

Fact 2: L'Alpe D'Huez last year. The fastest time was put down by Samuel Sanchez, 41'21". Contador rode a 41'30". This puts them in a 24th and 25th spot respectively in the list of all-time fastest climbs of L'Alpe. Who are one and two? Climber Pantani (1997) and 'powerbiker' Armstrong (2004), in -gasp- 37'35" and 37'36". The fact that Armstrong was riding a mountain TT and Sanchez/Contador were riding it as the final col of a Tour stage can't be the only explanation for such an immense difference at this level.

Fact 3: Contador and Evans won the last two Tours with an average of 39,6 and 39,8 kph. They are the 'slowest' Tours ridden this century, apart from 2007 when again Contador finished the Tour at an average of 39 kph. And this while the peloton is increasingly well-trained and more competitive. The fastest Tours were those between 1999 and 2005, the seven labors of Armstrong, with 2005 taking the crown (41,7 kph).

In general:

Fact 3: In 2001 14% of the riders' blood values were deemed suspicious, 12% of of which extremely suspicious. In 2011 this was only 2%, with a mere 0.3% in the extreme range. And no, blood values can't be manipulated, at least not without reducing their value for a competitive edge anyway. So the turnaround moment was the introduction of the blood passport in 2007 and 2008.

Ciao vdb,

Good catch.

Indications are as good as anything so let's hope that indeed the peloton is getting cleaner.

The odd fall-out will always happen but the suffering we have seen the last couple of years seems more human.

On the other hand ... once per decade a super athlete does appear and we do not want to pre-justice that guy.

/il_hombre (forza Juve!)

[buddy]

THat is the sad part of the doping legacy. The super athlete comes out and many people want to question the validity of that super athlete. I for one don't blame people for asking the questions. I look at Sagan and last year at Gilbert and I hope that they are clean. I want them to be clean. They ride sensationally well. They are superstar athletes. But would I be surprised to hear they have run foul of the testing procedures. NO. Very sadly No. And it is for this reason that I will be very happy for one Lance Armstrong to be penalised for what he help to do to the validity of the cycling performances.

Thanks,

Buddy

[Burkni]

buddy, on 05 July 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

And it is for this reason that I will be very happy for one Lance Armstrong to be penalised for what he help to do to the validity of the cycling performances.

Thanks,

Buddy

Very true.
That and the fact that it would be the ultimate doping deterrent. The moral and ethical side has been shown to be inefficient but seeing the (self-proclaimed) most tested athlete in history, the most successful (Tour) rider of all time, the one with the best PR machine and the most expensive lawyers go DOWN would surely influence some young athletes considering how to take their careers to the next level.

[crockett]

buddy, are you related to paul sherwin? I enjoyed your reference to "one Lance Armstrong"