Jump to content

So who do we think is on the juice this year in TDF?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 143
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

And wasn't Rasmussen just beautiful to watch on a TT bike? Poultry in motion.

everyone is on the juice except cadel and the green edge boys.

depends which leg for me

Everyone is on the juice. It is a matter if it is a legal or a banned juice. For those using a banned juice are they taking enough to go over the limit so that they can give a positive result for that banned juice.

 

Then of course there is juice that we have never heard of and WADA can't even test for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I just watch and enjoy it, as I have done since I became interested in cycling about 1982. I accept that some people are consumed with this particular issue when (shhh don't tell anyone) life isn't fair. Lance still won seven tours and a smart comment was made above regarding the juice that no one has never heard of and they cant test for..... but having said that cycling is a hell of a lot better than a lot of sports now and was no better or no worse in the past... it was an easy target.

 

I find it amusing how the muppets on social media and in the public in general cant see the forest for the trees, the recent revelations about the 98 tour are just the latest piece of sensational old news placing the focus on the past so the crooks and dribbling fools in the UCI who are actually responsible for the mess (and hey btw have an election coming up) can continue on without unnecessary scrutiny and maintain their own status quo.

 

Are people really so stoopid? Ah yeah they are.

 

(Can someone tap me on the shoulder in 100 pages?)

 

Oh and bonus points.... you cant polish a turd. Just in case you haven't heard that idiom before.

 

So take all the drugs you want, you would probably never be a pro cyclist or a pro anything else.

 

Double bonus points... what would happen if a high profile Australian triathlon identity was revealed as a long term and systematic drug cheat? Would you still watch the sport or participate in it?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I just watch and enjoy it.

Likewise. However I curse anyone who beats my heroes - the doping swine! My heroes are of course clean :-)

 

 

Double bonus points... what would happen if a high profile Australian triathlon identity was revealed as a long term and systematic drug cheat? Would you still watch the sport or participate in it?

Since "high profile" and "triathlon" don't really belong in the same sentence, I'm safe from this moral dilemma.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is on the juice. It is a matter if it is a legal or a banned juice. For those using a banned juice are they taking enough to go over the limit so that they can give a positive result for that banned juice.

 

Then of course there is juice that we have never heard of and WADA can't even test for.

 

The thing is, that most people don't seem to appreciate with the bio passport, even if there is no test for this newest unknown PED, it had want to be real good to stop the blood values changing. Once things start changing they are aware somethings up and the scrutiny becomes intense. Like the Chicken they went looking for him and he wasn't there (obviously something showed up) when they went to administer a random out of competition test - he never go done for PEDs but going AWOL. He had infringed the mandatory location reporting conditions. He fled, never to be seen in the peleton again.

 

Too many people seem to think detection methods are back where they were in the 90s and early naughties but the bio passport is a leap forward. No doubt it's not the be all and end all, as false samples (with some collusion) are always possible, but on the whole I think it is a lot harder to dope and fly under the radar these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are all still on 'it', whatever it is. It's a sport with a culture of pushing the limits, no doubt with the bio passport the levels of doping are much less than before, hopefully that makes things a lot safer for the athletes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about doping this morning. That is, I had a think about the topic of doping - I wasn't considering doing some doping.

 

Watching the OGE team video, they all seem very casual and kind of pure and kid-like in a very Aussie way. It is hard to imagine them huddling somewhere plotting a doping program. You couldn't say the same about the USPS team and Armstrong - it was just a much slicker more 'professional' operation.

 

That happy non-aggressive 'love of the sport' ethos has to be a good sign, in terms of a team being dope-free.

 

Maybe wishful thinking, but I believe that culture really drives these sorts of things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did they claim this? Link?

Froome's quoted in Vélo, a French cycling mag, claiming he's around 440-460W on Col de la Madone, for "a bit over 30mins". (don't have a link) Froome's apparently about 68-69kg. Armstrong's record was 30:45 and apparently Tom Danielson broke that with 30:22, which is currently the fastest.

 

Edit: OK, knew I saw it on Twitter somewhere. Froome's missus confirmed he was 67kg at last year's Tour, so, assuming he's the same weight (certainly doesn't look any heavier) that gives him a range of 6.56-6.86W/kg for 30mins.

 

Tim Kerrison's quoted in the SMH as saying Richie's "putting out the same power or a little bit more, at a lower weight", again talking about the Col de la Madone. Re-reading it now, Guinness mentions the 400W from Col d'Eze, not Kerrison, so I was wrong in that doesn't refer to the Madone. However, Kerrison does say that Porte's ride up Madone uas "probably in the top three most impressive training efforts I've ever seen any athlete do. I have witnessed Bradley and Chris do some impressive things, but [with] Richie … that effort was on a par with anything I have seen from these guys. I can't say he is going better than Chris. Chris went faster, but on a different set-up, a mountain time-trial set-up. So we can't compare performances", so it sounds like Richie isn't much behind Froome, if at all.

SMH article

Edited by Donncha
Link to post
Share on other sites

Froome's quoted in Vélo, a French cycling mag, claiming he's around 440-460W on Col de la Madone, for "a bit over 30mins". (don't have a link) Froome's apparently about 68-69kg. Armstrong's record was 30:45 and apparently Tom Danielson broke that with 30:22, which is currently the fastest.

 

Edit: OK, knew I saw it on Twitter somewhere. Froome's missus confirmed he was 67kg at last year's Tour, so, assuming he's the same weight (certainly doesn't look any heavier) that gives him a range of 6.56-6.86W/kg for 30mins.

 

Tim Kerrison's quoted in the SMH as saying Richie's "putting out the same power or a little bit more, at a lower weight", again talking about the Col de la Madone. Re-reading it now, Guinness mentions the 400W from Col d'Eze, not Kerrison, so I was wrong in that doesn't refer to the Madone. However, Kerrison does say that Porte's ride up Madone uas "probably in the top three most impressive training efforts I've ever seen any athlete do. I have witnessed Bradley and Chris do some impressive things, but [with] Richie … that effort was on a par with anything I have seen from these guys. I can't say he is going better than Chris. Chris went faster, but on a different set-up, a mountain time-trial set-up. So we can't compare performances", so it sounds like Richie isn't much behind Froome, if at all.

SMH article

 

O.k so Portey never "claimed 6.5w/kg + for 30mins".

 

You've extrapolated 6.5w/kg yourself from Kerrison's comments as quoted in the SMH. That's different from Richie "claiming" it.

 

The 400W quoted by Guiness from Paris Nice final TT was under 19mins (6.3-4w/kg). We do know his weight going into this years TDF is 61kg. But you don't have Porteys data from the alleged training TT up Col de la Madone over an unratified course, nor do you have his exact weight at the time. You can only guess based on an incomplete newspaper report with incomplete statements by Sky trainer Kerrison. Next time say.."Donncha is claiming Portey rode 6.5w/kg + for 30mins" in an alleged training ride for which Donncha has no hard data".

Edited by hanging lake
Link to post
Share on other sites

Settle down, I already stated in my reply that I'd misread it initially. However, there's a few people here who are happy to write off Froome's performances as impossible while accepting Richie right behind him.

 

Kerrison is on record as saying the Richie is right there with Froome based on their most recent test up the climb, so if people want to write off Froome they've got to accept the possibility that Richie's in the same boat.

 

I'm inclined to believe they're both clean, but I looked at Hamilton's book and on EPO he managed 32:32 up Madone with 3.8% body fat and a HCT of 50. One data point doesn't say anything and it could all be gamesmanship in the media anyway, but all will be revealed in the next two weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Settle down?

 

I'm settled Donncha. You wrote that Portey claimed something he hasn't claimed. I'm not claiming anyones clean or not clean. Clearly i'm suggesting you shouldnt say people are claiming things that they never have. That's fair....yes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, let me rephrase for you.

 

Froome has claimed between 6.5 & 6.8W/kg on the Madone.

 

Tim Kerrison personally witnessed Porte's ride up Madone and his actual data and states it "was on a par with anything I have seen from these guys (Wiggo & Froome)"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about doping this morning. That is, I had a think about the topic of doping - I wasn't considering doing some doping.

 

Watching the OGE team video, they all seem very casual and kind of pure and kid-like in a very Aussie way. It is hard to imagine them huddling somewhere plotting a doping program. You couldn't say the same about the USPS team and Armstrong - it was just a much slicker more 'professional' operation.

 

That happy non-aggressive 'love of the sport' ethos has to be a good sign, in terms of a team being dope-free.

 

Maybe wishful thinking, but I believe that culture really drives these sorts of things.

Please. Two of the directors raced for years within teams with systemic doping
Link to post
Share on other sites

Froome's meteoric rise is a pretty sus as well as the power he is putting out for his weight and the climbing times. Will be interesting to see his Alp De Huez times, I wouldn't be surprised if they are not far from many noted dopers.

 

Greg Lemond's first TdF in 1984 he came 3rd overall.

 

Froomes first tour in 2008 he was 84th, 2hrs22 down on the winner.

 

You look at most top endurance athletes and they get close to the top pretty quickly after they start training well. Unless something changes after they enter the sport.

 

Worth nothing Lances first tour he was 36th, and Wiggins 124th, 3hrs 25 down.

Edited by niseko
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a couple of kids sneaking behind the bike sheds for a joint :)

I'm sure back in the mid to late 70's, the said substance did enhance my performance in the surf ( Err, well, in my mind at least )

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the tour, I like all the pretty lycra, I like the nice castles, I like the cronulla sharks. I don't watch it wondering if X is on drugs.

 

Don't you watch sport for the sport and if something goes wrong post event, that's terrible but that's life.

 

These topics about naming drug cheats or inferring drug cheats without evidence shit me, its just slander. (I don't need a legal lesson in the technicalities of that comment).

 

Yeah, I know, you don't have to read the thread too.

 

Just struggle with people not being into sport for sport itself, isn't the amazing feats enough, do you really have to analyse it to the point of saying X is a drug cheat.

Edited by Oompa Loompa
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand that mentality for sure. And tou make a good point.

 

It's just not for me.

 

I've got maybe a bit of an un-healthy obsession with the truth and not being made a fool of.

 

It also pisses me off no end that cheaters get the plaudits and cash while honest men who held their integrity struggle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the tour, I like all the pretty lycra, I like the nice castles, I like the cronulla sharks. I don't watch it wondering if X is on drugs.

 

Don't you watch sport for the sport and if something goes wrong post event, that's terrible but that's life.

 

These topics about naming drug cheats or inferring drug cheats without evidence shit me, its just slander. (I don't need a legal lesson in the technicalities of that comment).

 

Yeah, I know, you don't have to read the thread too.

 

Just struggle with people not being into sport for sport itself, isn't the amazing feats enough, do you really have to analyse it to the point of saying X is a drug cheat.

 

Oh I agree 100%.

 

I don't mind watching any event for entertainment. I do take note if someone is suspended later on...like Marion Jones. But it doesn't interfere with my viewing at the time.

 

Some professional sportsmen/women have never been on a regime, but I understand they might have experimented with PEDS at some point. It's understandable, most athletes would have some interest in knowing how much they could have improved their performance. I accept that, but I still don't let it interfere with my viewing.

 

Ditto triathlon. A guy makes the podium at Kona and there is also the possibility he took PEDS. You know what, he is probably a dam good athlete anyway, and the other guys might equally have taken something, But again, it makes no difference to me.

 

Take "Rear View" Moats. He may one day develop medical problems. I will note that and understand why.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty disgusting idea for a thread, in my opinion, but perhaps I'm a bit naive in thinking that we should be giving people the benefit of the doubt until we have evidence otherwise. Unless this keyboard-warrior speculation counts as evidence?.... :rolleyes1:

 

 

I can understand that mentality for sure. And tou make a good point.

It's just not for me.

I've got maybe a bit of an un-healthy obsession with the truth and not being made a fool of.

It also pisses me off no end that cheaters get the plaudits and cash while honest men who held their integrity struggle.

 

I see where you're coming from, your values are clearly rock solid.

 

I would argue, though, that you shouldn't let it get to you...there are far more important things in the world that deserve our indignation, and the guys that are clean are obviously doing it for the rewards it gives them both as people and as cyclists.

 

They choose to do what they do; perhaps that's not fair, but hey, not much is in life....

Edited by Bangers
Link to post
Share on other sites

Schleckie, I dunno.

Injury, horrible form, gradually getting his saddle time and confidence back.

He took a couple of turns on the front, but didn't\couldn't dance away ala Frandy double team days.

Plausible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Froome's meteoric rise is a pretty sus as well as the power he is putting out for his weight and the climbing times. Will be interesting to see his Alp De Huez times, I wouldn't be surprised if they are not far from many noted dopers.

 

Greg Lemond's first TdF in 1984 he came 3rd overall.

 

Froomes first tour in 2008 he was 84th, 2hrs22 down on the winner.

 

You look at most top endurance athletes and they get close to the top pretty quickly after they start training well. Unless something changes after they enter the sport.

 

Worth nothing Lances first tour he was 36th, and Wiggins 124th, 3hrs 25 down.

 

Hardly convincing evidence that you've presented. Wishy washy terms like "most" and a comparison of final position on GC in Tour debuts? Please! Let's just compare apples with oranges and lemons with pears and chalk with cheese. That is the most tenuous proposition I've ever encountered on this forum. It completely ignores the purpose and job each cyclist were given for their first Tour.

 

I like the tour, I like all the pretty lycra, I like the nice castles, I like the cronulla sharks. I don't watch it wondering if X is on drugs.

 

Don't you watch sport for the sport and if something goes wrong post event, that's terrible but that's life.

 

These topics about naming drug cheats or inferring drug cheats without evidence shit me, its just slander. (I don't need a legal lesson in the technicalities of that comment).

 

Yeah, I know, you don't have to read the thread too.

 

Just struggle with people not being into sport for sport itself, isn't the amazing feats enough, do you really have to analyse it to the point of saying X is a drug cheat.

 

Right on. "I fink eez on da jooce coz I reckon so for sure." The thread should just be deleted as it is simply self indulgent navel gazing on the subject of doping. Seriously don't let an absence of facts stop you from alleging someone is doping, especially if you don't like them.

 

There are plenty of good hard numbers out there to be gleaned for some good analysis but why do that when you can just use imagination to fill in the blanks?

 

Serious allegations require some serious evidence not shear speculation. Take it down Mr Book.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty disgusting idea for a thread, in my opinion, but perhaps I'm a bit naive in thinking that we should be giving people the benefit of the doubt until we have evidence otherwise. Unless this keyboard-warrior speculation counts as evidence?.... :rolleyes1:

 

 

 

The thread should just be deleted as it is simply self indulgent navel gazing on the subject of doping.

....

. Take it down Mr Book.

 

Hit the report post/topic button on the first post, you can state a reason if you choose.

It's kind of pointless to ask for topics to be removed when moderators may not be even reading the topic.

The report feature will at least add a notice to the report section and seen by mods to make a decision or act upon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why?

He set the 3rd fastest time ever on a climb the other night, beating times when Lance was juiced up to the eye balls. He didn't just beat guys like Cadel, Alberto & co, he made them look piss weak. Suss? I think so

 

 

The guy has come from nowhere in 3 or 4 years to be putting out 6.5+ watts per kg. a certain Texan was doing the same and we all know how that ended

Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy has come from nowhere in 3 or 4 years to be putting out 6.5+ watts per kg. a certain Texan was doing the same and we all know how that ended

 

 

What .... George W Bush was doping when he won the presidency!!!! And was that the reason he got disposed!!! No it all makes sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry i'm a cynic, i dont believe Froome is clean.

I'm a skeptic. I'm not ready to say he's a doper, but I'm suspicious. I don't, however, think SKY are a team of dopers and Zi don't think Porte is doping.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This forum is like having a few guys and girls sitting at a bar having a drink and giving your opinion. So if you don't like the conversation just get up and walk away. Join another conversation or go to another bar. I do not mind hearing different opinions and listening to the reasons. At times it may even sway my opinion.

 

However don't call people idiots or muppets if they disagree with your opinion. I think that is pretty bad form.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you quoting John Lennon because he was a doper?? :schnauz:

 

 

Let It Be was a McCartney song. Though he was a doper as well. I think he got thrown out of Japan with Marijuana in his bags.

Edited by Mr Flower
Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...