Disappointing! You just got schooled and that's the best response you can come up with. Shameful.

That's a ton of typing just to troll this thread. Vam is an estimate but it's close enough, even with a tailwind you get back maybe 30 watts. And they all got it. So 1800 vs 1770? Still not normal.

You can throw a lot of garbage out there but in the end he did something today only doped riders have done before and no one else in the peloton was capable of other than his own teammate whom so far as I can find has never done an 8% grade for 20 minutes that shreds the peloton . And for a reactant was only 10th over ax so it's not like he was terrible. I'm not stating he's a doping I'm saying it's its a historically powerful ride that put in context raises eyebrows.

You're an ejit....you need to use your brain a lot better. All you are doing are comparing times...Fuck it then, Bolt is doped, as is TGay, as was Radcliffe and every one else that has broken a WR recently and run faster than known doped times like Ben Johnson's, Carl Lewis' (yes he was) and the Chinese athletes. You notice the flags at the summit on the HC climb today...wicked tailwind for the last stretch (most important stretch as the summit is where the wind will be the strongest often and most exposed). That is one variable you have overlooked...wind direction and strength, humidity, sunny or overcast (it maybe 30C both times but 30C and shady is not the same as 30C and bluebird). Another is the fact this is the first mountain stage of the TdF...I know for a fact, that LA did his on the 3rd day of mountains (albeit with a rest day). On podium cafe, it was mentioned that LA did AX3 at the beginning of the stage...if you watch any cycling you know that GC guys do not bang it out on the first climb of the day (believe he had another 2 major climbs to come)....and he looked like he was out for a sunday cycle. Now I know CF looks awful on a bike anyway, but even he looked like he was on the rivet for that final climb. So that is another variable conveniently overlooked by the denser among you...context of the climb (first mountain of the day, summit finish, day # of mountain stage sequence, when it falls in the Tour i.e. some years they hit the Alps first then the Pyrenees, other years (like this one) it is the opposite, etc, etc). Also, length of time riding solo...so much of Sky's success is loading a team with expensive domestiques pounding out a metronomic pace, eventually leaving the GC guy alone for the last couple km. Tell me which is easier to run a 5k in 'xx'min...Fartlek or even pace running? Guys like Contador basically did/do Farltek up a mountain, and people like Wiggo can't do it, same as most can't do it like the Kenyans did back in the 80s during steeplechase races. However, they can still climb a mountain at the same speed (or faster) otherwise. Plus, there is still a drafting effect at their speeds. Plus, speed & difficulty of stage prior to climb (and stages beforehand)...today there was only one big climb (admittedly done at a decent pace) and a lot of flat beforehand, but with a very long descent before final climb (good recovery time). Road surface...anyone who spends time in the mountains knows that mountain roads get destroyed quickly...so was the climb done on freshly laid tarmac, or was it a couple years old and thus likely rougher and cracked more, etc, (weather also comes) or is/was it a different surface altogether e.g. concrete, chipseal, etc. Another variable is weight of rider...guys like Wiggo dropped a lot of weight so this has to be taken into account when comparing the results and using them...this is also the case for including their focus i.e. so and so is concentrating on the track this year for the Olympics or the WC TT or the Giro, thus his performance at the Tour on Ventoux will be expected to be x amount slower, etc, etc. Finally, as in EVERY single athletic sport, we have seen advances due to better training (as well as nurturing from younger ages), diet, equipment, etc. There really wasn't too much special about today except that Conta was shit, Andy was rubbish as most suspected he would be, Cadel continuing where he left off last year (with a minor hiccup with a good Giro...but he has a Giro in his legs), JRod was crap as he always is on big mountains. However, guys like Valverde, Ten Dam, Talansky, Mollema, Kreuziger (a domestique beating his GC leader Conta says it all about how bad Conta was and not so special Froome was) and co were where you would expect them to be with respect to time. This is another variable that should be included in any analysis...performance relative to other riders (and 'your') norm (i.e. you would need to profile each ride throughout a racer's career (e.g. on an average day with 30C temps, headwind, 3rd day of mountains, etc, etc (injuries need to be noted and most recent races/climbs giving a higher weighting), we could expect him to do this climb in 45 min average) and thus be able to generate an expected performance for any given race and relative to others). That is what is so shit about the 'Not Normal? An insight into doping and the 21 biggest riders from LeMond to Armstrong to Evans'' book/article thing and all the 'The Science of Sport' stuff...completely rubbish science that would be rejected (or require heavy revisions) if it went to a decent/OK (e.g. 'impact factor' above 5 at min) peer reviewed journal. It is fine to just blog about it and say this and that but don't try to present it as anything but an opinion based on bad data (even if it is the best you can hope for with the resources available (data/money/time)) i.e. not what the Science of Sport guys do...almost all of their arguments end with 'but it is still worthwhile to have a look' and the whole site is trying to pass it off as good scientific analysis. Who cares about all those variables you are omitting, with these 3 they are cheating mofos. I wish my industry worked like that...might have a lot of dead people but hey it looked good at the time after my few experiments done and ignoring 80% of the data/variables....what do you mean I need to use the same dose/weight, genetic strain of mice, vehicle, age of mice, sex, etc, etc, to make a robust scientific conclusion from my results...oh and I can't omit those ones, but they don't fit in, it's not significant otherwise? I can't believe that, can you?...well, of course you can, it seems.

Who is the idiot as well that said these Sky guys (domestiques) came into the TdF having done nothing before the Tour this year...Richie Porte has basically come second to CF in every 'one week' stage race prior to TdF this year as well as winning a couple, who was heavily headhunted to become a GC guy at other teams but he chose to stay at Sky, in return he will get to lead next year, probably at the Giro. He was amazing last year as well. Kennaugh has an excellent track background as a pursuiter, Olympic and World Champion, and that is basically what he did today...short stint, massive effort then blow up. Not only that, he also has a decent road background for a young rider...4th at U23 World Road Race Championships, 5th overall at Tour of Pologne (a UCI ProTour race), 3rd overall at Route du Sud (won by Quintano last year...the dude that everyone rightly salivates over as the future, at least as a climber) and won by Kiryienka (Movistar) the year Kennaugh was 3rd...oh, where have we heard that name recently, yep that's it, he was the dude that is now banging out the tempo for sky before Kennaugh takes over (like today) who also has an excellent palmares for a domestique...2nd overall Criterium Internationale, top 10s overall at prestigious races like Dauphine, Murcia, Basque Country, Austria, etc, as well as 3rd overall last year at the World TT Championships and a 6th prior to that, plus a couple of Giro stage wins. Then you have the more well known names like Geraint Thomas (crocked at mo with fractured pelvis, still riding, crazy), Eddy BH and Stannard...all power and more suited towards the Classics but good for short bursts. Can't believe anyone can think Team Sky just shows up for the TdF.

If Sky did a repeat of yesterday, you guys will be calling them cheaters.
Now, they didn't and Porte did really terribly today, and Froome looked like he was suffering the whole way and he said it was one of the hardest rides of his life, and you guys are saying that they are 'sandbagging' it.

As far as I understand that cycling might not have the best track record in terms of clean and fair competition, but with such cynicism around here, this sport will stand no chance.
Why don't you guys turn off the telly and go ride your bikes instead of wasting 5 hours watching the stage, only to shit on all the efforts of the riders.

Whatever, I'm from a country that isn't represented in the tour so I'm not taking sides or being a 'fanboy.'

Just because we do a sport that involves cycling, doesn't mean we're the fucking best at it and can talk shit like we are know-it-alls.

would you prefer we shove it under the carpet and just let it fester instead?

why such cynicism? well perhaps because cycling is like a recovery alcoholic who can't lay off the booze just yet. You should saunter over to the clinic section of cyclingnews forums and see what true cynicism is. Vaughters basically confessed to his doping past on that forum before his NYT op-ed piece, yet Vaughters still constantly get slammed for saying or not saying something. He could say "I don't know" or "no comment" and be charged with upholding omertà. Now that's real cynicism.

Sky started as a team that called for transparency, yet down the road it became clear that it was the emperor's new cloth. Walsh was promised unfettered access to the team, yet that promise was turned back at a later time.

why still watch it? because we are all human and understand that nothing will be truly ideal; however, we also know that certain teams (FDJ and Garmin) and riders strive to be clean, and that is worth watching. Until proven otherwise or at least have a preponderance of evidence against them, i enjoyed watching Dan Martin and Ryder Hesjedal's work in LBL this year. Above all, i believe that Vaughters is right in saying that cycling is getting cleaner. I fully realize that some of the riders i root for may very well have a tainted past, but i am of the mind that despite of the residual gains from past use, most are competing clean these days. Hopefully, this will soon be an artifact of the past




red herring as far as i'm concerned

then why comment at all? By your logic, the only person who may comment would be Greg Lemond, as he's viewed as possibly the last big-time clean GT rider. Ashendon, Walsh, and Tygart, none of whom are even racing cyclists, should just budge out, right? Even that loser Kimmage should eff off since he never gone anywhere and wasn't close to being one of the best of his generation, no?

Really, who the hell made you the ethics czar of this place and gave you the powers to issue fiats regarding whether or not our cynicism should preclude us from watching?

Vaughters didn't say that doping wasn't rampant... he just said the controls are better so that riders can't dope to the *extent* they used to. And this will vary depending on the new methods of doping and how well and quickly the controls can contain them.

Anyway... there is no resemblance to addiction.

When I say "i don't know" it means "I don't know"... It does not mean I don't have a private opinion.

And this applies to contract talks with Contador... We never got to the point of the talks that i saw his blood values. So, I can't say one way or the other on the guy. I'd be happy to give you my opinion on this, if you want to come over for dinner. But not here. I'm not going to publicly judge someone who I have never even seen their blood profile or medical records.

But I have my opinion. just not for here.

I only give my opinion on items/riders that I have hard facts about.

In the end, what maybe you guys don't get, I don't care as much as you might think about if rider xyz doped or not. I don't claim the sport is totally clean, what i claim is that clean riders are winning more than at any other point in cycling's history. That's all.

I enjoyed this Twitter exchange from today:
https://twitter.com/...s/353878306891907072

Paragraphs and sentences, please use them next time.

Too long, too unorganized, didn't read.

in which case, now you say there's no resemblance to addiction; what do you mean by that? Are we arguing over the semantics of the word addiction? Or are you saying that people are laying off of the dope?

No correlation between PED use and any addiction. It's like any other rule that makes a difference but is not adequately enforced. Take a look at the blatant draft cheating in pro TTs... on TV even. Usually they get away with it. Is it an addiction to want to perform well... even win?

Yet, another day that I watch and think this is a very curious result.

So one day Sky is super strong decimating the whole race even more than usual. Which clearly sends a bunch of red flags among those that are keeping the blinders off.

Now today complete reversal. ZERO Skybots able to stay at the front for more than 1/4 stage?! I would be able to understand 1 or 2 guys paying for magical ride yesterday and bonking today. But the ENTIRE team (except the yellow jersey) paying for it all at the same time, on the same day---just completely odd for the Skybots. Seems convenient .

I guess my red flag radar from yesterday must have been way off since all the Skybots seemed so "human" today-----:rolleyes:.

I am pretty sure the Skybots will figure out a way to "recover" and be there if and when anyone is able to gain back enough time to challenge for the yellow jersey. If Froome is able to keep 1-2 min+ lead on everyone, then who cares how isolated he seems to be.