Titanflexr wrote:
DarkSpeedWorks wrote:
jackmott wrote:
They still aren't climbing any faster than the pre-epo guys did*, so that is good.
Aren't they climbing
about as fast as the epo peloton did?
.
They are, which is why people are rightly skeptical. The bio passport means you can't blatantly dope anymore, but you can microdose EPO and do small infusions to top up your hematocrit with little chance of getting caught.
You're assement is not wrong, but I think that there is more to consider. Training IS better. Not only that, but riders don't show up at the tour with nearly as much racing in their legs as they did in the Lemond era. Riders now have better training methods (the legit ones), more focused preparation, and are not as worn down at the start of the Tour as in the past. Also bikes are light years better than in the Lemond era. Greg won the tour in '85 on a bike that probably weighed on the order of 20-21 pounds, with 32 spoke aluminum rims. Not to mention that it probably had a 7 speed freewheel with a 39x23 low gear whereas now guys have a 39x26 (at least) to save their legs more and a bike that weighs about 5-6 pounds less.
So where does the EPO era fit in? Indurain's bikes were probably very similar to Lemond's, but Armstrongs were probably somewhere in the middle. (Let's be realistic, Indurain was the start of the EPO era as far as grand tours go.) I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Armstrong's 1999 Tour bike weighed in at around 18 pounds or so. Remember that he rode Ksryium wheels which by modern standards aren't particularly light or aero.
So, to accurately compare climbing times between eras you have to take the following factors into account.
1. Equipment. Modern bikes are lighter, more comfortable and more aerodynamic.
2. Clothing. Modern clothing is more comfortable and more aero. Helmets are light and cooling, but EPO era guys didn't wear helmets...
3. Preparation. Legitimate preparation. Modern GT riders are better prepared at the start of the Tour than Lemond era guys, but probably similar to Armstrong era guys. But as a whole, the peloton is probably better prepared at the start of the Tour than even the Armstrong era.
4. Tactics. You can't compare climb times in a vacuum. Lemond's Alpe d'Huez time (182.5 km stage) is pedestrian, but he had been off the front for probably 80 km or more and he rode at a pace to be with his team mate. It's difficult to compare it to an 15.5 km ITT (Armstrong) or in a controlled race where the leader hit the bottom of the Alpe in a pack (Armstrong (209 km), Pantani (203 km)), to Pierre Rolland in 2011 (110 km). Not to mention what was on the line for the GC big hitters. Is that where he made his move for the jersey or was it a stage with a break off the front the the GC leaders just rode to control each other?
5. Where in the Tour was this climb? By this wikipedia link
http://en.wikipedia.org/...lpe_d%27Huez#Winners Alpe d'Huez has been anywhere from the 8th stage to the 20th stage. That makes a difference. Also, what was that particular stage like? Was it 110 km with basically one climb like in 2011 or was it a 3 or 4 pass 200 km slog like in other years.
My point is that comparing climb times in the Tour de France is not at all like comparing 10,000 times on the track. There are lots of variable and I think that people put more weight into just the raw climbing time that is appropriate.
That doesn't mean I believe that the modern peloton is pure as the driven snow. But the idea that you can or can't deduce that Froome or Nibali is doping based on comparing climbs in the Tour to the past is just way too fraught with errors.
Kevin
http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com My Strava