Tour de France 2013

Has anyone considered, just for a moment, that Sky/GB (yes I say that because they have the same PD and share many staff and riders) have been doing a lot of work to find legal areas which can be improved? Remember what marginal gains actually are?

Perhaps most of the other teams haven't bothered in recent years to try and improve the things right under their noses, purely because all the attention was focused on how to dope and beat the testing?

I don't think this is such a naive view to take TBH. If you seriously believe that the national squad are heavily involved in anything to do with illegal substances then you are probably a tough nut to crack. There's so much at stake in cycling and in sport in this country which depends on our people staying clean first and foremost.

However, I'm prepared to eat my hat if sir DB is found out to be an evil genius who makes Lance look like Arthur Daley.
If that happens I'll need to eat my clothes anyway, as I won't have a job anymore.

And another thing!
Why are good performances suddenly an admission of doping!? Sporting performance is almost always improving. Humans are getting faster, it's evolution.

It's like that fool Greg Bauge virtually accusing Jason Kenny of taking something because he beat him last year.

^^

1 Attachment

Surely it's possible, even probable, that the reason Froome outclassed Contador yesterday was that he has been training intensely to do just that, and because he's training clean, and riding clean his fitness is genuine. Whereas Contador is simply not that fit because he never was. He didn't need to be because he was cheating. He now has no answer because he's never known how hard he needed to train to be that strong without the Clenbuterol?

Sky riders have Sith powers.. The Death Star has tractor beams, it's obvious, no?
Always two there is.. A master and an apprentice ;)

1 Attachment

Magnets?

^^^

How Froome and Sky won the Tour, or Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism?

I'm sure Sky train hard, but to suggest the other top GC riders are slacking is ridiculous. Every account I have read about dopers suggest their desire to win and their appetite to train hard are overwhelming.

I'll grant Sky might train smarter, but I doubt they train much harder than their peers.

Yup.

Doping isn't the easy way to win. If anything dopers train harder with less recovery time to maximise the effects of their doping.

I'm getting sick of this puritanical attitude. You could argue doping's a cheap option that gives low-rent teams an option to get vaguely on terms with the corporate sponsored hypoxia and legal tightrope walking of their rivals. If the well-being of the riders is monitored (within the context of a hugely masochistic entertainment industry), then what's the big deal? How many fucking amazing substance-assisted cultural moments would you have the audience of the future deprived of, be it in sport, music, visual art, comedy, literature, whatever? If people are educated, let them choose their poison.

Let's have another war on drugs, eh? Fuck off.

I lovee it when people throw evolution into the mix of an argument.

^^^

How Froome and Sky won the Tour, or Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism?

I'm sure Sky train hard, but to suggest the other top GC riders are slacking is ridiculous. Every account I have read about dopers suggest their desire to win and their appetite to train hard are overwhelming.

I'll grant Sky might train smarter, but I doubt they train much harder than their peers.

Who suggested the other Gcrs are slacking? (Edit: oh you meant blyequim, sorry on my phone this is difficult to do forums)
Not all teams train the same way, not even every rider in the same team trains the same way all the time. Management of rider performance at this level has critical importance, the tolerances are minuscule. Not everyone gets it perfectly right for every year/race/stage/climb.
But yeah whatever, if people don't understand or care for those facts then must be doping.

A couple of things...
Conclusion - to some extent anyone who says Froome is an average rider who started doping are saying that the one team who really set themselves up as anti-doping are now just about the only cheats in the business. Seems unlikely.

Nobody thinks that. Also has nobody considered the fact that a person can dope without the backing/knowledge of their DS? Sky do themselves no favours though, set themselves up as a transparent anti-drug team who will only hire non-cycling doctors from the UK then basically do the opposite.

I'm getting sick of this puritanical attitude. You could argue doping's a cheap option that gives low-rent teams an option to get vaguely on terms with the corporate sponsored hypoxia and legal tightrope walking of their rivals. If the well-being of the riders is monitored (within the context of a hugely masochistic entertainment industry), then what's the big deal? How many fucking amazing substance-assisted cultural moments would you have the audience of the future deprived of, be it in sport, music, visual art, comedy, literature, whatever? If people are educated, let them choose their poison.

Let's have another war on drugs, eh? Fuck off.

You know this is bollocks and always has been. If you legalise doping in sport you don't make it optional, you make it compulsory. And the rich teams maintain their advantage because they can afford the best doping programmes. And you make racing dull, not exciting. The Indurain/Armstrong era was boring as hell.

Stupid bastard sky box didn't record the highlights AGAIN today. So we're watching stage 13.

Just watched an interview with Marcel Kittel - he looks like a cross between Justin Bieber and Jedward!

And another thing!
Humans are getting faster, it's evolution.

Evolution works in rather a longer time frame. Improvements come from improved preparation and equipment not mutation.

As for humans getting faster, could you tell me what you think the fastest clean performance over 100m and when that was set?

Has anyone considered, just for a moment, that Sky/GB (yes I say that because they have the same PD and share many staff and riders) have been doing a lot of work to find legal areas which can be improved? Remember what marginal gains actually are?

this.

I'm not worried about whether Sky dope or not. What is clear, is that they have taken an extremely thorough, meticulous, scientific approach to training, supplements, diet, the timing of when to ingest these things during races, with a level of organisation we possibly haven't seen before. I find the team a bit mechanical, souless. I reckon when the team and those who work for it starts to split up, and the processes and approach they use gets disseminated to other teams, we might see a more unpredicatable, exiting race.

Can't get much more exciting than yesterday! Froome didn't look too soulless while attacking time and again either.

Who suggested the other Gcrs are slacking? (Edit: oh you meant blyequim, sorry on my phone this is difficult to do forums)
Not all teams train the same way, not even every rider in the same team trains the same way all the time. Management of rider performance at this level has critical importance, the tolerances are minuscule. Not everyone gets it perfectly right for every year/race/stage/climb.
But yeah whatever, if people don't understand or care for those facts then must be doping.

Do you even read? I was replying to BQ.

And another thing!
Why are good performances suddenly an admission of doping!? Sporting performance is almost always improving. Humans are getting faster, it's evolution.

.

It's not evolution. It's genetic doping

I'm getting sick of this puritanical attitude. You could argue doping's a cheap option that gives low-rent teams an option to get vaguely on terms with the corporate sponsored hypoxia and legal tightrope walking of their rivals. If the well-being of the riders is monitored (within the context of a hugely masochistic entertainment industry), then what's the big deal? How many fucking amazing substance-assisted cultural moments would you have the audience of the future deprived of, be it in sport, music, visual art, comedy, literature, whatever? If people are educated, let them choose their poison.

Let's have another war on drugs, eh? Fuck off.

^^BMMF's Strava scores explained right there :)

Can't get much more exciting than yesterday! Froome didn't look too soulless while attacking time and again either.

No no, that was a great stage. No problem there. But I miss those times when we had 3 or 4 GC riders only separated by a couple of minutes, and the yellow changed hands more often. That time schleck's chain came off and contador attacked, and won the tour by 45 seconds? That was exiting.

Do you even read? I was replying to BQ.

Er, see my edit right there?

"Do you even read" eh…

^^ It was. Very!

Hardly a generation ago though. I have no worries about Sky's approach making the sport dull. This tour shows that won't happen - even if they're winning.

Cool, I'll stop whining :)

I'm now watching the highlights of stage 1 again because I don't have a telly and I don"t get today's stage on ITVplayer until tomorrow. I'm glad to have a place where I can tell people this and it sounds normal.

All sports people, whether they like it or not, promote a healthy lifestyle

John Finnemore took this notion apart rather well in his Souvenir Programme. If you think elite sport is a healthy activity, you haven't understood it at all.