# bikesnobnyc on LeMond



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2009/06/shot-in-dark-art-of-appropriating-blame.html


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

LA apparently approves- http://twitter.com/lancearmstrong/status/2188239952

he also thinks it's important that you know he's having lasagna tonight, tasty lasagna-
http://twitter.com/lancearmstrong/status/2199990072


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

Conspiracy, of course. LA has gotten to BSNYC, corrupted him thoroughly.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Bicycling Magazine lost all it's street cred when BSNYC starting writing for them.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> Bicycling Magazine lost all it's street cred when BSNYC starting writing for them.


So NYVelocity is credible but BSNYC is not. I'm having trouble keeping track of which New York area cycling related entertainment websites also double as credible news sources.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

kbiker3111 said:


> So NYVelocity is credible but BSNYC is not. I'm having trouble keeping track of which New York area cycling related entertainment websites also double as credible news sources.


That's easy to answer....the one you agree with is the most accurate publication out there


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

kbiker3111 said:


> So NYVelocity is credible but BSNYC is not. I'm having trouble keeping track of which New York area cycling related entertainment websites also double as credible news sources.



Bro, there's more truth in one Toto than all of the bikesnob.


----------



## djg714 (Oct 24, 2005)

and the bikesnob dude claims to know cycling?
What a clown.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

I love BSNYC. Hit the nail right on the head.




And if people are so neurotic that they don't understand that BSNYC is humor....god help them.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Remember, no blog is credible. Even if they slag on someone you hate. Citing them just removes your credibility.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

kbiker3111 said:


> So NYVelocity is credible but BSNYC is not. I'm having trouble keeping track of which New York area cycling related entertainment websites also double as credible news sources.


BSNY has cornered the market in heckling single speed riding hipsters, nobody does it better. NYVelocity has done some great interviews lately, the content of which stand on their own. 

If I want to know how much to sell a Pista for on Craigslist I go to BSNYC. If I want some thought provoking interviews and cartoons on Pro Cycling NYVC is doing a good job.


----------



## baker921 (Jul 20, 2007)

If somebody doesn't mention d**gs soon this thread will get moved to General Cycling Discussion!


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

baker921 said:


> If somebody doesn't mention d**gs soon this thread will get moved to General Cycling Discussion!


They are all dopers...there you go


----------



## jupiterrn (Sep 22, 2006)

baker921 said:


> If somebody doesn't mention d**gs soon this thread will get moved to General Cycling Discussion!


God that would be a first. It's like dividing by ZERO.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

jupiterrn said:


> God that would be a first. It's like dividing by ZERO.


It's like dividing ZERO by ZERO.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> It's like dividing ZERO by ZERO.


Which would mean you used l'Hôpital's rule a few too many times.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

BSNYC comes across mostly as a tool in his blog.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

kbiker3111 said:


> Which would mean you used l'Hôpital's rule a few too many times.


Wouldn't that only be 1-2 too many times, depending on the variables on the top/bottom?


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

bsnyc is freakin hilarious. consistently funny satire. all you lemond lovers need to relax. lemonds speech was ill prepared, atrocious and unprofessional.


----------



## djg714 (Oct 24, 2005)

loudog said:


> bsnyc is freakin hilarious. consistently funny satire. all you lemond lovers need to relax. lemonds speech was ill prepared, atrocious and unprofessional.


So you are saying the Bikesnob dude knows more about professional bike racing than a 3 time TDF winner?



That is hilarious!!!!!!!!!


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

stevesbike said:


> BSNYC comes across mostly as a tool in his blog.


Wow, you grasped the single point he's trying to make. Congrats.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

robdamanii said:


> Wow, you grasped the single point he's trying to make. Congrats.


sorry, I meant an unfunny tool. If you're really into sophomoric, postmodern hipster irony - last fashionable in about 1985 - then have at it. You can spend your day reading his blog and those of the other alumni of second/third-tier creative writing programs who think that writing a blog means they are a working writer.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

stevesbike said:


> sorry, I meant an unfunny tool. If you're really into sophomoric, postmodern hipster irony - last fashionable in about 1985 - then have at it. You can spend your day reading his blog and those of the other alumni of second/third-tier creative writing programs who think that writing a blog means they are a working writer.


I'm so glad you've given me permission to enjoy a satirical piece of fiction, posted on the internet of all places. My god, I was afraid you might come and swat my hand with a yardstick for laughing at something amusing.

That being said, he really does portray Lemond in the light that most people see him...a befuddled old lunatic. Really, he just needs to go away, admit his 15 minutes are over and stop pretending that he's at all relevant.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

djg714 said:


> So you are saying the Bikesnob dude knows more about professional bike racing than a 3 time TDF winner?
> 
> 
> 
> That is hilarious!!!!!!!!!



no dude. bikesnob is entertainment and is hilarious. his column is satire. 

did you watch the lemond play the game speech. it was pretty atrocious - he was ill prepared and looked really unprofessional.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

did you listen to what he was actually proposing? Defining non-physiological markers of performance via wattage-estimated models is promising. Actually, it's already been done (indirectly). Bassett did it for world hour records, not to show doping, but to relate hour performances across three decades (Bassett et al., Comparing cycling world hour records, 1967-1996: modeling with empirical dataMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise).

If you look at their study, it's pretty clear that Boardman and Rominger's hour records in the 90s are deeply suspicious. There's a clear deviation in power output. Rominger is the all-time high, averaging 468 watts for the hour or 7.2 watts/kg, Merckx was 6.4, Moser 5.9. Indurain 6.03. Rominger's doctor was Ferrari. It's pretty clear where that extra watt/kg comes from.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Zombie Sintesi said:


> Bicycling Mag has "street cred???"


Sarcasm


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

stevesbike said:


> did you listen to what he was actually proposing? Defining non-physiological markers of performance via wattage-estimated models is promising. Actually, it's already been done (indirectly). Bassett did it for world hour records, not to show doping, but to relate hour performances across three decades (Bassett et al., Comparing cycling world hour records, 1967-1996: modeling with empirical dataMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise).
> 
> If you look at their study, it's pretty clear that Boardman and Rominger's hour records in the 90s are deeply suspicious. There's a clear deviation in power output. Rominger is the all-time high, averaging 468 watts for the hour or 7.2 watts/kg, Merckx was 6.4, Moser 5.9. Indurain 6.03. Rominger's doctor was Ferrari. It's pretty clear where that extra watt/kg comes from.


Other than this study, is there any evidence that Boardman was doped?
Whilst he is possibly the most boring rider (personalitywise) Britain has ever produced, the is also the rider who kick started the British Cycling programme that culminated in the Beijing Olympic success. If you look at his palmares, you will see that he won at the disciplines he was suited to and little if anything else. Possibly the most analytical rider of the 90's. 
But nowhere have I seen doping insinuations linked to him.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

stevesbike said:


> If you look at their study, it's pretty clear that Boardman and Rominger's hour records in the 90s are deeply suspicious. There's a clear deviation in power output. Rominger is the all-time high, averaging 468 watts for the hour or 7.2 watts/kg, Merckx was 6.4, Moser 5.9. Indurain 6.03. Rominger's doctor was Ferrari. It's pretty clear where that extra watt/kg comes from.


Boardman's last hour record was comparable to Merckx's record in terms of physiology. Boardman was a specialist, who prepared all year for the last attempt and yet he just sneaked past Merckx's record. In addtion, at the end of a long season, Merckx had gone to Mexico city 4 days before the attempt; he would have been well below optimal condition because it takes around 14-28 days to acclimatize to that altitude and the first few days are particularly bad (performance-wise).
I don't think beating Merckx's record by 9 meters shows Boardman doped. Considering the poor preparation Merckx had, it shows what a monster he really was.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

whos to say merckx wasnt using PEDs? amphetamines would have been easily available.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

No-one is saying Merckx was clean! It's just that there is a huge difference between amphetamines and EPO. A very talented rider can keep up with a similarly talented but doped competitor... unless the dope is EPO or modern blood doping techniques (basically they rely on EPO). My point was that claiming someone doped or didn't dope based on estimated power is very hard to do.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Boardman's 1996 performance falls into the suspicious category, 6.44 watts/kg/hour. His 1993 and 2000 performances were unspectacular, around 5.8 watts/kg.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

PhatTalc said:


> No-one is saying Merckx was clean! It's just that there is a huge difference between amphetamines and EPO. A very talented rider can keep up with a similarly talented but doped competitor... unless the dope is EPO or modern blood doping techniques (basically they rely on EPO). My point was that claiming someone doped or didn't dope based on estimated power is very hard to do.


Umm, cheating is cheating. Either you doped or you didn't. Blood doping, amphetamines, EPO-- all doping, all cheating. Heck, faking an incident to get a free lap-- that's cheating. 

Plus Eddy did fail a test right?


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

actually he testing positive 3 times for various stimulants.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

*Suspicious...*

...assuming you know the drag coefficient etc. I agree that, >6.4 W/Kg is into the suspicious category.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

The modeling paper by Bassett, Burke, et al. is a very careful study taking into account numerous parameters. By normalizing all hour record holders to the a reference track and reference equipment (Boardman's) Rominger and Boardman are clear outliers. Boardman would have traveled 2.6km further than Indurain under identical conditions (modeled data).


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

Coolhand said:


> Umm, cheating is cheating. Either you doped or you didn't. Blood doping, amphetamines, EPO-- all doping, all cheating. Heck, faking an incident to get a free lap-- that's cheating.
> 
> Plus Eddy did fail a test right?


You're missing the point. One can use Merckx's record as a benchmark because Amphetamines don't make 7 W/Kg possible, however EPO does. Nothing as potent as EPO existed back then, so when someone obliterates Merckx's record alarm bells will ring, if they just sneak over, then you can't easily tell whether they are an amazing athlete or doped.

Re Boardman et al. The problem is in the modelling of the air resistance. I understand what they did, but they didn't actually measure the drag coefficient dis they? if they did, then yes, Boardman is suspicious.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

PhatTalc said:


> You're missing the point. One can use Merckx's record as a benchmark because Amphetamines don't make 7 W/Kg possible, however EPO does. Nothing as potent as EPO existed back then, so when someone obliterates Merckx's record alarm bells will ring, if they just sneak over, then you can't easily tell whether they are an amazing athlete or doped.
> 
> Re Boardman et al. The problem is in the modelling of the air resistance. I understand what they did, but they didn't actually measure the drag coefficient dis they? if they did, then yes, Boardman is suspicious.


Respectfully, I would say you are missing my point. *Doping is doping.* While certain forms of doping may give more reward to certain riders (low hemocrit + EPO for example), the notion one form of doping is worse or better then the other from a degrees of cheating standpoint doesn't make sense to me. Amphetamines were used for a reason- _they worked really well_, especially for higher natural hemocrit riders (especially paired with blood doping I would imagine). 

90's doping wasn't "more cheaty" than 70's doping. You doped, you cheated- no matter how you did it.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

Coolhand said:


> Respectfully, I would say you are missing my point. *Doping is doping.* While certain forms of doping may give more reward to certain riders (low hemocrit + EPO for example), the notion one form of doping is worse or better then the other from a degrees of cheating standpoint doesn't make sense to me. Amphetamines were used for a reason- _they worked really well_, especially for higher natural hemocrit riders (especially paired with blood doping I would imagine).
> 
> 90's doping wasn't "more cheaty" than 70's doping. You doped, you cheated- no matter how you did it.


I was not considering the ethics. I was considering whether or not we can say that Chris Boardman doped on the basis of an estimated power output. Your point was that cheating is cheating, which is true, but not really relevant to establishing (on the basis of power) whether one hour record is clean and another is dirty.


----------

