# "Team Sky marginal gains! What bollocks!"



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

According to Greg:

Greg LeMond: Miracles in cycling still don't exist | Cyclingnews.com

"The great physiologist Frederick Portoleau showed that when Froome accelerates hard, his heart only shows small variations. This is troubling. What bothers me is hearing some technicians say it's science fiction, which is a kind of misinformation. Others make us believe they are ahead of the best scientists, the famous Team Sky marginal gains! What bollocks! There are no new methodologies. That is wrong. In this area too, miracles do not exist."


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

As much as I hate Sky (the team, not necessarily the riders) and respect Greg, I'm begrudgingly beginning to like Froome. I hope Greg is wrong on this one, because Froome has finally ridden the Tour like a champion and not a robot.

That said, I won't be crushed either way.


----------



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

Its hard to figure out what Lemond was saying, he was simply too oblique. He doesn't come right out and say he is suspicious that Sky/Froome are doping, but leaves that as a possible conclusion.
Lemond mainly seems like a decent and reasonable guy, certainly by comparison to his nemesis Armstrong... and he has gotten a bad deal over the years, but he also seems a little imprecise in his thinking and speaking.
I wish he and/or the story was a little more clear on what he was trying to say.


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

DrSmile said:


> According to Greg:
> 
> Greg LeMond: Miracles in cycling still don't exist | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> "The great physiologist Frederick Portoleau showed that when Froome accelerates hard, his heart only shows small variations. This is troubling. What bothers me is hearing some technicians say it's science fiction, which is a kind of misinformation. Others make us believe they are ahead of the best scientists, the famous Team Sky marginal gains! What bollocks! There are no new methodologies. That is wrong. In this area too, miracles do not exist."



There's a reason why training by heartrate doesn't work and this is it. This isn't just Froome, it's all humans. Go try it yourself.

When you accelerate hard from a normal pace, your heartrate will NOT skyrocket or go shooting up or anything even close. It'll barely move if anything. There is a significant lag/delay between when you are executing your effort and when your heatrate picks up to show that.

This is as basic as heartrate understanding gets for cyclists.


----------



## GueroAz (Nov 9, 2006)

Long time fan and rider, but in the last few years I just cannot bring myself to watch this tour or any other pro-cycling event on TV anymore. These guys are supposed to be clean, in theory that would mean a net decrease in average speed would occur. I just don't see that happening. After getting suckered by Lance etal, I just don't have it in me to sit and believe the 'amazing miracles' by team Sky and same old rhetoric spewing from team management. 

For me, cycling has become a cool and fun sport for myself. The legitimacy of the pro's in my eyes is zero. I guess in years to come we will wait and see what the overall fans of the sport do, but from what I have heard so far viewership is down.


----------



## SNS1938 (Aug 9, 2013)

GueroAz said:


> Long time fan and rider, but in the last few years I just cannot bring myself to watch this tour or any other pro-cycling event on TV anymore. These guys are supposed to be clean, in theory that would mean a net decrease in average speed would occur. I just don't see that happening. After getting suckered by Lance etal, I just don't have it in me to sit and believe the 'amazing miracles' by team Sky and same old rhetoric spewing from team management.
> 
> For me, cycling has become a cool and fun sport for myself. The legitimacy of the pro's in my eyes is zero. I guess in years to come we will wait and see what the overall fans of the sport do, but from what I have heard so far viewership is down.


I'm in a similar boat. I think if it wasn't for all the doping of the past twenty years coming to light in the last few years, then I could believe in a clean peloton, but every time we're told the peloton is clean (and the amazing performances are due to cancer recovery, high cadence, marginal gains or whatever), it turns out that it's not the case.

I still watch the racing, but I watch it like it's WWE. I know it's just a show, and not real.


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

MMsRepBike said:


> There's a reason why training by heartrate doesn't work and this is it. This isn't just Froome, it's all humans. Go try it yourself.
> 
> When you accelerate hard from a normal pace, your heartrate will NOT skyrocket or go shooting up or anything even close. It'll barely move if anything. There is a significant lag/delay between when you are executing your effort and when your heatrate picks up to show that.
> 
> This is as basic as heartrate understanding gets for cyclists.


If you and I get that I'm pretty certain LeMond does as well. With out more context from LeMond it's more LeMond not being able to convey what he means. He's a bit like Christian Vande Veld in his Eurosport commentary...that is a bit disjointed. Not unlike my posts


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

MMsRepBike said:


> There's a reason why training by heartrate doesn't work and this is it. This isn't just Froome, it's all humans. Go try it yourself.
> 
> When you accelerate hard from a normal pace, your heartrate will NOT skyrocket or go shooting up or anything even close. It'll barely move if anything. There is a significant lag/delay between when you are executing your effort and when your heatrate picks up to show that.


What Greg and Portoleau are pointing at is that his HR does not respond in a way consistent with the effort. The HR lag will be there, but the HR will change in response to changes in workload. Power is an indication of the work you do, HR is an indication the body's response to it.

If Froome's HR does not change consistent with a meaningful change in power output (level/duration), then there is cause for concern.

HR is still a valuable training metric. It can provide data that power will never be able to, because it's looking at the equation from a completely different angle. Lots of upper level cyclists train by HR and not power for this very reason. I certainly prefer training by power, but I won't discard the data points HR provides.

Greg can be rambling at times, but he is certainly not uninformed.


----------



## Aadub (May 30, 2015)

Quite the time trial today, public flogging.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Alaska Mike said:


> What Greg and Portoleau are pointing at is that his HR does not respond in a way consistent with the effort. The HR lag will be there, but the HR will change in response to changes in workload. Power is an indication of the work you do, HR is an indication the body's response to it.
> 
> If Froome's HR does not change consistent with a meaningful change in power output (level/duration), then there is cause for concern.
> 
> ...


I agree. Greg knows how the body responds in cycling races. After his Lance experience I highly doubt he will publicly come out and accuse anybody of doping without absolute proof, so I think he's done his best to let the public know he has he doubts about Sky.


----------



## MoonHowl (Oct 5, 2008)

love4himies said:


> I agree. Greg knows how the body responds in cycling races. After his Lance experience I highly doubt he will publicly come out and accuse anybody of doping without absolute proof, so I think he's done his best to let the public know he has he doubts about Sky.


I think this sums it up well. I have my doubts as well and its nothing more than cynicism and the eye test for me. Its sad that I can't really enjoy a gritty performance like Froome had yesterday without thinking in the back of my mind its too good to be true.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

cough, Movistar


----------



## Handbrake (May 29, 2012)

MoonHowl said:


> I have my doubts as well and its nothing more than cynicism and the eye test for me.


Really, the eye test is all there is. Doping controls obviously don't catch much of anything, neither does the passport. People going from mid pack to riding on the front day after day in a GT, is probably a better indicator of an eventual doping penalty than either of the above.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Lemond had his day, and that day was 25 years ago.

He is not a scientist. 

I have a neighbour who is a neurologist and one who is an oncologist. I see the piles of papers, journals they have to plough through. They both talk of how much has changed since they entered their fields. And they both complain about not being able to keep up with things. I imagine sports medicine and nutrition is changing as well.

It may be that GL does not understand some things and makes assumptions. 




----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

The human body has not evolved significantly in the last 25 years. Nutritional science seems to be cyclical in nature (butter, anyone?) and prone to fads that often are debunked. Sports medicine (the non-pharmaceutical part) has actually made measured and steady progress since Greg's day, but nothing has come out that has been a complete game changer. The doping revolution of the '90s and '00s probably stalled progress in that regard, because "there's a pill of that". Little things here or there, changes in training and recovery, "marginal gains" things have been about the extent of it. Evolutionary, not revolutionary, and not that hard to keep up with.

You can bet Greg is informed, because during his feud with Lance he had to be. He was also known to have an interest in sports science even as a rider, so he's not ignorant.

Again, I hope Froome is clean. I hope the reason for his dominance is that he a very, very good rider and Sky's huge budget has bought the very best to allow him to win. I still hate Sky, and wish there was a salary cap to level the playing field. I can't tell you how happy I am to see AG2R have a rider on the GC podium. I'm loving the plucky nature of lower-budget teams like Dimension Data mixing it up on the big stage. You want a level playing field? Start with the salaries. Then we'll see if Sky's "marginal gains" are the reason for their dominance and not their "maximal budget".

Greg can be inarticulate at times, but don't underestimate his knowledge.

Speaking of Greg's day, did anyone see that Bernie Tapie is back in the news?


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

For the young ones here. Small world.











> The La Vie Claire team was created in 1984 by *Bernard Tapie* and directed by Paul Köchli. The team included five-time Tour de France winner Bernard Hinault, and three-time winner, *Greg Lemond*, as well as Andrew Hampsten and the Canadian Steve Bauer. With Hinault winning the Tour in 1985, and LeMond winning in 1986, plus winning the team trophy both years, La Vie Claire cemented their place in cycling team history.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Vie_Claire


----------



## SNS1938 (Aug 9, 2013)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Lemond had his day, and that day was 25 years ago.
> 
> He is not a scientist.
> 
> ...



Yes, sports science has changed a lot. However, if this is the answer, then it would be all the teams that would have benefited, and not just Sky. The sports science info is not Sky's property, but the result of many scientists at various institutions around the world. 

Surely if Ritchie Porte had learned how to eat and train better at Sky, then he'd have told TJ and TJ would have been able to keep up with Froome's helpers.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

SNS1938 said:


> Yes, sports science has changed a lot. However, if this is the answer, then it would be all the teams that would have benefited, and not just Sky.


That is a rational view but not all cycling teams are rational and/or willing to adapt to new developments, e.g. the comments made about Rolland's previous training regime at Europcar when he joined Cannondale, Etixx "banning" Cav from the track thereby destroying his sprint speed before he moved to Dimension Data and so on. 



> Surely if Ritchie Porte had learned how to eat and train better at Sky, then he'd have told TJ and TJ would have been able to keep up with Froome's helpers.


By his TdF performance, it looks like Porte did learn at Sky and retained that knowledge. Whether he passed it on or whether others listened is another matter.


----------



## TricrossRich (Mar 26, 2014)

Lots of topics bouncing back and forth in here...

Regarding doping in the Peloton in general and the "amazing" performances we've seen in the sport. I'm under the impression that current riders are far slower than their peers in the juiced age. Is this not correct? I'm relatively new to the sport, only following for the last 3 years or so, but I know that at some point, I saw some study showing that the fastest cyclists from the last few TDF's had times that were minutes slower than the fastest guys during Lance's era.... so while it certainly seems like Team Sky is putting on a dominant performance in comparison to their competitors, they really aren't when looking through the lens of comparison to the Lance era.

Regarding Froome's HR... where is the data? Lemond is making reference to some physiologist that says Froome's HR is not jumping, but no one has seen or shown that actual data. I'd like to see it. I will say this, based on my own experience as a TT rider, when you're on the limit, HR doesn't really vary very much... For example, I'll do a 20 min. TT effort and my HR will be right at 180, holding 275w... at the end, in the last km or so, I'll start to just ignore the power meter and simply empty the tank, go all in, so to speak... looking back at the power data, I'll be put out 330+ watts and my HR will go up a handful of points... maybe 186 or 190. It hardly even registers as a spike in HR... don't get me wrong, I can feel it. it hurts, it burns and I can't sustain that, but its not much of a jump because my HR is already so high. Its my impression that Team Sky climbs as if they're doing a team TT... Putting guys on the front, setting a ridiculous tempo. Guys that have been training for these types of efforts. They have 4 or 5 guys ready to go deep and hold that effort which means that if anyone wants to drop them, that have to go above that effort, which is basically already at the limit. I'm not a Froome fan-boy, not really even a fan, but I also don't think its fair to condemn someone as a cheater simply because they're winning. I don't think the peloton is clean. I'm sure there are people doping, just as there are in any other sport, but I do believe that cycling does more to catch dopers than any other sport and I do believe that the efforts they've made have cleaned it up significantly. I think evidence of just how clean the peloton is now can be seen in the last week of this year's TDF. Why were there no attacks in the Alps, in the final stages? because everyone was tired.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

You'd have to compare your FTP and maximum HR with Froome's to make any sort of comparison there. And your 20min TT effort is nothing at all like a GT alpine stage, sitting in the draft of Sky domestiques.

I haven't seen the data, and I'm not so interested in the subject to try to dig it up and analyze it for myself. I think healthy skepticism is the proper attitude to take, given the revelations of the last 7 years. Not only in cycling, but across sports in general. They're still trying, and many are still going undetected.

I *hope* Froome is clean. I hope Brailsford gets popped. That would make me giggle.


----------



## TricrossRich (Mar 26, 2014)

Alaska Mike said:


> You'd have to compare your FTP and maximum HR with Froome's to make any sort of comparison there. And your 20min TT effort is nothing at all like a GT alpine stage, sitting in the draft of Sky domestiques.


I don't think one has to have the same FTP and maximum HR as Froome to understand how the body reacts at the limit. For sure, my max power is not even close to that of a professional cyclist, but a maximum effort is still a maximum effort. You are correct, that a single TT effort is not like a GT alpine stage, but IMO, each individual climb is like a TT effort. IMO, Sky and Froome treat each climb in a grand tour stage as if it is a TT. I think that Froome excels at TT's (for a GC contender). After each climb, the team regroups on the descent and many times the bigger riders that have dropped off, Stannard, Kiri, etc catch back on and set pace on the front, allowing the climbers to recover and do another TT effort on the next climb. 



Alaska Mike said:


> I haven't seen the data, and I'm not so interested in the subject to try to dig it up and analyze it for myself. I think healthy skepticism is the proper attitude to take, given the revelations of the last 7 years. Not only in cycling, but across sports in general. They're still trying, and many are still going undetected.
> 
> I *hope* Froome is clean. I hope Brailsford gets popped. That would make me giggle.


Your attitude is interesting... You hope that someone IS cheating and gets popped? I don't particularly like Froome or Brailsford or Sky, at least in terms of racing, I just don't find them very entertaining to watch, although Froome changed my mind a little bit with this tour. I honestly have no opinion of Brailsford. I don't like him, I don't hate him. If someone is cheating, I hope they get caught, but I wouldn't say that I hope they are cheating and get caught. If I'm going to hope, I'd rather hope that they realize its stupid to cheat. Do I believe the sport is clean? No way, not in the least.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

WRT @tricross question.

Here's Froome's climb on Mt Ventoux where his data was published. Shown here. Go to 28:00 to see Froome attack. His HR goes from the 148 range to 160+ pretty quickly.


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

TricrossRich said:


> Lots of topics bouncing back and forth in here...
> 
> Regarding doping in the Peloton in general and the "amazing" performances we've seen in the sport. I'm under the impression that current riders are far slower than their peers in the juiced age. Is this not correct? .


Might be something to that. On the major mtn climbs, they do keep records of who took how long, and for sure a lot of the fastest times (eg Ventoux) were done in the 90s and early 00s). But of course, not always comparing apples to apples, if it involved a myriad of other variables not held constant.

I just think Greg is way out on a limb here, as he was in the LA era. His big mouth had better be careful until he has real proof, for his own sake. I like the guy, worship him for his amazing accomplishments, but feel he behaves very insecure and with an unwarranted chip on his shoulder. 

He could have been a celebrated hero like Hinault and a hundred other past champions are today, instead he is a thorn in the side of the sport. His allegations of mech doping takes the cake - wildly speculative and cynical on his part, and that makes him a debbie downer in an industry that is supposed to all about uplifting spectacle and entertainment.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

BCSaltchucker said:


> I just think Greg is way out on a limb here, as he was in the LA era. His big mouth had better be careful until he has real proof, for his own sake. I like the guy, worship him for his amazing accomplishments, but feel he behaves very insecure and with an unwarranted chip on his shoulder.
> 
> He could have been a celebrated hero like Hinault and a hundred other past champions are today, instead he is a thorn in the side of the sport. His allegations of mech doping takes the cake - wildly speculative and cynical on his part, and that makes him a debbie downer in an industry that is supposed to all about uplifting spectacle and entertainment.


I have to agree. Sadly.

Back in the '80's the running boom was inspired by guys like Frank Shorter, Bill Rogers, Alberto Salazar.

Greg was probably singlehandedly responsible for getting US TV coverage of cycling in the late '80's, and I believe, unrecognized for inspiring the cycling boom to follow.

He could have been the respected elder statesman. Instead he just runs his mouth.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)




----------



## Handbrake (May 29, 2012)

coldash said:


> the comments made about Rolland's previous training regime at Europcar when he joined Cannondale


That was Vaughters wasn't it? The same guy that said because career-long doper Tom Danielson was part eskimo he needed a special training program?

Seems reasonable and not at all self serving.

I don't think it would be possible to control for all of the things that sped up cycling since the LeMond era, to isolate the impact of training methods. Lighter bikes, lower rolling resistance, more reliable equipment, skinsuits, STI shifters, aero frame, clothing, helmets, spokes, rims. Radios, more support cars, better timing. Power meters, wind tunnel testing, heart rate monitors. 

But if it were possible I expect many of those things could be shown to have a bigger impact than training. So many of the recent past's 'training improvements' have turned out to be drugs it is hard to take anyone who claims new ones seriously. Like LeMond I'm not sure I'm ready to believe that a team that has had some turnover among its medical staff and riders could have a set of secret training methods that no one else knows about that are good enough to keep its team on the front of 4 of the last 5 TdFs.


----------



## Aadub (May 30, 2015)

bikerjulio said:


> I have to agree. Sadly.
> 
> Back in the '80's the running boom was inspired by guys like Frank Shorter, Bill Rogers, Alberto Salazar.
> *
> ...


He obviously knows much more than the average schmo posting on here. And likely guided by his conscious more-so than his pocketbook or ego, which is likely why he could care less about being an elder statesman.


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

his insinuations and whining are a little annoying. I think you and he both overestimate what he 'knows' about the state of cheating today. But this is only a small facet of the guy. I admire Greg. Would like to meet him some day too, generally seems like a nice, inspiring amazing athlete.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

Handbrake said:


> Like LeMond I'm not sure I'm ready to believe that a team that has had some turnover among its medical staff and riders could have a set of secret training methods that no one else knows about that are good enough to keep its team on the front of 4 of the last 5 TdFs.


I doubt there is anything to keep secret. Sky is well funded and well managed. As mentioned earlier, other teams are a shambles in comparison. So a well managed, well funded, high quality staffed organisation outperforms other organisations that are deficient in at least one of these areas. It is hardly unique to pro cycling.


----------



## PJay (May 28, 2004)

coldash said:


> I doubt there is anything to keep secret. Sky is well funded and well managed. As mentioned earlier, other teams are a shambles in comparison. So a well managed, well funded, high quality staffed organisation outperforms other organisations that are deficient in at least one of these areas. It is hardly unique to pro cycling.



This is the same as for the Lance teams. And it worked. LA and team planned and trained well, and doped. The common ingredient was the dope. The uncommon ingredient was everything else: a well-financed team focused solely on one GC competitor for one GC, reconnaisance, knowing the opponents, and so on.

Froome/Sky know they won on the dedication of Thomas and other teammates.
LA won on the dedication of Hincapie, Popyvich, Landis, etc.

If you could just dope and win, it would have happened.

I remember one LA year, they had supposedly developed some new bike for LA, and he was supposed to get a bit of edge out of this. One change was the pedals were closer together. After trying it out, LA figured out the narrow pedal separation was causing a problem - so he dumped the bike and went back to whatever he had been riding - a madone or whatever he was riding at the time - I also remember back in the LA days, hype about him in the wind tunnel working on his form - all super hype high tech.

Maybe it was hype, and maybe some of it was actual head-to-head competition.

If you could simply win by doping, Ullrich or Rasmussen or Vino would have beaten LA one of those years.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

You didn't read the reasoned decision, did you? 

By the way, Riis won by cranking his HCT up to insane levels.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Floyd's take.


----------



## Handbrake (May 29, 2012)

Alaska Mike said:


> By the way, Riis won by cranking his HCT up to insane levels.


I know Riis got the "Mr 60%" but what did he ever actually test at? Guys like Pantanti were on record as being in the 62% range so it isn't like Riis didn't have peers in that regard.


----------



## Handbrake (May 29, 2012)

Alaska Mike said:


> Floyd's take.


Landis is right, that many of the current players have no desire to clean up cycling but merely want the appearance of doing so.

USADA, USA Cycling, UCI, WADA, a good many team owners and sporting directors and GMs. The sport is still stocked with former dopers or those in on it.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> It may be that GL does not understand some things and makes assumptions.
> 
> 


Exactly. Lemond is not a physiologist by any stretch and some of the things he says regarding physiology are either grossly inaccurate or downright wrong. 

His whole take on vo2max and wattage and using that to insinuate Armstrong was mechanically doping was straight up crazy talk. 

He's way off on a few things with regard to the numbers and science.


----------



## SNS1938 (Aug 9, 2013)

We need someone who's doing the micro dosing, or whatever the peloton have moved to, to come forward and expose it all. That will hopefully force out riders, directors, doctors etc who are from the old doping guard.

Now some would say that's already happened (i.e. the last five or six years of bio-passport, the confessions etc), but when I watch the tour, I'm really not buying it. Maybe I'm cheating myself out of enjoying the riding by believing that it's not real ... but until I see more conclusive evidence than the passed doping tests and bio passport data we have now, I just can't believe it.

I remember a rider did a thing a few years back where his blood was pulled out, run through a UV light, and put back in. He wasn't busted, as it wasn't banned that year, but they went on to ban in the next year. I believe that there are many things done in secret, which if publicized, would be banned.

I stand with GL, that Sky can't just have marginal gains that the other teams don't have which make them so much stronger. It's too much of a fairy tail. If they're clean, good on them, work out a way to prove it. They should have bought Roland (as he was way better than Froome was before Froome went to Sky), and made him into the ultimate cyclist. Prove that science they have.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Handbrake said:


> I know Riis got the "Mr 60%" but what did he ever actually test at? Guys like Pantanti were on record as being in the 62% range so it isn't like Riis didn't have peers in that regard.


Riis' HCT fluctuated between 41% to 56% by some accounts. Some people respond to doping regimes better than others, and some doping regimes are more effective than others. Bjarne was a plow mule before doping, not a Grand Tour contender. He could have been neck deep in the Team Sky marginal gains program and he would have still been relegated to fetching bottles without doping.

I recently re-read Tyler's book and his description of the Tour in the late '90s. Big, flatland riders beating pure climbers up alpine stages. Pre-Festina, it was all about how far you were willing to push your luck with blood the consistency of Jello and bump up your testosterone to pro wrestling levels. May the best doper win.


----------



## Handbrake (May 29, 2012)

Alaska Mike said:


> He could have been neck deep in the Team Sky marginal gains program and he would have still been relegated to fetching bottles without doping.


I don't know how you can know that, not knowing the particulars of Sky's marginal gains program beyond things like asym chainrings for some riders, and beetroot juice and such.

It seems a lot of riders, when let in on the secrets, go much faster up mountains than they did previously.in any of their previous performances.


----------



## cpark (Oct 13, 2004)

I watched TDF from the early 80's I have to agree with GL.
In 91 Tour, many riders, including Domestique for other teams were dropping Lemond in the mountains.
I think Lemond lost over 30 minutes in Alpe d'huez stage to many lesser cyclists than him.
When I look back, I think 1991 was when the doping was starting to get widely utilized.

I'm in sales and I studied statistics in college, and sometime the numbers just don't add up.....kind of like when Geraint Thomas set the temp in stage 20 in the last climb and shaved off over 3 minutes.....and nobody could attack.
It reminded me of a few years ago, when George Hincapie would set the tempo in the mountains, and other climbers could only hang on to the group......

I think the difference is Sky controls it, and Lance/USPS made it look obvious with their arrogant, "in your face" approach.

This is the ugly side of Capitalism, and many athletic will cheat by any means necessary.

Another word, don't be a dick if you are going to cheat... be like Andy Pettitte, not Barry Bonds.


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

cpark said:


> I watched TDF from the early 80's I have to agree with GL.
> In 91 Tour, many riders, including Domestique for other teams were dropping Lemond in the mountains.
> I think Lemond lost over 30 minutes in Alpe d'huez stage to many lesser cyclists than him.
> When I look back, I think 1991 was when the doping was starting to get widely utilized.
> ...


when Hincapie and Thomas do pace setting on the last climb .. they are not trying to make it to the top with the leaders though. They know they are going to dig deep and blow themselves up 2/3 up the climb, then crawl in many minutes down to the line. So they can afford to go deep enough to drop some GC contenders, whereas the GC contenders cannot afford to get themselves to a point where they blow up like a domestique. They have to do their own pace to maximize their average speed up the climb, Thus an inferior climber domestique can actually drop a GC contender ... but finish minutes behind them in the end.

--

I also look to 1991 as the year of EPO making a smash impact. Sad to thinkg of nice guy Big Mig having a career built on dope? I dunno

--

just finished Charly Wigelius' book Domestique. He paints a pretty ugly picture about how hard it is to finish stages of a Grand Tour. Based on his descriptions, Sky team looks unbelievable, sure. But none of us will ever feel that kind of suffering enough to know just by watching a race on TV who is doping and who is not. Not even know enough whether to believe Lemond and his experienced-but-shrill opinions either.


----------



## Clyde250 (Feb 24, 2007)

BerNARDS shorts are the most offensive thing about the doping era.


----------

