# Roubaix...



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Anyone think much has changed???
6 Hour race while it's 40 degrees with all the punishment of the cobles.
27mph average.

I know it's a pretty flat course BUT really???


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

As with all things sports related (especially cycling) ... nothing has changed, they've just got better at hiding it. When I heard them announce the average speed after Cancellara won, I thought the same thing.

I'm sure somebody will, at some point, try and defend how much cleaner cycling is now and how it's harder to use PED's ... but seriously, those speeds are insanely fast. 

Granted, I'm very, very far away from being a Pro ... but I know how hard it is to do a TT at those speeds for 30 minutes on a pancake flat course, in full gear, TT bike, etc. ... then to do it for 6+ hours on regular road bikes with wider than normal tires, in jersey and shorts over 40+ miles of cobbles with wind from multiple directions ... and they want me to believe they are clean? Give me a break!!!

I will say this though ... it's pretty entertaining, which is what I'm looking for when I watch professional cycling. I like to see super human performances and don't really care much what they are doing to their bodies.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

They should drug test Vanmarcke for pulling through so many times, especially *after* Cancellara attacked him. That kid must have been stoned. 

Paris - Roubaix 2013 - Final Km's [ENG]- Compiègne ? Roubaix - YouTube


----------



## JackDaniels (Oct 4, 2011)

Cancellara averages around 290 watts for these races. It's great, but it's not superhuman or evidence of PED use.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

JackDaniels said:


> Cancellara averages around 290 watts for these races. It's great, but it's not superhuman or evidence of PED use.


290 watts for "6+ Hours" ... doesn't raise questions? Seriously?

Those number may also be a little low given the length of the cobble sections in Roubaix ... going over those sections tends to lower your power output, if you ever raced a cross race/dirt crit with power you would know what I'm talking about.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Wookiebiker said:


> 290 watts for "6+ Hours" ... doesn't raise questions? Seriously?
> 
> Those number may also be a little low given the length of the cobble sections in Roubaix ... going over those sections tends to lower your power output, if you ever raced a cross race/dirt crit with power you would know what I'm talking about.


what are the wookie approved maximum wattage numbers allowed to be clean?


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

den bakker said:


> what are the wookie approved maximum wattage numbers allowed to be clean?


There is no "Maximum" amount ... but there are "Believable" amounts.

Given the "Long" history of doping in cycling, the lack of drop in speed from races, the continued hard attacks, the "Claim" that doping stopped in 2006 and on and on ... Yet, people want to give somewhat dubious speeds and power numbers a pass? Seriously?

As they old saying goes ... There is a sucker born every minute!

Same goes for ... You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

At some point, people will figure out doping is still going on in the peloton, the speeds are still ridiculously fast and it likely will never end.

A question for you den baker ... Do you seriously believe that 27 mph average for 6+ hours over 40+ miles of cobble stones and averaging 290+ watts is believably clean?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Wookiebiker said:


> There is no "Maximum" amount ... but there are "Believable" amounts.
> 
> Given the "Long" history of doping in cycling, the lack of drop in speed from races, the continued hard attacks, the "Claim" that doping stopped in 2006 and on and on ... Yet, people want to give somewhat dubious speeds and power numbers a pass? Seriously?
> 
> ...


I don't know, I'm not the one claiming to be able to distinguish. you are. 
what are "Believable" amounts? 280? 270? 170? 5?


----------



## jsedlak (Jun 17, 2008)

Wookiebiker said:


> 290 watts for "6+ Hours" ... doesn't raise questions? Seriously?
> 
> Those number may also be a little low given the length of the cobble sections in Roubaix ... going over those sections tends to lower your power output, if you ever raced a cross race/dirt crit with power you would know what I'm talking about.


290 watts for 6 hours really isn't anything superhuman for a pro. What raises questions, IMHO, is the 30+ mph speeds after 5.5 hours of racing. The "500 watts for 40 minutes" after racing for so long is absurd to me.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

den bakker said:


> I don't know, I'm not the one claiming to be able to distinguish. you are.
> what are "Believable" amounts? 280? 270? 170? 5?


Part of the problem is that we may never really know due to the prevalence of PED use over the history of cycling and Cancellara was strong through the 2000's during heavy, team sponsored doping.

He hasn't slowed down since that time, despite the fact he's getting older.

So ... either he's super human or was using and still is. When confronted with the plausible and implausible ... you go with the plausible version of events.

If not for the cobbles, I'd be more inclined to believe the 290 watts over 6+ hours of racing, but the beating you take over those and to continue and actually speed up at the end of the race isn't believable. As jsedlak stated ... putting out the watts he and other pro's do at the end of races is truly unbelievable.

What is believable? Good question (and the number will change from rider to rider) ... and one that I can't really answer. However, I can say that 290+ watts over 6+ hours of racing and cobble stones isn't ... at least not to me.

Again ... speeds since the times we "KNOW" riders were heavily doping are not really dropping, at least not as far as one would expect. Why would anybody want me to believe they are clean now? Cleaner ... maybe, but not clean.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Wookiebiker said:


> Part of the problem is that we may never really know due to the prevalence of PED use over the history of cycling and Cancellara was strong through the 2000's during heavy, team sponsored doping.
> 
> He hasn't slowed down since that time, despite the fact he's getting older.
> 
> ...


when you say he has not slowed down, could you provide the wattage from the last 10 years or so from him? as I'm sure you are aware, as an accomplished and seasoned racer, average speed does not mean much.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

den bakker said:


> when you say he has not slowed down, could you provide the wattage from the last 10 years or so from him? as I'm sure you are aware, as an accomplished and seasoned racer, average speed does not mean much.


You as well as everybody else knows ... there is no power data available since they won't release that information. Even if they did, there would be questions of data manipulation. They don't want that information getting out to their competition or the general public for that matter ... which is why you only see data from low/middle level domestiques.

As for average speeds ... it doesn't mean much on a one race basis, but when you start taking the average speeds over many races and compare them, they haven't slowed down much. 

Just look at the TDF ... you can take the average speeds from that and draw comparisons due to them taking place over 3 weeks. You get more data points to average and the reality is they are going as fast as they were during the "EPO Era" ... or just a minor amount slower ... but faster than they did in the "Pre EPO Era".


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Wookiebiker said:


> You as well as everybody else knows ... there is no power data available since they won't release that information. Even if they did, there would be questions of data manipulation. They don't want that information getting out to their competition or the general public for that matter ... which is why you only see data from low/middle level domestiques.
> 
> As for average speeds ... it doesn't mean much on a one race basis, but when you start taking the average speeds over many races and compare them, they haven't slowed down much.
> 
> Just look at the TDF ... you can take the average speeds from that and draw comparisons due to them taking place over 3 weeks. You get more data points to average and the reality is they are going as fast as they were during the "EPO Era" ... or just a minor amount slower ... but faster than they did in the "Pre EPO Era".


no you cannot take the average speed of two different routes and compare them. just one trivial example going clock or counter clock wise makes a difference. or just whether the pack scratch their @ss while a break goes 30 minutes up the road or not. 
but we get it. nothing really to back it up. I'm not saying cycling is more or less dirty, just saying there's no substance is the posts here. 

as for data manipulation, that would have to be done rather carefully to ensure no inconsistency when you compare two riders, especially if steep climbs are involved. and if they are faked, why release numbers that don't conform to the wookie clean threshold?


----------



## regnaD kciN (Mar 2, 2013)

Is Fabio using? Well, considering he didn't exactly blow the wheels off the rest of the peloton à la Armstrong, it's probably safe to say "no more so than any of the other top-five finishers. 

We probably need to be honest with ourselves and admit that, until there's a reliable test for EPO, anti-doping efforts are going to be mainly window-dressing, or at least honored more in the breach than the observance. Sadly, otherwise, I'd guess that the only thing that might cause teams and their riders to get serious about eliminating doping would be, God forbid, if a really prominent rider, one of the top names in the world, was to die suddenly from the effects of PEDs...and possibly it might take more than one to do it.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> 290 watts for "6+ Hours" ... doesn't raise questions? Seriously?
> 
> Those number may also be a little low given the length of the cobble sections in Roubaix ... going over those sections tends to lower your power output, if you ever raced a cross race/dirt crit with power you would know what I'm talking about.


Errr, 290 is smack in the middle of z2 for a 175# world TT champ


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

kbiker3111 said:


> Errr, 290 is smack in the middle of z2 for a 175# world TT champ


This is of course ... assuming he's averaging 290 watts for the race. We are going off the assumption that "Jackdaniels" stated in an above thread where he said "Cancellara averages around 290 watts for these races." so all of this is based off of a forum users quote ... not actual numbers.

To average 27 mph, it takes a bit more power than 290 watts ... granted he drafted a fair amount of the race, but then you have to look at the power they put out for the last hour of the race as was stated by "jsedlak". Then factor in the cobbles and the amount of energy that takes out of you ... and well, the speeds are quite suspect.

Without real power number ... real weights ... wind directions ... etc. it's all a guessing game. However we do know he averaged just a bit over 27 mph over 157.5 miles (32.5 miles of cobble sections) and 6+ hours of racing.

As for doping in general ... looking at the average speeds of the TDF ... They are still, and have been since doping "Officially" ended in 2006, averaging over 1+ kph faster over the course of the race than during the height of the EPO era in the 1990's when they had "Zero" tests to detect EPO and it was rampant in the peloton (likely still is).


----------



## fezi (Dec 30, 2007)

Wookiebiker said:


> If not for the cobbles, I'd be more inclined to believe the 290 watts over 6+ hours of racing, but the beating you take over those and to continue and actually speed up at the end of the race isn't believable. As jsedlak stated ... putting out the watts he and other pro's do at the end of races is truly unbelievable.
> 
> What is believable? Good question (and the number will change from rider to rider) ... and one that I can't really answer. However, I can say that 290+ watts over 6+ hours of racing and cobble stones isn't ... at least not to me.


290 watts is easily achievable for that length of time. I'm just a normal cyclist, full time job, been training with power for 5 years, similar weight to Fabian and quite easily average those numbers for rides up to 5 hours. Now for a professional rider to do those numbers when fresh is hardly unbelievable. I doubt he averaged 500 watts for 40 minutes though in the final hour. I'd hazard a guess and say his best number's were in the last 40 minutes but somewhere closer to 400. Judging by his collapse after the finish I'd say his tank was pretty well empty. Drug free? I'd like to think so. Achievable performance drug free? for sure.


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

Wookiebiker said:


> However we do know he averaged just a bit over 27 mph over 157.5 miles (32.5 miles of cobble sections) and 6+ hours of racing.


I'm not saying there's no doping, but I don't think this is as suggestive as you do. 

Look back even into the 1940s at some of the speeds. Paris - Roubaix 2013: Past Winners & Race History | Cyclingnews.com

Look at the speed of a relatively long, flat road race with a good P/1/2 field. http://www.topsportcycling.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Pro-1-2-Men-Stage-4.pdf


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

den bakker said:


> what are the wookie approved maximum wattage numbers allowed to be clean?


Yeah, real classy, wookie.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Wookiebiker said:


> To average 27 mph, it takes a bit more power than 290 watts ... granted he drafted a fair amount of the race


There is plenty of draft. On cobbles bulky media motocycles are often within a few bike lengths of the race leader. Dave Zabriskie said something along the lines of, "Being on the front is easier, you get to draft the motos!"


Wookiebiker said:


> Why would anybody want me to believe they are clean now?


Convincing wookiebiker cannot be the standard for discussion.


----------



## JackDaniels (Oct 4, 2011)

In Hamilton's book he said it was quite possible to win the big one day races clean (even in his era when doping was more rampant). Not necessarily so in the big tours.

This is one reason I prefer the one day races and smaller tours. Does this mean everyone is clean? No. But I give them more benefit of the doubt.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

JackDaniels said:


> In Hamilton's book he said it was quite possible to win the big one day races clean (even in his era when doping was more rampant). Not necessarily so in the big tours.
> 
> This is one reason I prefer the one day races and smaller tours. Does this mean everyone is clean? No. But I give them more benefit of the doubt.


...but didn't Hamilton win a classic and wasn't he a doper?


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

JackDaniels said:


> In Hamilton's book he said it was quite possible to win the big one day races clean (even in his era when doping was more rampant). Not necessarily so in the big tours.
> 
> This is one reason I prefer the one day races and smaller tours. Does this mean everyone is clean? No. But I give them more benefit of the doubt.


I think the key is to read between the lines in his book ... a rider didn't have to dope "During" the race.

The reality is it would be "Very" difficult to beat dopers in one day races when they are using PED's during the off season building tons of volume, getting better recovery from hard training efforts, etc. They would be faster regardless of it being a one day race or a stage race.

It would be hard to beat a doped rider who recovers faster and has been able to put in a strong 35 hour training week all winter and all you could do clean was 20-25 hours ... both recovering at similar rates.

In stage races the PED use goes on during the race ... they were (and likely still are) putting in blood before and taking it out after a stage, getting EPO injections, testosterone or HGH for recovery, etc. This isn't needed during a one day race.


----------



## turbogrover (Jan 1, 2006)

I tend to agree with wookiebiker on this.
People tend to forget how the PEDs are best used, and that would be recovery from hard training efforts. You can train and dope leading up to the race of choice, taper off, and still retain much of the benefits. And then pass all the drug tests given, because you no longer have the PEDs in your system.

Is that your idea of "racing clean"? It isn't mine.


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

turbogrover said:


> I tend to agree with wookiebiker on this.
> People tend to forget how the PEDs are best used, and that would be recovery from hard training efforts. You can train and dope leading up to the race of choice, taper off, and still retain much of the benefits. And then pass all the drug tests given, because you no longer have the PEDs in your system.
> 
> Is that your idea of "racing clean"? It isn't mine.


Mine neither, but what does that have to do with the presumption that the speed of the race itself reveals doping? I know the course has changed, but they were racing PR as fast in the 1940s, and faster in the 1960s. While not as long, I've had races close to 200k at faster speeds, with no more than a couple of future World Tour-level racers among the domestic pros in the field, and decent amateurs finishing with the field. I just think Wookie's presumptions about the limits of top pros' performances are too conservative.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

Undecided said:


> I'm not saying there's no doping, but I don't think this is as suggestive as you do.
> 
> Look back even into the 1940s at some of the speeds. Paris - Roubaix 2013: Past Winners & Race History | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> Look at the speed of a relatively long, flat road race with a good P/1/2 field. http://www.topsportcycling.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Pro-1-2-Men-Stage-4.pdf


For those who did not click on your link.

1948	Rik Van Steenbergen (Bel) 246 km (43.612 km/h)
1953	Germain Derycke (Bel) 245 km (43.522 km/h)
1960	Pino Cerami (Bel) 262 km (43.538 km/h)
1964	Peter Post (Ned) 265 km (45.129 km/h)
1980	Francesco Moser (Ita) 264 km (43.106 km/h)

Conclusion: Let's not judge based on a limited number of data points


----------



## Ripton (Apr 21, 2011)

Undecided said:


> Mine neither, but what does that have to do with the presumption that the speed of the race itself reveals doping? I know the course has changed, but they were racing PR as fast in the 1940s, and faster in the 1960s. While not as long, I've had races close to 200k at faster speeds, with no more than a couple of future World Tour-level racers among the domestic pros in the field, and decent amateurs finishing with the field. I just think Wookie's presumptions about the limits of top pros' performances are too conservative.


I'd agree with the point that the speeds themselves don't necessarily indicate any doping but trying to compare it to regular tarmac racing doesn't work either. TV really doesn't do the brutality of the cobbles justice. maintaining rythm and speed on secteurs like Arenberg and Carrefour l'Arbre require so much more energy than you'd expect.

The other factor to consider is that the cobbles are much more variable than a tarmac surface, even when it's dry. The farm vehicles drag mud off the fields which builds up, get that when it's dried out and compacted and it's a much smoother ride, get a dry day shortly after heavy rain that's washed the mud off the crown and out of the gaps and it's just you and the cobbles. This year was much smoother than last year.

As for how fast the pros go, this you tube clip shows Johann Museeuw showing the amateurs how to do it. The camera bike was doing a shade under 28kph and Museeuw wasn't going flat out.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Ripton said:


> trying to compare it to regular tarmac racing doesn't work either. TV really doesn't do the brutality of the cobbles justice.


This is a valid point. If 27mph is reasonable on a smooth surface, what is reasonable on mixed smooth and cobbles? 

A counterpoint is that the riders are in the draft of escorts and media motorcycles (consider 1:32:00 or 1:35:15 here). The benefits of motorpacing raise the speed, even if it doesn't completely negate the cobbles.

So that brings us back to personal credulity. In the absence of positive tests some people just think "No, I don't believe that's possible clean."


----------



## Ripton (Apr 21, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> This is a valid point. If 27mph is reasonable on a smooth surface, what is reasonable on mixed smooth and cobbles?
> 
> A counterpoint is that the riders are in the draft of escorts and media motorcycles (consider 1:32:00 or 1:35:15 here).
> 
> The benefits of motorpacing raise the speed, even if it doesn't completely negate the cobbles.


Also a good point but from the shot preceding the low level shot at 1:32 I'd say the bike is not as close as it seems and the effect may not be quite as effective. I'd also say that the nature of the roads - ridiculously narrow - does not allow a break to work quite so well as it would on a road - it's not possible to get a smoothly rotating paceline going on the cobbles so so what they lose there is substituted by the help from the motos.

All I know is that these guys are a level above to be able to ride that sort of pace but that doesn't condemn them to being dopers.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Local Hero said:


> So that brings us back to personal credulity. In the absence of positive tests some people just think "No, I don't believe that's possible clean."


Yes ... because that's worked so well in the past ... no positive tests "Must" mean no doping 

When something has the appearance of being too good to be true ... it usually is. History has shown this to be true time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.

I see lots of future pro's, current pro's, neo pro's, etc. race here in Oregon, some of them are currently racing in Europe right now (and at least one was in Paris-Roubaix this past Sunday) ... and in training races here they are no where near as fast as the top guys are going, even on flatter stages. Sometimes they win a P/1/2 race, sometimes they don't ... the CAT 1/2 guys are still really fast, there isn't much doubt about that.

However, the speeds the top pro's are going are at the level of having the appearance of being "Too good to be true".

I doubt I'll ever truly believe in a clean peloton ... why might you ask? ... History tells me so, and as long as there is money, fame, etc. involved drugs will be a part of it. Many of the same players from the "EPO Era" are still riding today and holding speeds very similar to when they were using "Jet Fuel" ... so why should I believe they are clean now? Because they haven't turned up a positive test? Well, they didn't back then either!

As far as past results go ... how far back do we have to go before doping was increasing speeds?

The 60's? There is plenty of evidence some blood doping was going on then as well as use of powerful stimulants
The 50's? Powerful stimulants and who knows what else
The 40's? Powerful stimulants again

Basically ... keep going back to the original days of the sport and you will find people using PED's of some sort. Some worked, some didn't but they sure were trying.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Don't forget consistent tailwinds...


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

So, for a point of reference, I have been in Cat 3 beer-league road races that averaged 28 mph for 2.5 hours. I wasn't a factor, but I could sit in the pack. And I can verify that I am not a drug cheat.

The fact that pros can do it for twice as long over shitty surfaces isn't that outlandish...at least to me.


----------



## Full_Spectrum (Oct 30, 2012)

With a little bit of an understanding of how these compounds work and what sort of advantage they could theoretically provide:

An athlete who is concerned about bio values would need to take compounds in dosage levels that were not totally outlandish. Such compounds, and at those levels, would potentially provide a 5-10% increase in capabilities. As was suggested, the real benefits would become apparent in stage races, not one day events. However, with the hectic schedule of the classics, the entire spring is basically a stage race...

It would be fascinating to see Fabian take a few grams of Test Enanthate and a gram of Deca and have at it. That would be obvious.

While I could certainly never sustain the sort of speeds that the winners display, it doesnt seem outrageous given that these guys are paid to do it, and dedicate their lives to it.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

I don't think the average wattage is that suspicious, in fact the winner will often have a lower average than many other riders in the race. What sets the winner apart is the amount they put out at the key points of the race. Cancellara is riding known dopers off his wheel at those points. That's suspicious.


----------



## JackDaniels (Oct 4, 2011)

Full_Spectrum said:


> As was suggested, the real benefits would become apparent in stage races, not one day events. However, with the hectic schedule of the classics, the entire spring is basically a stage race...


I'd disagree that doing E3, flanders and Paris Robaix, with a week recovery in between each is the same as a big mountain stage, 12 days into a grand tour.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Full_Spectrum said:


> It would be fascinating to see Fabian take a few grams of Test Enanthate and a gram of Deca and have at it. That would be obvious.


What would it be obvious? 

Do you say that because the first would cause several pounds of bloat & water retention while the second can cause an athlete test positive for six months?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

foto said:


> So, for a point of reference, I have been in Cat 3 beer-league road races that averaged 28 mph for 2.5 hours. I wasn't a factor, but I could sit in the pack. And* I can verify that I am not a drug cheat.*
> 
> The fact that pros can do it for twice as long over shitty surfaces isn't that outlandish...at least to me.


That's what they all say!


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Wookiebiker said:


> too good to be true


What speeds would you find acceptable?


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

I think the Classics are clean-_er_ than they once were, but I don't believe for a second that they are completely free of doping or the effects of doping. The days of the Mapei 1-2-3s are hopefully over, but too much is at stake (especially among Belgian riders/teams) for the peloton to be dope-free. Win a Classic, and to a large extent you will have a ride for the rest of your riding career and a good chance at a career afterwards in the sport in some capacity. You'll never have to buy another beer.

The lack of positives only indicates that they aren't catching anyone, not that they aren't doping. Too many "clean" athletes have admitted to that very fact.

As for the speeds, the number and severity of cobbled sections has to be taken into account, as well as the weather and general tactics employed by the various teams. It's almost an apples-to-oranges comparison in some cases. It proves or disproves absolutely nothing.

The fact that Sky is winless shows that the races are clean... or dirty... wait... I forget which.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> What speeds would you find acceptable?


My W.A.G.:

The same speeds they were doing on or before 1990.


----------



## Full_Spectrum (Oct 30, 2012)

JackDaniels said:


> I'd disagree that doing E3, flanders and Paris Robaix, with a week recovery in between each is the same as a big mountain stage, 12 days into a grand tour.


It isnt exactly a weeks recovery when you are still riding every day for 4-6 hours. May not have the intensity of a race day, but its hard to consider this a week of rest, imo. 



Local Hero said:


> What would it be obvious?
> 
> Do you say that because the first would cause several pounds of bloat & water retention while the second can cause an athlete test positive for six months?


I think the performance would just be that much more insane...aside from the bloating.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

cda 455 said:


> My W.A.G.:
> 
> The same speeds they were doing on or before 1990.


OK. Is there a MPH average from the 80s? 

Is there any adjustment for better equipment, nutrition, training, tactics, etc? 

(I think it's good to talk about a baseline. Any baseline is better than a gut feeling or "history tells us..." so long as we have good reasons for setting that baseline.)


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

foto said:


> And I can verify that I am not a drug cheat.


We're supposed to believe this just because you haven't failed a test? Hello, Lance said he was clean too.

*insert standard miracles comment and sceptical smilies ad nauseum


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> OK. Is there a MPH average from the 80s?
> 
> Is there any adjustment for better equipment, nutrition, training, tactics, etc?
> 
> (I think it's good to talk about a baseline. Any baseline is better than a gut feeling or "history tells us..." so long as we have good reasons for setting that baseline.)


Agree on your last points.


Let's take stage 11 in the 1988 TDF as an example: It's the longest stage of that Tour-232km/144 miles. It was finished in 6HRS 04min 54sec.

That's 23.68MPH/38.15KMH


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Here's Paris-Roubaix fastest races:

Paris?Roubaix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's interesting; The fastest race was also the longest. In 1964; *28MPH!*

That definitely throws a curve ball in an EPO doping argument.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

cda 455 said:


> Here's Paris-Roubaix fastest races:
> 
> Paris?Roubaix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


Not necessarily ... Blood doping/packing came into use somewhere in the 60's and could have been used during that race along with amphetamines. The combination can make for some pretty fast racing. With that said, the timeline for blood doping/packing is inconsistent and depends on where you look, so it could have been used or not used ... we will never know for sure.

This is what makes one day races so hard to judge, especially Roubaix because of the weather conditions (rain/mud causes slower races) ... and the use of blood doping/packing, stimulant use as well as other drugs that could amp up riders during one day races. Some of those guys were so amped up, they couldn't feel any pain and just pushed their bodies past the normal limits since they couldn't feel squat during the race.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

cda 455 said:


> Here's Paris-Roubaix fastest races:
> 
> Paris?Roubaix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


Roubaix was a much smoother race than it is now. Post WW2, the roads were steadily repaired and updated until the race was nearly paved. Starting in the 1967 the organizers started seeking out cobbled paths for a more gnarly race. One more reason you can't compare speeds. Its not like people were doping and then in 1965 just decided to stop.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Wookiebiker said:


> Not necessarily ... Blood doping/packing came into use somewhere in the 60's and could have been used during that race along with amphetamines. The combination can make for some pretty fast racing. With that said, the timeline for blood doping/packing is inconsistent and depends on where you look, so it could have been used or not used ... we will never know for sure.
> 
> This is what makes one day races so hard to judge, especially Roubaix because of the weather conditions (rain/mud causes slower races) ... and the use of blood doping/packing, stimulant use as well as other drugs that could amp up riders during one day races. Some of those guys were so amped up, they couldn't feel any pain and just pushed their bodies past the normal limits since they couldn't feel squat during the race.





kbiker3111 said:


> Roubaix was a much smoother race than it is now. Post WW2, the roads were steadily repaired and updated until the race was nearly paved. Starting in the 1967 the organizers started seeking out cobbled paths for a more gnarly race. One more reason you can't compare speeds. Its not like people were doping and then in 1965 just decided to stop.



All good points indeed.


----------



## Ripton (Apr 21, 2011)

cda 455 said:


> Agree on your last points.
> 
> 
> Let's take stage 11 in the 1988 TDF as an example: It's the longest stage of that Tour-232km/144 miles. It was finished in 6HRS 04min 54sec.
> ...


I'm not entirely sure what the significance of a mountain stage in a three week tour is in a discussion about speeds in a one day cobbled classic.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

I'm not sure amphetamines are such an awesome performance enhancer...


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

You know what also effects average speeds? This little thing called tactics.


----------



## Maximus_XXIV (Nov 10, 2008)

So, what I am hearing is that there is no known time where doping was not suspect and conditions have changed over the years so it will be very hard to calculate a 'clean' baseline for speed. If that is true, it is impossible to pick a speed and say, "that is a clean speed" unless it is low enough to be just above amateurs.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

foto said:


> I'm not sure amphetamines are such an awesome performance enhancer...


If you read some of the reports from former racers that used it back in the day ... they were quite effective, if for no other reason than you could push way past your normal pain threshold ... thus getting better performance in one day races.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

They used to "dope" with a cocktail of crank and brandy. No doubt former racers will say they felt less tired and sore than without it, but seriously amphetamines are not anywhere near the same as these oxygen vector drugs and probably made these guys feel worse in the long run...


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

foto said:


> I'm not sure amphetamines are such an awesome performance enhancer...


To the extent that they are, they're probably more effective for a one day classic, than they are over the course of a 3 week stage race.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

mpre53 said:


> To the extent that they are, they're probably more effective for a one day classic, than they are over the course of a 3 week stage race.


Ok, if you say so. The point being that "hey they were using speed in the 60s" isn't like the playing field is even with today.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Speed is actually the one PED that I've used, albeit to help stay awake when I worked the graveyard shift in college. :lol:

Let's just say that while it kept me from falling asleep on my feet, it didn't help me do my work at warp speed for the rest of the shift.

I also get the idea that stimulants also don't work the same way among various individuals. They seem to have a calming effect on kids with ADHD. Plus, I had a friend back in the 80s who could snort a gram of coke, and sleep like a baby within an hour.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Maybe you guys were snorting shitty coke.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

foto said:


> Maybe you guys were snorting shitty coke.


Never did it. I was afraid I'd like it too much. Remember that bumper sticker from the 80s": Cocaine is God's way of telling you that you have too much money. :lol:


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

Wookiebiker said:


> What is believable? Good question (and the number will change from rider to rider) ... and one that I can't really answer. However, I can say that 290+ watts over 6+ hours of racing and cobble stones isn't ... at least not to me.


I could hit 290 watts, take a 6 hour nap, then hit 290 watts again, on a BAD day. What's the big deal??

Are we saying the Bernaise Bear is on hot Bernaise sauce??


----------

