I’m not too proud to admit to having multiple phobias against various things. That’s phobia multiplicity. Having a phobia against something is very simliar to having a normal phobia, except that in addition to being irrationally scared of something, you also harbor a stifling grudge against it. Also possibly irrationally.
For example, I have been diagnosed with a phobia against having small calves. This is a condition where one hates how small calves look, which is further heightened by being aware of how puny their calves are. When I say “diagnosed”, I really mean “teased”.
I am pleased, however, to see how many Tour contenders have fuckall calves. Miguel Indurain, for example, had calves exactly like mine except his made his bike go batshit fast. Similarly, Chris Froome is letting all kinds of V out of the box with his puny calves. It lightens the heart to see fellow calfless riders perform so well.
But this, inevitably, brings up the question as to whether a rider can compete without calf-doping. Evidence is rampant, but the UCI stands idle in its fight against calf-enhancement. Johnny Drama bravely broke the Omertà and admitted to getting calf implants. Since those days, we’ve been taught to look beyond the beautifully shaped calf and ask, are those magnificent strokes powered by bags of saline? Our own Gianni should be investigated, hosting some of the biggest calves known to exist; I could fit two of my quads in one of his calves. Brett, to his enduring credit, is under no suspicion whatsoever of using calf-doping. The jury is out on Marko, and if Jim ever shaved his guns, we might make a reasoned decision on him. (Yes, there is a Keeper among us with hairy guns, but trust us, he lays the hurt down a-plenty. Still, as soon as we get him drunk enough, we’ll hold him down, shave his guns, and Sharpie a penis on each of his quads.)
The days of Pharmstrong and team riding at the front of the Tour for three weeks while controlling affairs with steadfast diligence has taught us it is prudent to be suspicious. As the Doping Saga of the days gone by unwinds, the one lesson that stands out from the past is that when one team makes a show of force, it means they are on something that the rest of the bunch isn’t. In that light, we are right to see a team at the front, controlling affairs and to raise an eyebrow in response. I am among the most skeptical, having supported and loved this sport through thick and thin for the better part of three decades. Suspicion is isn’t cynism – it’s realism.
Still, I find my attitude shifting. Just as it was unfair to the clean riders to claim a “level playing field” during the Doping Era – if it has indeed passed – it is similarly unfair to accuse the clean riders of doping in the Clean Era – if it has indeed arrived. There are a lot of if‘s, passed‘s, and arrived‘s in there, but nevertheless, it is a turning point in my thinking. On Saturday, Froome was marching into the pain cave, and you could almost watch the flashlight drop from his hand and everything start to go dark. It was glorious to see the unabashed suffering of a rider on his way to Yellow. Not having him look like he was on a Sunday stroll is a good sign, and if Sky is doping, they didn’t get Porte’s programme right the day after his spectacular ride to second place on the stage and G.C – or it was a clever ploy to deflect suspicion.
This isn’t my first rodeo, and I’ve been stung for giving the benefit of the doubt in the past. But on balance, believing is more fun than doubting, and hopefulness is more fulfilling than cynism. I am a fan, not a professional; “fun” is the reason I spectate – not for the empty satisfaction of having been “right” or having “known” someone was cheating. Some people have a phobia against being duped, but this is thankfully one I have managed to avoid; my view is that if I am cheated, that says more about the cheater than it does about me.
In that vein, I choose to believe that what we see today is a cleaner race than what we’ve seen in the past, and that perhaps Froome and Sky’s performance might have been impossible during the Armstrong Era. Even in purposefully optimistic paragraphs as the ones that precedes this one, I see my language hedging bets against itself. It is a sign of the times. But still, I choose to believe.
I know as well as any of you that I've been checked out lately, kind…
Peter Sagan has undergone quite the transformation over the years; starting as a brash and…
The Women's road race has to be my favorite one-day road race after Paris-Roubaix and…
Holy fuckballs. I've never been this late ever on a VSP. I mean, I've missed…
This week we are currently in is the most boring week of the year. After…
I have memories of my life before Cycling, but as the years wear slowly on…
View Comments
@minion
Is that you Hilary Clinton?
By the by, the lead photo has perhaps three of the finest cap-wearers in history pictured. And whomever is last in line there appears to be shifting into the big ring. So is Zuele, now that I see what he's reaching for.
Oh, EPO Era, how I miss thee.
I also always wondered what bar wrap Once used...it always had such a great, clean line along the brake cable.
@brett
It most certainly raises an eyebrow or two, which bring's up a thought? If this data is so readily available wouldn't you think the the little voice in his head ( team car ) would tell him to back off on some of his effort. Or is that what happened in the last ITT? Just saynen or was that my recovery beverage alter ego making a cameo again. I should really switch to a darker beer.What ever the case , i still enjoy watching every minute. Thanks for the link @Brett
@Russ
What like Porte, stage nine didn't look too distressed to me as he made his way back to 1 min of the leaders then he sat up, WTF?
@ChrisO
Yep, that's it. I'm so scared of speed I can't even do hilltop finishes anymore.
Has anyone else noticed how much more important descents have become in grand tours recently? There's always been moves made in Milan San-Remo on the descent, but now it's a huge factor in 3 week races.
In 2010/11 it was Cuddles attacking Schleck on the downhills, and Schleck crying about how dangerous it was.
Then this year we have everyone discovering that Wiggins can't descend for shit and blowing him away at the Giro (how come no one noticed that before?). At least he didn't complain how it wasn't fair though.
One day someone will deploy mini remote controlled helicopters or something so we can actually see this part of the race. Until then we'll just have to put up with moto-cameras getting dropped by the riders.
@motor city
Laurens Ten Dribble's superfluous salivation is a source of constant fascination. I couldn't help but wonder during the TT how many places he dropped through 'dribble drag'.
On another note, it's a breath of fresh air to come back to the Velominati after briefly reading the cyclingnews comments sections. It's like a conference of pitchfork-wielding trolls. Merckx have merkxy on them.
@brett
Nice article, thanks.
Seems like a bit of blind them with science in there though, but that could just be my tiny brain cell working on overheat. Ten years after Ulrich, Froome beats his time by three seconds? I'd expect elite athletes to make those kind of gains in that time. The 'fact' he is two bars or whatever ahead of other riders/teams is not that illuminating, in the sense that team radio's will broadcast positions and riders may turn off the gas once they have no chance of stage win. The Sky train is designed to ride at a pace to put the hurt on GC contenders, obviously, so that is why other teams may have faded away. Just trying to make a few counter points.
From the article itself
At this point, it's important to stop and acknowledge some limitations. This analysis is based on just one climb. It is the shortest of the critical climbs in this year's Tour de France and it came in the race's first week, meaning riders were comparatively well-rested for the effort. The historical times only include two years of "new generation" data, and the DpVAM and Cycling Power Lab models have not yet been truly validated. Each method is derived from climbing times. Factors besides performance that affect time could have skewed the analysis although no such factors were evident in the remaining 2013 rider data.
I choo choo choose to believe.
Talking about bartape...Fingerbanger's always, always look fucking terrible. I can't figure out if he has them double wrapped always or what. Then the blue hoods. I grimace every time I see him/them.
Calves. I've played sports my entire life. I've been cursed with skankles and the thinnest calves. PRO thighs, totally unPRO lower legs. The only thing I have going for me is that I broke my right tibia just above the ankle when I was 18 and the bone grew back thicker, so my right leg doesn't look as fucking skinny.
I wear tall socks on and off the bike, hoping to hide the skinny fuckers. The VMH hates them, but ankle socks only accentuate the tapering from Glorious (upper) Guns to Piti-ful lower pop guns.
Okay, I was thinking about this last night. The Lil' Prince. Was he ever a good bike rider? Or just a really enhanced bike rider? I know he won some big fucking races, but damn, he seems like pack fodder today. Washed up or ridin' naturale? I can't decide. Also, is his hair that color or does he frost it? Haussler or Cunego, who wins the fuckiest hair in the peloton?
@meursault
I would too, except we don't know from an analytical standpoint what percentage advantage they gained from doping; I think the standard expectation is that a clean rider should be riding well slower than the juiced riders from the last decade, despite that incremental improvement of the rider's physiology.
The best sign is Porte not being able to stitch two good days together, which feels very normal - compare that to 1989 when both LeMond and Fignon would have a great ride and then a medium or terrible ride the next day. That seems much more plausible than the Pharmstrong "no bad days" style of racing.
Still, the numbers are very damning for Froome. Today was a good sign, however, with his team crumbling and him not being able to control things.
We'll see on Sunday, but I'll also be curious to see analysis similar to the Outside article later this week and next as we hit the last stage of the race. The numbers should be going down as their hematocrits drop over the course of three weeks' hard racing.
@frank
'dpVAM', and others pertaining to stats based on 3rd (or 4th) party data, are absolutely riddled with unsurmountable methodological flaws.
Most crucially, there are no individually timed climbs on the tour. All of their time points therefore are calculated from TV data, which is ridiculous. Is the feed live? Transmission delay? How exactly do you calculate the precise time they passed the sign / finish line, accounting for perspective loss? Granted, they're not going to be minutes out, but as a cornerstone of their data it's flaky to say the least.
Then there are all the variables that you would expect to contribute to power output that are not mentioned as being calculation factors (cos it's bloody impossible to know them):
Physiological - weight at time of climb (as opposed to stated weight)
- HR or any physiological markers
- body temperature
Mechanical - pedalling efficiency
Environmental - detailed weather conditions (head/tail/cross/no wind, on-the-road temperatures)
- road surface
- etc etc etc
Bottom line - it's borderline pseudo-science with good intentions but disastrous methodology. In no way comparable to having a gander at Froome's SRM data. Even that is open to interpretation too though (proper calibration etc etc).
FWIW all I go on is the consistency - and on that front Sky are convincing me that they are clean!