Tour de France ITV4. Starts Saturday 29th

[Paulatic]

For me it has now become unbelievable.
At least Armstrong looked as if he had worked.

[Norman H]

For me it has now become unbelievable.
At least Armstrong looked as if he had worked.

I’m inclined to agree with you.

[pwa]

For me it has now become unbelievable.
At least Armstrong looked as if he had worked.

You sense something untoward? I had that thought too. I watched that yellow jersey tapping away at the pedals on the third big climb of the day, looking fresh as a daisy and so much better than the rest, and remembered the last person who had that aura, and the story behind it. One learns from the past and adopts a stance of scepticism. If it looks too good to be true...

[reohn2]

Well at least I'm not alone in my suspicion
Poggy makes it look so easy it's embarassing,everytime I've seen him win I'm reminded of Armstrong and the long shadow he's cast on sport and particularly procycling,so much so,the Tour this time has become a boring spectical that I've become uninterested in it.

[cycleruk]

For me it has now become unbelievable.
At least Armstrong looked as if he had worked.

Altitude training using carbon monoxide rebreathers has been suggested. ??

That last climb - what fantastic scenery.
All being well that's it then.

[djnotts]

For me it has now become unbelievable.
At least Armstrong looked as if he had worked.

Same here. Some commentator today saying it's because he's always calm and this acts on his team. More why would he be the only member to get the magic ingredients. Apparently today he didn't intend to race for a win, maybe the help includes mental boosters.

My only less judgemental thought is that IF ALL were clean he'd still be the best.

But marginal nutritional and aero improvements? No.

[andrew_s]

For me it has now become unbelievable.
At least Armstrong looked as if he had worked.

Altitude training using carbon monoxide rebreathers has been suggested. ??

Breathing carbon monoxide will make your performance worse, not better, even if you don't breathe enough to kill you.

Apparently it's a test to see how much effect altitude training has had.

I'd guess they measure your oxygen intake before going to altitude, measure it again after, then give you a calibrated amount of CO to breathe, and measure a 3rd time. The CO will reduce your oxygen intake so if test3 is less than test1 the effect of altitude training isn't (yet) sufficient. I would guess that the CO wears off after a day or so.

[pjclinch]

Some folk seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that we're all created equal: we're not.
Within any group of people some will be naturally better at stuff than others. Someone is at the top end of the bell curve, and in grand tour racing that's your top two on the podium yesterday.

The way in primary school someone was faster than everyone else, but at secondary school they were no longer fastest, and the new fastest went to the regional heats where they looked a bit tired... and so on all the way to the top. Everyone in a team gets the marginal training and nutrition gains, but the people with a combination of perfectly suited physiology and mental strength retain that advantage.

Another explanation is that all the standout dominant athletes across all disciplines of all sports are successful drug cheats, but that would actually be pretty hard to keep going compared to just being outstandingly good. In cycling Pogi is no more dominant than Vos was 10 years ago (she's still no slouch!) and probably wouldn't have been able to afford top end drugs on women's salaries at the time even if she'd wanted them. Archibald in full flight in bunch sprint track, Chloë Dygert at IP, both are just plain beyond the competition, so are they all cheats? I frankly doubt it.
Why is Vos less dominant now? A bigger peloton with better talent identification means more and better people are coming in as competition is a lot more likely than she's stopped using Secret Sauce.

That there is drug taking in sport is a certainty, but for it to be built in at the very top in the current cycling setup makes less sense than biological selection. And the biggest part of that is culture has utterly changed at grass roots level. I think drug use in cycling has gone the way of drink-driving: used to be something everyone did and was tacitly accepted as okay even if not shouted about, nowadays it's socially and professionally unacceptable. Nobody much is aspiring to be the "next Lance Armstrong".

Pete.

[francovendee]

I so much want to believe he's 'clean'. I watched Armstrong for years do almost impossible things. Every super athlete I now view with suspicion. Really sad.

[mattheus]

I so much want to believe he's 'clean'. I watched Armstrong for years do almost impossible things. Every super athlete I now view with suspicion. Really sad.

Have you been putting yourself through this ever since Lance was exposed?
You need to find something else to watch.

[mattheus]

For me it has now become unbelievable.
At least Armstrong looked as if he had worked.

Same here. Some commentator today saying it's because he's always calm and this acts on his team. More why would he be the only member to get the magic ingredients. Apparently today he didn't intend to race for a win, maybe the help includes mental boosters.

My only less judgemental thought is that IF ALL were clean he'd still be the best.

But marginal nutritional and aero improvements? No.

Tell me how much aero-improvement you would find believable.

[Paulatic]

Pete I understand what you are saying and I was indeed agreeing with you until…

drink-driving: used to be something everyone did and was tacitly accepted as okay even if not shouted about, nowadays it's socially and professionally unacceptable

It might be in your social circles but looking at the court cases in our local paper drink and drug driving is still prevalent. I suspect there is little fear of detection and what we see in the press might be the tip of the iceberg.

[Paulatic]

Tell me how much aero-improvement you would find believable.

Are you saying those that can’t keep up, get tired, look totally spent don’t have the same aero improvement at their disposal?

[mattheus]

Tell me how much aero-improvement you would find believable.

Are you saying those that can’t keep up, get tired, look totally spent don’t have the same aero improvement at their disposal?

You're commenting on my reply to another member! Which has confused things ...

Start again: what exactly is it that led you to think "For me it has now become unbelievable."

[mattheus]

Going back a few steps, the aero inprovemnts are self evident: on flat stages the sprint teams are consistently quicker, breakaways are harder to chase.
Amateur time triallists keep getting faster on the same courses.