Watts Per Kilogram

http://www.sportsscientists.com/

The values are in the range of clean riders described by Vayer. If this
is a clean Contador we are looking at, that would explain his
non-performance in the 2 long time trials he rode this year and his lack
of explosive ability in the climbs. If the Tour brings back the first
week long time trial, that could balance things out between the climbers
and rouleurs. Where that will leave Schleck should be interesting to see
next year.

On Jul 26, 9:33*am, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/

The values are in the range of clean riders described by Vayer. If this
is a clean Contador we are looking at, that would explain his
non-performance in the 2 long time trials he rode this year and his lack
of explosive ability in the climbs. If the Tour brings back the first
week long time trial, that could balance things out between the climbers
and rouleurs. Where that will leave Schleck should be interesting to see
next year.

I liked the "orange juice" jab at the end.

Ferrari's meaning was quite clear, at least to someone who understands
that "doping" is institutionalized in Sport (meaning, it comes from
the top; "everyone was doping and everyone knew that everyone was
doping" from (in cycling specifically) the owners, advertisers, down
through management, DS's, soigneurs, riders, mechanics, gofers, etc.
etc.).

Instead of this comment somehow "discrediting" Ferrari, we could ask
if any of Ferrari's "patients" died, and decide what we think after
evidence pertaining to the ongoing well being of those he worked with
is presented.

Since this would be a massive amount of dirt to lay at Ferrari's
doorstep, Brian (All the Dirt, All the Time) Lafferty, I expect the
conclusions of your investigations forthwith g.
TIA!
--D-y

Brian - sincerely - Bring back dope. The tour is more exciting.

The crowds were less, the headlines were smaller, the drama was ( i
can't describe it because I fell asleep )

On 7/26/2010 10:55 AM, --D-y wrote:
On Jul 26, 9:33 am, "B. wrote:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/

The values are in the range of clean riders described by Vayer. If this
is a clean Contador we are looking at, that would explain his
non-performance in the 2 long time trials he rode this year and his lack
of explosive ability in the climbs. If the Tour brings back the first
week long time trial, that could balance things out between the climbers
and rouleurs. Where that will leave Schleck should be interesting to see
next year.

I liked the "orange juice" jab at the end.

Ferrari's meaning was quite clear, at least to someone who understands
that "doping" is institutionalized in Sport (meaning, it comes from
the top; "everyone was doping and everyone knew that everyone was
doping" from (in cycling specifically) the owners, advertisers, down
through management, DS's, soigneurs, riders, mechanics, gofers, etc.
etc.).

Instead of this comment somehow "discrediting" Ferrari, we could ask
if any of Ferrari's "patients" died, and decide what we think after
evidence pertaining to the ongoing well being of those he worked with
is presented.

Since this would be a massive amount of dirt to lay at Ferrari's
doorstep, Brian (All the Dirt, All the Time) Lafferty, I expect the
conclusions of your investigations forthwithg.
TIA!
--D-y
LOL!! The author of the post wrote about wattage analysis compared to
Ferrari's published comments. We could ask if any of Ferrari's patients
died, but that isn't the issue as much as you'd like it to be by raising
it as a strawman.

The Vayer analysis published by Walsh appears now to be fully on the
mark. Pretty good for a gym teacher, eh?

BTW, the dirt on Ferrari's doorstep is his and his alone.

It's no wonder you're so confused about who is/isn't doping.
That has to be one of the worst pieces of junk science I've ever seen.






On Jul 26, 8:33*am, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/

The values are in the range of clean riders described by Vayer. If this
is a clean Contador we are looking at, that would explain his
non-performance in the 2 long time trials he rode this year and his lack
of explosive ability in the climbs. If the Tour brings back the first
week long time trial, that could balance things out between the climbers
and rouleurs. Where that will leave Schleck should be interesting to see
next year.

On 26/07/2010 17:08, CowPunk wrote:
It's no wonder you're so confused about who is/isn't doping.
That has to be one of the worst pieces of junk science I've ever seen.


Want to explain why?

Pete






On Jul 26, 8:33 am, "B. wrote:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/

The values are in the range of clean riders described by Vayer. If this
is a clean Contador we are looking at, that would explain his
non-performance in the 2 long time trials he rode this year and his lack
of explosive ability in the climbs. If the Tour brings back the first
week long time trial, that could balance things out between the climbers
and rouleurs. Where that will leave Schleck should be interesting to see
next year.

On Jul 26, 10:53*am, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
On 7/26/2010 10:55 AM, --D-y wrote:



On Jul 26, 9:33 am, "B. *wrote:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/

The values are in the range of clean riders described by Vayer. If this
is a clean Contador we are looking at, that would explain his
non-performance in the 2 long time trials he rode this year and his lack
of explosive ability in the climbs. If the Tour brings back the first
week long time trial, that could balance things out between the climbers
and rouleurs. Where that will leave Schleck should be interesting to see
next year.

I liked the "orange juice" jab at the end.

Ferrari's meaning was quite clear, at least to someone who understands
that "doping" is institutionalized in Sport (meaning, it comes from
the top; "everyone was doping and everyone knew that everyone was
doping" from (in cycling specifically) the owners, advertisers, down
through management, DS's, soigneurs, riders, mechanics, gofers, etc.
etc.).

Instead of this comment somehow "discrediting" Ferrari, we could ask
if any of Ferrari's "patients" died, and decide what we think after
evidence pertaining to the ongoing well being of those he worked with
is presented.

Since this would be a massive amount of dirt to lay at Ferrari's
doorstep, Brian (All the Dirt, All the Time) Lafferty, I expect the
conclusions of your investigations forthwithg.
TIA!
--D-y

LOL!! *The author of the post wrote about wattage analysis compared to
Ferrari's published comments. *We could ask if any of Ferrari's patients
died, but that isn't the issue as much as you'd like it to be by raising
it as a strawman.

The "orange juice" stab was meant to totally discredit Ferrari. My
point is, and obviously so, the jab was gratuitous.
IOW, maybe Ferrari's "science" (after reading through the fudge
factors in the article) is better, no matter if it was applied
"legally" or not.
If indeed Ferrari's "patients" enjoyed good health, the "orange juice"
comment pertains.
Do I need to post the link to the Bryant Gumbel show where the
official steroid hysteria gets poked plumb full of great big holes?
Don't pretend you don't understand this time, Brian (ref. the recent
"what math" comment).

The Vayer analysis published by Walsh appears now to be fully on the
mark. *Pretty good for a gym teacher, eh?

Vayer could even have been a lawyer, for all that matters.

BTW, the dirt on Ferrari's doorstep is his and his alone.

Why does the prayer say "lead us not into temptation", Brian?

I mean, long ago a contractor explained to me his moral obligation to
write a tight contract when he offered a bid on a job (this man's
business covered work from residential service work to multi-story
state college dormitories, btw). This, taken as a responsibility to
not tempt someone to cheat him, in regard for the other person (Am I
my brother's keeper?).

IOW, the rule makers in "sport" have a real, moral obligation to write
working rules that can be fairly enforced, not pie-in-the sky
proclamations that seek to protect them from blame when someone who
knows the guy next to him is cheating and not getting caught chooses
to compete on as even a playing field as he can manage.

Or, would you prefer to keep "doping" in the dark, and have a bunch
more athletes drop like flies (or have late-onset health issues)
before the problem is identified and dealt with in at least some
constructive manner?

If you're going to claim some kind of moral high road, you're going to
have to do a lot more, sir.
--D-y

On 07/26/2010 07:58 AM, Anton Berlin wrote:
Brian - sincerely - Bring back dope. The tour is more exciting.

The crowds were less, the headlines were smaller, the drama was ( i
can't describe it because I fell asleep )


Welcome to the dark side!

On Jul 26, 10:22*am, Ningi wrote:
On 26/07/2010 17:08, CowPunk wrote:

It's no wonder you're so confused about who is/isn't doping.
That has to be one of the worst pieces of junk science I've ever seen.

Want to explain why?

I already did.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?bl... 978394266392



Pete



On Jul 26, 8:33 am, "B. *wrote:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/

The values are in the range of clean riders described by Vayer. If this
is a clean Contador we are looking at, that would explain his
non-performance in the 2 long time trials he rode this year and his lack
of explosive ability in the climbs. If the Tour brings back the first
week long time trial, that could balance things out between the climbers
and rouleurs. Where that will leave Schleck should be interesting to see
next year.

On 7/26/2010 2:51 PM, CowPunk wrote:
On Jul 26, 10:22 am, wrote:
On 26/07/2010 17:08, CowPunk wrote:

It's no wonder you're so confused about who is/isn't doping.
That has to be one of the worst pieces of junk science I've ever seen.

Want to explain why?

I already did.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?bl... 978394266392



Pete



On Jul 26, 8:33 am, "B. wrote:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/

The values are in the range of clean riders described by Vayer. If this
is a clean Contador we are looking at, that would explain his
non-performance in the 2 long time trials he rode this year and his lack
of explosive ability in the climbs. If the Tour brings back the first
week long time trial, that could balance things out between the climbers
and rouleurs. Where that will leave Schleck should be interesting to see
next year.

Was Horner's SRM malfunctioning?