Was he in the wind tunnel in the off season??

He's a client of Armstrong's favorite doctor. Plus he spent a couple of years injured and may not have reached 100% last year.

People talk about Discovery's pre-race preparation, that may include spending time and money on wind tunnels or recon rides, as if it's a bad thing. I think it's once again a proof of professionalism of Bruneel and others, to work with Savoldelli to specifically improve his ITT skills in preparation for Giro. Please don't tell me CSC or Lampre doesn't have capabilities to do what Discos are doing. Sort of like last year when Lance was checking out the Tour course and doing training rides up those mountains, they asked Vino and Ullrich if they did any rides out there and both essentially said - nah, it's the same mountains, we know everything already. This is a rather arrogant and short-sighted attitude - to dismiss someone's specific preparation, rather than consider for a moment that this might give them the edge in the race against you. Little things like that make me think that teams like Discovery and CSC that are just more thoughtful and professional in everything from little things to strategy, have an edge on other teams (such as T-mobile) that seem to screw things up in a number of ways.

People talk about Discovery's pre-race preparation, that may include spending time and money on wind tunnels or recon rides, as if it's a bad thing. I think it's once again a proof of professionalism of Bruneel and others, to work with Savoldelli to specifically improve his ITT skills in preparation for Giro. Please don't tell me CSC or Lampre doesn't have capabilities to do what Discos are doing. Sort of like last year when Lance was checking out the Tour course and doing training rides up those mountains, they asked Vino and Ullrich if they did any rides out there and both essentially said - nah, it's the same mountains, we know everything already. This is a rather arrogant and short-sighted attitude - to dismiss someone's specific preparation, rather than consider for a moment that this might give them the edge in the race against you. Little things like that make me think that teams like Discovery and CSC that are just more thoughtful and professional in everything from little things to strategy, have an edge on other teams (such as T-mobile) that seem to screw things up in a number of ways.

Disco and Postal before them took the professionalism and the scientific approaches to winning bike races to new levels, and they really made no secret about this, and why some teams don't do the same is beyond me. CSC and Lampre, for 2, and just about every other protour team these days spend time in the wind tunnels for sure every off season. CSC has done it in conjunction with Cervelo.

from a Euro DS yesterday. He was talking about all the new hi tech training stuff (watt meters, HR, lactate tests, etc...) and how the American and Australian riders are eager to use it but the Euro riders are more 'old school' who want to train as they did for the last 20 years. His impression of why Americans and Aussies have come so far is the old school-ness of the Euro guys is not getting them as fit as they could be.

The April Procycling had an interview with Stuart O'Grady on his move to a non-French team with CSC and the approach to training. He basically said the difference in the two approaches to training is night and day. CSC is much more scientific, structured and personalized as opposed to the French approach of just going out and hammering each other every day. (His words, not mine) I'm sure the same thing could be said about moving to Disco. It was an interesting read. One would think at this level you would take advantage of every available (and legal) means of training.

As others have said, I don't know if it is so much taking advantage of the money as it is taking advantage of specific training.

Dave

take top or high potential talent. surround with top tier training, involved DS's, surround with other hi talent, hard working teammates and focus on success.
Discovery
Quick Step (who inherited Mapei's scientific approach)
CSC

hmmmm successful squads, I wonder why?
I know,I know,Dope.

Why isn't cycling training be high-tech and use the most accurate methods? Most competitive runners, even 12 years ago, had an HR monitor. It was imperative to determine how much real effort you are putting out, and allowing one to recover on the days when a high HR was a detriment. Any competitive runner has a specific plan they stick to, worked out months in advance, and usually train in a very controlled situation (indoor or outdoor track, park loop, ect) which they know very well and can compare past results with future ones. It seemed like running-specific studies surrounding raising the VO2 max were being published monthly. Whereas, in cycling, it seems like people just go ride a bike, and ride hard when they feel like it. Group hammerfests are fun, but they aren't exactly controlled. It is pretty tough to say "I am going to have my HR at X beats per minute for Y minutes today, 4 reps each, with Z minutes rest in between" with the "ride hard" approach.

Discovery
Quick Step (who inherited Mapei's scientific approach)
CSC

hmmmm successful squads, I wonder why?
I know,I know,Dope.

Still with your head in the sand, I see. I thought you decided to pipe down about dope only being used by a small percentage of the peloton after Hamilton, Heras, and Armstrong were busted for doping.

This whole assertion that "we win because we train smarter, or harder, or whatever" sounds like it came right out the word processor of Armstrong's public relations agent. While there are some teams that don't provide decent training support, it seems dubious to assert that only a few teams do. Structured periodicized training is not new; it's been around a long time, now. So lets look at the ProTour teams:

You already put up the examples of Disco, QuickStep, and CSC. Funny you would mention Quickstep's relation to the old Mapei team and later assert that it can't be doping; they lost Mapei's sponsorship because of the prevalence of doping, but I digress.

What about Fassa Bartolo and now Milram? That Petacchi guy has won a race or two. And Liberty Seguros. Nice Vuelta win, Heras' TTing improved when he joined, and the ONCE squad they came from did not have mean results. What about T-Mobile? Tour win, Vuelta win, classics wins, etc. Phonak and Gerolsteiner; seem like they have pretty good results to me given that they don't have as much money as some of the other teams. Liquigas, Lampre: Hmmm, not bad results there. Rabobank and Davitamon: Not the greatest results this Spring, but solid performers over the last few years. Caisse d'Epargne: Somebody better tell Valverde how much better he could be if he trained smarter.

So what are you left with? Five French teams and two low budget teams, Euskadi and Saunier Duval. And Euskadi had great results until their team doctor was sacked. French cycling is, unfortunately, a lost cause at the moment.

In fact, looking at the teams and their results, a curious trend emerges. Most team's have an area of specialization and they have hired the riders to that end and have been pretty successful in their chosen area. And the success of a squad is highly correlated with their budget--with some outliers like CSC and T-Mobile.

The successfulness of a team is largely judged by the results of a single star rider. Take out the results of Armstrong from Disco/Postal and what do you have? A Vuelta win by a doper, and a Giro win by a man who had won the race before and did so again with pathetic team support. Oh, and a few minor wins and a few misses in major single day races.

The successfulness of a team is largely judged by the results of a single star rider. Take out the results of Armstrong from Disco/Postal and what do you have? A Vuelta win by a doper, and a Giro win by a man who had won the race before and did so again with pathetic team support. Oh, and a few minor wins and a few misses in major single day races.

The argument along the lines of "take away 7 Tour de France wins by Armstrong and all you are left with is a few Vueltas and a Giro win" made me laugh.

Sort of like saying: "take away Johann Museeuw's Paris-Roubaix wins and a few other spring classics and all you are left with is a single world championship". Pathetic indeed! :rolleyes:

it seems that there is a 6 degrees of Lance Armstrong scenario going on. I'm not a huge Lance lover, but stick with me here. Except for Kevin Livingston, all others have gone on to great things. Floyd, Heras, Hamilton, Julich, even Levi(USA) have been pretty powerful in the peloton. Because of their training that was probably learned from Disco/Postal. They go to different teams that maybe don't have the budget that Disco has, but they take the training to the team and it provides results. I'm not so sure it's maybe an American rider mentality. The Euros train and ride the way their great predecessors did. Now the Americans are riding and training like their ONE predecessor did and it's working. It won't take long and all cyclists in the pros will adapt and use tech to improve their abilities.

Sort of like saying: "take away Johann Museeuw's Paris-Roubaix wins and a few other spring classics and all you are left with is a single world championship".

Yeah, Museeuw results must be due to smarter training than the competition. He would NEVER dope. Wouldn't think of it. Never in a million years.

Again, seven Tour wins by a doper and one Vuelta win by a doper and what are you left with? Certainly not results of a team that is supposedly so much smarter than all the others. Contrast that with CSC which DOES have a history of taking underperformers and turning them into winners; and they have wins with many different team members in all different kinds of racing.

Sorry, I'm just not buying this crap about Disco being so much smarter than everyone else.

my guess is doping crosses all borders. again so if LA is/was dirty my guess is he's racing against other dirty riders. this whole issue is red herring.

the whole dope thing is BS, because if you admit there is doping, then still why do some teams still dominate?
the other's aren't doping or better dope exclusive to those teams. talk about head in the sand.
oh the poor French riders are getting their a$$es handed to them because they are clean while those dirty cheating Americans aren't. uh Virenque and Festina. Frickin' pathetic, yeah like the guys who say LA had better dope than the rest due to his association with Pharm companies. Oh and those riders somehow when they left USPS/Disco somehow couldn't get the same drugs anymore and that explains their drop in performance. I'll go buy ya a tin foil helmet liner. Oh and lets not forget it's USPS/Disco's fault that said racers Hamilton/Heras etc... got popped for doping. Again, must be that they lost the magic dope of their former employer amd the docs they use would no longer servce them, nor could they get the same dope even though it's written on the label.

Mapeis' Squinzi was a huge anti doper and dropped sponsorship because of Garzelli mostly. He did his best but couldn't control every rider. Another Mapei rider (who was clean, tested clean) admitted to Mgmt he 'found' something suspect in his bag and was put on hold though he tested clean.

again, for the record I'm a Classics guy so in all reality LA hasn't meant all that much to me. When Johann got popped (though I 'knew' he was probably dirty) it was shameful that he kept it up after he retired, now from the supplier side).

So again lets look at #'s. There are far fewer Yanks and Aussies involved in cycling than Euros and yet they make up a high percent of podium finishers, GC leaders etc... why?
We know Yanks do well in TT's because it is a discipline that has more emphasis here and we lack the road race culture that Europe has.
So are Yanks and Aussies just more determined? tougher? (I don't think so)

and again,the point I referred to was Saunier Duval's DS commenting on HIS impression of why. They (Saunier) have come to my home in SD to wind test, they are starting to use a more 'scientific approach' to racing and by his own account, his Euro riders are the ones who don't wish to adopt the new methods. They just want to train as they always have, which by HIS account is why they don't produce.

So excuse me for forwarding a Div 1 DS's opinion and for you reading into it as Lance speak.
That issue is yours not mine.

Yeah, Museeuw results must be due to smarter training than the competition. He would NEVER dope. Wouldn't think of it. Never in a million years.

Again, seven Tour wins by a doper and one Vuelta win by a doper and what are you left with? Certainly not results of a team that is supposedly so much smarter than all the others. Contrast that with CSC which DOES have a history of taking underperformers and turning them into winners; and they have wins with many different team members in all different kinds of racing.

Sorry, I'm just not buying this crap about Disco being so much smarter than everyone else.
You can't have it both ways. If they all dope then dope doesn't do much to explain superior peformance. They all use the same drugs and any advantage in doping methodology is primarily in avoiding detection.

...again, for the record I'm a Classics guy...

So, if Disco/Postal is so much smarter than everyone else in their training methods and if they are so much more prepared and sophisticated than everyone else, where is their Classics win? They have been trying for eight years but keep getting their asses handed to them by those primitive euros and their neanderthal training methods. You would think that Disco/Postal's superior methods would have come through on at least one weekend in eight years.

Postal tried to win a classic but never put a full classics squad together. Classic's were secondary to TdF, it wasn't until 03 that they built a bit around George. Got Boonen which until GH went into a ditch was looking like they had a good opp. So they got Ghent Wevelgem, 2 4ths and 2 6ths in P-R on limited help. Then in o3 got a 3rd (Boonen) and since GH has been close but yet no cigar. Now add in LA's numerous close calls in the Amstel and his one decent shot at L-B-L. But that is classics (which are harder to win than GT's IMHO) and QS is built like Postal /CSC but applied to classics. Have a monster leader (Boonen) with a monster support squad who could be leaders on their own. Sounds similar doesn't it?
So we can only go back 3 years because the previous 5 was GH getting clusterphucked by 4 Mapei and 4 Domo farm Frites guys with no support. Postalwas built around LA and the TdF.
But lets see classics this year. Who was on top.
QS (M-S-R, R-V-V, K-B-K, Pris Vlanderaan) high placings in the others
CSC (P-R, Amstel) high placings in the others as well
Ileas Baleres (Valverde is a phenom) F-W,L-B-L (but this is a different group of riders than the Flemish classics which Disco doesn't focus upon)
Discovery no wins
2nd and 3rd to Boonen (one of the main reasons they don't have a win) R-V-V
2nd and 4th (before the BS DQ) in P-R
so they haven't produced a win in the last 3 years. They've been close and again considering how many yanks are in the peloton George has done quite well for himself.
Again I never said Disco/Postal (your interpretation again) I also included CSC and QS as these are the most 'modern' teams in regards to training, team mgmt and equipment.

So, if Disco/Postal is so much smarter than everyone else in their training methods and if they are so much more prepared and sophisticated than everyone else, where is their Classics win? They have been trying for eight years but keep getting their asses handed to them by those primitive euros and their neanderthal training methods. You would think that Disco/Postal's superior methods would have come through on at least one weekend in eight years.
If they gave a rodent's arse about the classics they would have kept Boonen and dumped Hincapie.

You can have all the scientific training and doping you want but it's still going to be hard to beat better talent.

Was he in the wind tunnel in the off season??
Why focus on Salvodelli and Disco? Phonak plays too. Floyd says his mad new time trialing skillz came from many hours in the wind tunnel.

and again it is a team lead by techno geeky Americans where they are using more modern training methodology. Look at ONCE now Liberty Seguros.Manolo Saiz was never a cyclist but he's become a top DS. My guess is because even though he's European his lack of historical roots in cycling have lead him to less traditional,more modern training and equipment geekology. "Venga! Venga!"

French teams are subject to ongoing blood testing in a way that I strongly doubt teams from the USA and Australia are - look at the Australian track squad doping scandal, so conveniently swept under the carpet by the governing body, or the reaction of USA cycling to the Armstrong allegations and the whole dodgy tie up with Wenzel. Not a helluva lot of transparency there.

Seems to me that the whole 'training smarter' hi tech thing is just a smoke screen - why should one approach suit all riders after all? I notice that Armstrong recently said he doesn't miss the racing but the training - seems like a sad state of affairs to me that he doesn't miss the cut and thrust of being in the peloton - and I'm glad to see riders like Basso and Valverde utilising a mixture of techniques and finding what works for them instead of slavishly following the 'Armstrong' model.

But behind a lot of this I detect quite a bit of anti-Europeanism and more than a little scoffing at these apparently outdated 'old ways' without any attempt to understand how race kilometres can be every bit as effective as training kilometres. Take the 'hi tech' method to its logical conclusion and we'll have no more racing - all teams will post their stats at the start of the season and race wins will be accorded on wind tunnel testing and VO2 stats.

Oh, one last thing - Festina were never registered as a French team but as a Spanish team anjd Virenque never held a French racing licence - so easy to point fingers and ignore the facts....

Oh, one last thing - Festina were never registered as a French team but as a Spanish team anjd Virenque never held a French racing licence - so easy to point fingers and ignore the facts....

Oh come on! You can't be serious with such fine micro-hair splitting?!!

Sure, Festina affair was a huge blow to Spanish cycling and their Spanish super-stars such as Virenque. :rolleyes:

Interesting how you pick up on this and ignore the main argument of my post - and I really don't think my shoes would either fit or suit you...

and again it is a team lead by techno geeky Americans where they are using more modern training methodology. Look at ONCE now Liberty Seguros.Manolo Saiz was never a cyclist but he's become a top DS. My guess is because even though he's European his lack of historical roots in cycling have lead him to less traditional,more modern training and equipment geekology. "Venga! Venga!"

Manolo Saiz is a top DS but also a borderline micro manager, in the 2003 Basq tour TT he sent all of his riders on a TT bike on a course where verybody else rode their normal bikes. They did badly even with Manolo shouting "Venga con cojones!" at them.

Interesting how you pick up on this and ignore the main argument of my post - and I really don't think my shoes would either fit or suit you...

Not interesting at all - I was simply amused by a ridiculous statement about non-frenchiness of french teams and french riders, as if that changes anything!

I left out the doping allegation part, since it has little to do with this forum or this thread.

But your other, doping part of the message is only slightly less ridiculous. It's one thing to claim that americans have access to super-drugs that are non-detectable while poor french riders have to resort to old-fashioned EPO. Yeah, right.

It is more interesting to see people claim that french riders have much cleaner controls than americans or australians, forgetting of course about WADA out-of-competition testers following riders around with requests to pee in the cup practically on the street. More importantly, most busts (a-la Festina, Heras, Hamilton) occur "in-competition". And competition is in Europe, not Australia. So unless you claim that French doping control is testing french riders during TdF more vigorously then they test americans (we all remember how Armstrong was "randomly" chosen for control last year) or australians or other non-french riders, I don't think you have much of a point. The world will always be full of conspiracy theories, but the very fact that Virenque is still a hero in France while Armstrong is a villain, regardless of what the doping control story tells us, doesn't bode well for your theory of how french are tougher on their own riders than americans or australians. Yawn...

Can we get back to Giro now?

People talk about Discovery's pre-race preparation, that may include spending time and money on wind tunnels or recon rides, as if it's a bad thing. I think it's once again a proof of professionalism of Bruneel and others, to work with Savoldelli to specifically improve his ITT skills in preparation for Giro. Please don't tell me CSC or Lampre doesn't have capabilities to do what Discos are doing. Sort of like last year when Lance was checking out the Tour course and doing training rides up those mountains, they asked Vino and Ullrich if they did any rides out there and both essentially said - nah, it's the same mountains, we know everything already. This is a rather arrogant and short-sighted attitude - to dismiss someone's specific preparation, rather than consider for a moment that this might give them the edge in the race against you. Little things like that make me think that teams like Discovery and CSC that are just more thoughtful and professional in everything from little things to strategy, have an edge on other teams (such as T-mobile) that seem to screw things up in a number of ways.

This may come as a shock to you, but euro teams DO spent time in windtunnels and have a whole bunch of scientists helping them on training, diet etc. they just don't make TV "documentaries" about it. And they recon the course, remember when Armstrong met Ullrich on a recon and thought "damn, he looks strong"?

My guess is because even though he's European...

What a load of jingoistic crap. And now that you noticed there is an American on Phonak, that has to explain their success also. Well, here is your chance to tell us all which teams are using the "American training methods" and which teams are still stuck in the 1920s. I have listed all the ProTour teams. The ones that you already attribute to using modern methods have an asterisk next to them, so let us see you pick out the rest of them.

* QUICK STEP - INNERGETIC
* TEAM CSC
* PHONAK HEARING SYSTEMS
* DISCOVERY CHANNEL PRO CYCLING TEAM
* LIBERTY SEGUROS - WÜRTH TEAM
GEROLSTEINER
T-MOBILE TEAM
LAMPRE-FONDITAL
LIQUIGAS
TEAM MILRAM
RABOBANK
CAISSE D'EPARGNE-ILLES BALEARS
EUSKALTEL - EUSKADI
DAVITAMON-LOTTO
SAUNIER DUVAL - PRODIR
AG2R PREVOYANCE
BOUYGUES TELECOM
CREDIT AGRICOLE
COFIDIS, LE CREDIT PAR TELEPHONE
FRANÇAISE DES JEUX

What about Rabobank? They were the third best team last year, but maybe because they used to have Leipheimer on the team, they must being using "American methods", too. Does it carry over to Gerolsteiner since they now have Leipheimer on their team and Rebellin has kicked some major arse in the classics?

How about T-Mobile? They did have the fourth (Ullrich) and sixth (Vinokourov) best riders last year. What about the Italian teams? You know Italy, where a lot of the so called American methods really came from, home of the three doctors who have had as clients every winner of the Tour in the last fifteen years, the number one ranked cycling nation on the planet.

How about the Spanish teams? Number three ranked cycling nation. Are they still using the primitive methods? Does every team that has an american or an aussie on it automatically get granted the assumption of modernity?

So unless you claim that French doping control is testing french riders during TdF more vigorously then they test americans (we all remember how Armstrong was "randomly" chosen for control last year) or australians or other non-french riders, I don't think you have much of a point.

Are you unaware of the additional testing that the French subject their riders to or are you being intentionally obtuse as to what effect it might have?

take top or high potential talent. surround with top tier training, involved DS's, surround with other hi talent, hard working teammates and focus on success.
Discovery
Quick Step (who inherited Mapei's scientific approach)
CSC

hmmmm successful squads, I wonder why?
I know,I know,Dope.

T-Mobile had/has top talent too and look what happened/happening to them and they are one of the most well funded teams out there. No focus, I think.

So again lets look at #'s. There are far fewer Yanks and Aussies involved in cycling than Euros and yet they make up a high percent of podium finishers, GC leaders etc... why?

Did you ever stop to consider selection bias? The only americans and aussies that are going to make it over to europe will be the best their countries have to offer. Or are you going to tell us that you could move Team Jittery Joe's across the pond and they would dominate?

Are you unaware of the additional testing that the French subject their riders to or are you being intentionally obtuse as to what effect it might have?

The top finishers in GC and each stage are regularly tested in most grand tours. Since french riders are almost never among top finishers or GC lists, this fact alone will more than offset any differences due to french athorities being so "tough" on french riders and so nice to Mr. Armstrong and other english-speaking riders (tongue in cheek). Are you willing to bet that Moreau was tested more than Armstrong last year?

Last year there were 5 americans in top 20 GC in Tour de France, 4 spaniards, 3 italians, 2 germans and only one frenchman.

If you claim this is primarily because of french authorities being tough on doping, I know a bridge in Brooklyn that I can offer you for a greatly reduced price.

The top finishers in GC and each stage are regularly tested in most grand tours. Since french riders are almost never among top finishers or GC lists, this fact alone will more than offset any differences due to french athorities being so "tough" on french riders and so nice to Mr. Armstrong and other english-speaking riders (tongue in cheek). Are you willing to bet that Moreau was tested more than Armstrong last year?

Last year there were 5 americans in top 20 GC in Tour de France, 4 spaniards, 3 italians, 2 germans and only one frenchman.

If you claim this is primarily because of french authorities being tough on doping, I know a bridge in Brooklyn that I can offer you for a greatly reduced price.

Read this and tell me if you still think French authorities are tougher on their own riders than outsiders:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/jul05/jul02news2

Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if you actually believed that Armstrong, the only TdF rider tested, was chosen "randomly". hmm....

American methods. I said "modern methods" and I've always included
a) the aussies
b) CSC (which is run by Danes)
c) Quickstep (which is a stepchild of Mapei)

so again I don't know where the 'jingoistic' stuff comes from, I've never made this ;'all about Americans' and again this is clearly YOUR issue not mine.

Again what I reported was a DS's opinion.
Granted only American and Aussie top tier makes it over there, but they are racing against Europes top tier as well. So why AGAIN the disproportionate numbers per capita of Yanks and Aussies either being Team Leaders or Sprint Captains?Considering how few
Aussies and Americans are over there, and considering they are racing against Europes top tier (for every Jittery Joes is a handful of Div 2 euro squads and Kermesse clubs) this is simple US/Aussie top tier against Europes top tier (apples v apples) and for some reason US/Aussie riders make up a disproportionately high number of podium finishers / team leaders. what is your explanation?

Your comments are somewhat more antagonistic than they need to be, but your points are good. I still remember in the late 80s and early 90s when Americans, or at least the cyclists I hung out with, were eagerly reading everything we could about the new Italian scientific methods of training developed by people like Max Testa and Francesco Conconi.

American methods. I said "modern methods" and I've always included
a) the aussies
b) CSC (which is run by Danes)
c) Quickstep (which is a stepchild of Mapei)

so again I don't know where the 'jingoistic' stuff comes from, I've never made this ;'all about Americans' and again this is clearly YOUR issue not mine.
Two comments:

First, when Under A Crooked Sky called you jingoistic, he or she seems to have thought that European teams with prominent American riders should count as American teams. Thus, Bobby J and Dave Z make CSC an American team and Floyd makes Phonak American. I wonder how long before Chris Horner steals Davitamon from les Belges and brings it to the land of spacious skies.

Second, You inadvertantly waved a red flag when you said that Saiz is adopting modern methods "even though he's European." That was clearly not a deliberate snub of Europeans, but I can see how others would read it that way.

Read this and tell me if you still think French authorities are tougher on their own riders than outsiders:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/jul05/jul02news2

Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if you actually believed that Armstrong, the only TdF rider tested, was chosen "randomly". hmm....

OK, you seem a reasonably intelligent person so I assume you are simply wilfully missing the point rather than being quite that stupid.

The point is, French riders are subject to incredibly rigorous out of competition testing - the point I made in my original post and the one which you chose to blatantly ignore/disregard.

But then the FFC is an independent body - not owned privately by someone who also controls the team of the top US rider...

Perhaps this will help you understand the simple point that's being made (sorry, it's in French but there are online translators available)
http://www.ffc.fr/a_FFCsante/index.asp

Basically, French registered riders are subject to 2 full medicals and 4 blood test medicals a year - is that standard practice for US Cycling?

Two comments:

First, when Under A Crooked Sky called you jingoistic, he or she seems to have thought that European teams with prominent American riders should count as American teams. Thus, Bobby J and Dave Z make CSC an American team and Floyd makes Phonak American. I wonder how long before Chris Horner steals Davitamon from les Belges and brings it to the land of spacious skies.

Second, You inadvertantly waved a red flag when you said that Saiz is adopting modern methods "even though he's European." That was clearly not a deliberate snub of Europeans, but I can see how others would read it that way.

I agree with Fredke, I think we should all be more careful in our labeling of things. It's probably not deliberate on ATP's part, but it is easy to misread things.

I should point out though that there are many discussions on modern bike fitting, bike construction, aerodynamics, and training methods being used, refined, and advanced all over the world. It's just that many of these discussions are not in English, so the English language-only reader is left at the mercy of the teams / athletes / directeur sportifs / press / press officers bother to write in English. CSC is sponsored by a US-based sponsor, and so is Disco. If you were to read the many French cycling publications and material, you will find that they are not behind at all. Same with German, Flemish, Italian, Estonian, or what have you. OK, maybe Estonian is a stretch, but I am an admitted Kirsipuu fan.

The Estonian national championship really should be renamed The Kirsipuu Invitational.

Oh, and just to add fuel to the flame, don't forget that Cyrille Guimard was the one who wanted to hire Lance to be the GC guy for Cofidis back in 1996 ;-).

And further, I think that by now SDV, LSW and PHO may each have sent more riders to the wind tunnel than CSC and DSC have each. And please read the comments on the results of Botero and Millar: even though this past year was the first time that both of them went into a low-speed wind tunnel, there was barely anything left to optimize.

Finally, all this discussion is incomplete without considering what the objective of the teams are. QSD is a Belgian team with their own audience. CA is a French team with their own audience. If CA had to pick between spending their budget doing wind-tunnel testing or better attendance and possibly results in Coupe de France races, which do you think they should do?

Couldn't agree more OJ - it's a shame that some Americans have such an insular view of the world...

again my original posting was from a quote from a foreign DS. my attitudes aren't insular at all, you have to admit yanks and aussies for how few of them are in the peloton seem to occupy a fairly high # of the movers and shakers. please explain (as I'm happy to hear) why you think it such. I don't believe they are tougher, genetically superior, nor accessing better dope (I think they probably all have equal access except maybe the French who do have as you say very tight controls).
I will admit I only get a limited number of Euro opinions and info but I'm not blind to it completely. It still does not explain again the disproportionate #'s. I read the comments on Millar and Botero, both of them (like Ekimov (one of my faves) who was new to LSWT testing) from years of TTing had near perfect aerodynamics.Withoput testing they would not have known though. I'm well aware of who is attending the LSWT testing as the site is about 6 miles from my home.

Yes what was Guimard's motivation to hire LA in the first place. To win big races, not a bunch of paltry French races. So that point kills one of your others. DL wants to win classics (and beat Quickstep) so that is their motivation, P-V-P is pretty much a modernist as he solely focus' on peaking for R-V-V and P-R.

finally what I said about the Euro riders (again quoting the DS of Saunier Duvall, the quotes were from when they were here in S.D> doing the wind tunnel work) was that indeed the teams have modernized, it is the RIDERS who seem less willing to change.

atp, not intended for you at all - any American who's a Classics lover can't possibly be insular! Just you see some really anti-European, insular attitudes expressed here that just seem to come from a schoolyard 'we're better than you are na nada na na' attitude rather than being based in any kind of fact.

Ranting aside, I think somebody already made the point that, in terms of the US we see the cream of the crop from a comparatively huge popoulation and the Aussies do sport from the earliest age and have a level of encouragement to engage in the outdoor sports from the earliest ages that most nations don't. I know getting kids involved in sport is a real problem in the UK and the roads are not hugely safe for cyclists.

Here's a story for you - kid I know really wanted to make it as a pro cyclist and took himself over to France to ride with local teams and get experience. Started to get some good results and was eventually picked up by Luc Leblanc (World Champ, TdF stage winner, Vuelta KoM) for his development team. Kid said it was an amazing experience - they went training in the Alps and Pyrenees and rode stuff like the junior Paris-Roubaix - but there was only funding for 6 riders in the team and they had to ride everything to justify their existence. Kid was knackered and just couldn't keep recovering and therefore wasn't getting the results - Leblanc finally approached him and asked him if perhaps he'd thought of another career? He's now back in the UK and I just bought a house off him...

So why haven't he or his teammates succeeded? Lack of funding (not so much of a problem in the US and Australia where funding tends to be more available for sporting success), lack of support - but plenty of training and racing and I'm sure that, if the money had been there, they'd have been able to ride around in a big bus and recover better and be selective about their schedule and spend more time in a wind tunnel than actually racing - but they, like a lot of Euro teams, had to get the results to keep getting the funding....

that these 'modern' methods were neither an American nor Australian invention and that all credit should stem from Testa and Conconi. My comment about Saiz (which was misconstrued) was saying he lacked the historical European training methodology (ride and ride harder) that most of his contemporaries were raised with. ONCE was ahead of the curve IMHO due in great to Manolo's lack of history and personal involvement with the sport. (he isn't a retired racer)

Couldn't agree more OJ - it's a shame that some Americans have such an insular view of the world...

Also on the subject of doping, it's good to read the uncensored, complete list of comments published in l'Equipe in response to l'Affaire Armstrong. The one from Cyrille Guimard is worth a few reads:

<b>Cyrille Guimard (ancien directeur sportif) :</b>
<i>«Je pense qu'il s'agit là de la suite logique des choses. On est dans la normalité. Cela ne me surprend pas du tout dans le contexte de 99. Tout le monde savait que l'EPO n'était pas détectable et, par voie de conséquence donc, utilisé. Il en sera de même dans deux siècles. Mais, de telles pratiques ne sont pas essentiellement vraies pour le sport: sur le plan du blanchiment d'argent, c'est la même chose. Le douanier aura toujours une longueur de retard sur le contrebandier».</i>

Philippe can correct my translation:
<b>Cyrille Guimard (retired directeur sportif):</b>
<i>I think that it is just the logical thing for one to do. It is not out of the ordinary. That does not surprise me at all in the context of 99. Everyone knew that the EPO was not detectable and, consequently, used it. It will be the same in two centuries. But, such practices are not only true in sports: in money laundering, it is also the same thing. The customs officer will always be behind the curve compared to the criminals.</i>

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/20050823_102445Dev.html

The fact that the above was not printed on cyclingnews is indicative of how narrow the view of the English-based press is. Let's not kid ourselves here: Guimard was the guy who nurtured Hinault to some of his greatest wins, and then Van Impe to his only Tour win, and then went and recruited Greg Lemond to his team, and discovered and guided Laurent Fignon to his wins, too. That's quite a few Tour de France victories, and assorted other grand tours, short tours, and classics ;-).

So I wonder why Cyclingnews quotes some of the sunnier comments, but not the darker comments from l'Equipe?

OK, you seem a reasonably intelligent person so I assume you are simply wilfully missing the point rather than being quite that stupid.

The point is, French riders are subject to incredibly rigorous out of competition testing - the point I made in my original post and the one which you chose to blatantly ignore/disregard.

But then the FFC is an independent body - not owned privately by someone who also controls the team of the top US rider...

Perhaps this will help you understand the simple point that's being made (sorry, it's in French but there are online translators available)
http://www.ffc.fr/a_FFCsante/index.asp

Basically, French registered riders are subject to 2 full medicals and 4 blood test medicals a year - is that standard practice for US Cycling?

Read my quoted message below - Armstrong was tested out of competition 6 times before the beginning of the Tour last year. I admittedly have no idea how many times a "regular" US or Australian rider gets tested, but then again, I am not sure what the point of this discussion is either.

I presume the point of your argument was to somehow point out that French riders are intrinsically cleaner than guys like Armstrong, which is the reason why we have no decent French riders in the peloton today. To me this seems almost as ridiculous as your claim that Festina wasn't "technically" a french team and that Virenque wasn't "technically" a french-licensed rider. I still think you are punking me in some sort of elaborate sarcartic parody kind of humor.

For the record - I am not an american and don't want to start this whole pro-Lance/anti-Lance war. I will however point out the ridiculousness of statements on both sides, as I see fit. :) You gotta admit, the Festina statement was pretty ridiculous.

You do know that riders can choose where they register, don't you? And that if you choose to register in, say, France, you will be subject to the stricter medical controls of the FFC than if you register in, say, Switzerland, where you are subject to their Federations rules. Riders who don't want to be subject to such rules - and have the money to pick and choose - simply move country and register as a 'Swiss' or 'Spanish' or whatever rider. Jalabert, for example, was always registered in Switzerland and rode for a Spanish team.

My point about Festina was, yes, a somewhat facetious one, but technically accurate.

My point about doping is that, as a French registered rider is subject to such stringent out of competition controls all season long (not just one random in competiton test), it's considerably more difficult to get an edge - even through legal means like using altitude tents, a favourite of Armstrong's. So, had Armstrong been a French registered rider, and subject to FFC medical controls all season long, he might well have found it harder to get an edge - even through entirely legal means like altitude tents, wind tunnel testing etc.

So, had Armstrong been a French registered rider, and subject to FFC medical controls all season long, he might well have found it harder to get an edge - even through entirely legal means like altitude tents, wind tunnel testing etc.

yep, those French really come down hard on wind tunnels......

/sound of the worlds smallest violin playing in the background

but remember America and Australia's top athletic talent goes to other sports rather than cycling. Cycling isn't the main route for getting a better life in both countries so cycling isn't drawing upon the best of the best like it does in Europe. Again this doesn't add up still. Because you still have Europes top tier, you are either good enough to make a D-1 squad or you aren't. So in reality what American's and Aussies don't make it are the 'working man' domestique level riders, so in that case yes the Americans and Aussies over there are all as stated creme riders, iut still doesn't account for why the creme riders of both countries hold such high placings so often. I don't know the answer, but it is odd that the US has produced 2 multple TdF Champs and will most likely produce another before the French. I can't attribute it to dope as I believe if it is used equally among the peloton. We've had Aussies and Yanks on or near the podium of every GT and many classics of late and it does show a shift in the balance of power. I'd really like to know why. I'm just looking forward to Hoste signing with Davitamon Lotto so the Inter Belgian Wars will heat up next April.

I still miss Domo Farm Frites!!!!!!!!