1. Laiseka 22:57, 2001
2. Armstrong 22:59, 2001
3. Froome 23:14, 2013
4. Ulrich 23:17, 2003
5. Zubeldia 23:19, 2003
6. Ulrich 23:22, 2001
7. Armstrong 23:24, 2003
8. Vinokourov 23:34, 2003
9. Basso 23:36, 2003
10. Armstrong 23:40, 2005
-
22. Porte 24:05, 2013
34. Valverde 24:22, 2013
No Science there at all. However, I bow to your superior knowledge. You really must lead a sad and lonely life. Enjoy.
Very interesting piece today in the Guardian
I trust our knowledgeable enthusiasts will be telling them to shut the **** up
Very interesting piece today in the Guardian
I trust our knowledgeable enthusiasts will be telling them to shut the **** up
That's the science and the balance of probability
It does seem a little light on 'facts'. Anyone who is successful will be the subject of suspicion, particularly after Armstrong. That performances improve as humans get better at selecting and training athletes is hardly a surprise, although if the marginal gains are large, and/or the improvements sudden, that would look odd.
It does seem a little light on 'facts'. Anyone who is successful will be the subject of suspicion, particularly after Armstrong.