The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
you know or 7.2 you know um and then you have the real data from the day um and this is way lower you know you see like you know for example like the short climbs where they would do maybe 7.2 now they're doing 6.3 maybe and the longer climbs uh they're doing 5.5 5.8
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
do you think that making that data public would put to rest a lot of the criticisms that say the sport is still you know it they've just found new ways to cheat but it's still basically a dirty sport because I I think when you look at the data objectively it would be very hard to say that today based on what we know from the era when drug use was rampant
you don't need to be at 7.1 watts per kilo to win the Tour today you could probably win the Tour today at 6.1 watts per kilo
We also know today that cyclists are not doing that right those numbers are nowhere to be found in the pelaton now that's that's information you and I share confidentially right that's not public knowledge but I know it you know it and anyone coaching people at that level know that nobody's putting out 7.1 watts per kilo