Originally Posted by
PepeM
So what is a 'humanly possible' time? Do you believe there is some sort of natural cap to cycling performance that cannot ever be passed without resorting to doping?
Also, when talking about records I was referring more to the Olympic disciplines, where people have constantly beaten records every four years, even those achieved by known dopers. Good job cherry picking a single record that fits your narrative though.
Again, I am not tryin to say that I am sure Froome is clean. All I am saying is that, to me, good performances are not irrefutable evidence of doping.
Haha, I tried picking out a record that can be broken by individuals that doping could affect, in pro sports. Will doping make you score more goals in hockey/soccer? OK so talking about Olympic events, since I am not as knowledgeable about those records as I am cycling and the big 4 pro sports in America, list some of these events and their records and who was been proven to dope. Are these records being beat Olympics after Olympics by people who were doping, then all the sudden a clean athlete comes along and breaks them? If records are set over and over again by a doped competitor, then those records are beaten again, I will assume the new record holder is also doping, it's not logical for years of records set by dopers to be beaten by a clean athlete.
Originally Posted by
Steve C
Would a slower cadence result in more load, (torque), being put into the bottom bracket causing a less efficient power transfer from the pedal to the final drive?
Probably not much, but I suppose a faster cadence might mean that Froome has to put in less power than other riders to get the same power going through to the rear wheel.
Yes, a slower cadence will cause more torque, whether its more or less efficient depends on the rider. Some are natural spinners and some are natural mashers. If you go by W/kg it's equal per rider if the W/kg is identical no matter the cadence.