"PRO" Cycling Discussion

[btompkins0112]

It is mostly individuals physiology that dictates the muscle definition

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[xena]

Froome's legs look strange. He does not have much calf muscle if any. You usually only see that much vascularity from cut body builders.
Very steroid like.

Please............stop it!

Stop what?
I am just making a comment on Froomes legs. That is my observation. I have only ever seen athletes /bodybuilders with that extra definition from when I used to do bodybuilding and they have taken steroids. That's why I said they look very steroid like.
I have a friend who is very tall and skinny not much muscle like Froome but very ripped and he does not have that kind of vascularity.

[jockster]

Froome's legs look strange. He does not have much calf muscle if any. You usually only see that much vascularity from cut body builders.
Very steroid like.

Muscle definition and veiny legs are a direct result of low body fat. Not steroids. How visible said veins are at a given time are dependent on ambient temperature, blood pressure and fluid levels in the body. I am sure wikipedia has something to say on this.

[ave]

The future of aero! http://nullwinds.com/

[ave]

Anybody know the story behind this?

[dereksmalls]

Bodybuilders and EuroSport commentators:

I've got a friend with legs like these, and he races C Grade over here. Nothing dodgee about him, just low body fat, good genetics and good muscles.

[tymon_tm]

The future of aero! http://nullwinds.com/

those sure aint pretty.. and what if the strong headwind turns into a strong side wind? like around the corner? i'm sure it happens to most of us

[pastronef]

Anybody know the story behind this?

that's not a rider, he's a guy from an Italian TV show "Le Iene" he even had number pinned on his back (139)

https://twitter.com/girodeltrentino/sta ... to/1/large

[tymon_tm]

Froome's legs look strange. He does not have much calf muscle if any. You usually only see that much vascularity from cut body builders.
Very steroid like.

Please............stop it!

yes, please - stop linking SKY cyclists to doping. it's a well established fact that they're absolutely clean (as is the whole pro cycling btw) - just ask David Walsh, he'll tell you!

seriously, don't we all know doping's stopped with Armstrong? and the EPO era? and the Puerto case? and the... uhm... it just has! there are still going to be some singular cases of doping (perhaps due to contaminated meat or some other mishaps), but in general, that stuff is over. bare in mind, the only thing SKY and co. are on, are their bikes, busting their asses six hours a day!

#sarcasm

[ave]

@pastronef: Thanks, I thought it was some crazy fan, but as everybody was pretty content with his presence, I got confused.

[shoopdawoop]

I do wonder if attitudes toward doping have changed enough to make the system impossible; it seems like if they were all still doing something elicit then some rider would be coming out about it but I havent heard anything like that. I have read alot of speculation on the internet but not seen any proof of some next level doping system. During past doping eras there have been outspoken pros and former pros but we arent seeing that today.

I do believe the reports of pain killer abuse, Ive read its very widespread in other pro sports as well (futbol and american football). Im sure some guys are also using dietetics to get down in weight and others stimulants for a mental edge; however these are all such "low" levels of doping the clean guys are competitive too which is good enough for me!

[Zitter]

at this point, I think people who believe that pros at this level are doping just can't comprehend that these guys are the top .1% of the top 1% cyclists in the world. getting caught doping now is so likely that it isn't worth risking your whole career, and pros understand that, if they truly care about the sport (which at this level, they have to, to do what they do). if there are 18 protour teams, with maximum of 30 riders per roster, that's 540 protour riders out of hundreds of thousands/millions of racers trying to make it.

of course, there will always be the couple exceptions of those who are so desperate to make it/stay relevant, they'll do anything. i.e. last year's Giro

[Guerdi]

That picture of Froome's legs reminds me the one of Pascal Richard.

Photo was taken on the podium of the Olympics in Atlanta

[xena]

[quote="Zitter" getting caught doping now is so likely that it isn't worth risking your whole career, and pros understand that"

The UCI do not have the kind of money to test riders all the time. It would be just to expensive. Riders who dope don't need a big window. Have you forgot that most of those involved in the Armstrong saga confessed and never got caught. These were some of the top riders who did get tested more than most. Doping is just as easy to do now. The bio passport is so far the best red flag but unless you are following a rider round all day then I doubt you would catch a doper.

I feel testing has got better but athletes have always been a step ahead of the testers and I would not presume just because of catching Armstrong that all of a sudden this has changed. I have heard a lot of nice media sound bites from teams and the UCI but in reality the cost of policing dopers is just not there.

[martinko]

According to doping, I watched last TdF and I know what I saw. Unless, some riders are from other planet.

Similar happened in braking the 100m record by Powell, later Bolt. Voila, Powell had doped :O
And, I see no difference between doping in training versus doping in race.