# Are Team Sky Definitely Doping? Educate me..



## Bike

I'm relatively new to the cycling scene however I have read much about doping within sport and particularly cycling.

I am reading recently almost everyone in unison suggest that Team Sky and Froome are 100% doping, no questions.

Watching Dave Brailsford and listening to the other team members however their actions would suggest they are not doping, have kicked out anyone who has ever doped before, made them sign contracts etc, are inviting officials to join them, willing to share every piece of available data. 

I am potentially naïve however not ignorant and would be keen to be educated on exactly why everyone thinks/knows they are doping and their good performance is not due to advanced training techniques

Surely at some point in the future excellent training, nutritional and psychological methods will over take advanced doping techniques. Like any sport, the competitors will always improve almost year on year due to new equipment, techniques, experience etc however I a big part of the reason for saying Froome is a cheat is because his recent times are in line with the doping era of 10 years ago 

I'm confused as cycling one of the only sports (although I understand justifiably) in the world where a good performance is met with massive suspicion rather than amazement/excitement

Very keen to be educated as to the evidence to suggest they're doping


----------



## Marc

If there was evidence they'd already be kicked off the Tour.

Lots of people in recent years have put in "good performances" and memorable stage wins...including just about every single GC podium-place winner of the last decade. Guess what? Just about _*ALL of them got caught doping*_...some a few days after memorable mountain climbs (Floyd Landis), others months or years later. Floyd Landis is a good comparison here, because he put in a seemingly "super-human" mountain stage and dropped all his competition solo after some hard stages with barely breaking a sweat. Know what happened to Floyd? A few days later he tested positive...Instead of fessing up, he yelled to all who would listen that he was innocent. He started the "Floyd Fairness Fund" to get donations to fight the result and fleeced 6-figures+ of money from fans. He wrote a book about being innocent. Which BTW funny sidenote....He was guilty as hell the whole time, and eventually admitted it.

They all claim they are innocent, they all point to training and equipment....and the more outstanding their performances, the less likely is what they say are true. And fans have gotten cynical and jaded and simply don't believe it, because no one in recent times who puts in such performances has turned out to not be doping.

Froome dumped Contador-a convicted doper like last year's news. 
Froome got separated from his whole team, and didn't loose any time. 
Froome almost won the ITT and put more time into his rivals. 
Froome dropped all his competition on Ventoux single-handed.

That plotline of "superhuman" riding reminds anyone following cycling for the last decade or two of just about every convicted doper of those time. Including some of the worst sleezeball PR guys taking people's money for all they;re worth like Floyd Landis.


No proof. Just a very healthy dose of cynicism.


----------



## love4himies

I'm really an innocent until proven guilty person, but if I had to give a definite yes or no answer, I would say that Froome is cheating. To beat those who doped in the recent past, IMO, would have to be some type of "mutant" and that person would have shown their natural capabilities since day 1. Although proper training could hone in on the skills, it wouldn't be enough to ride like Froome did on Sunday, leaving the best in the world in his dust after such a brutal ride.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

Marc said:


> If there was evidence they'd already be kicked off the Tour.
> 
> Lots of people in recent years have put in "good performances" and memorable stage wins...including just about every single GC podium-place winner of the last decade. Guess what? Just about _*ALL of them got caught doping*_...some a few days after memorable mountain climbs (Floyd Landis), others months or years later. Floyd Landis is a good comparison here, because he put in a seemingly "super-human" mountain stage and dropped all his competition solo after some hard stages with barely breaking a sweat. Know what happened to Floyd? A few days later he tested positive...Instead of fessing up, he yelled to all who would listen that he was innocent. He started the "Floyd Fairness Fund" to get donations to fight the result and fleeced 6-figures+ of money from fans. He wrote a book about being innocent. Which BTW funny sidenote....He was guilty as hell the whole time, and eventually admitted it.
> 
> They all claim they are innocent, they all point to training and equipment....and the more outstanding their performances, the less likely is what they say are true. And fans have gotten cynical and jaded and simply don't believe it, because no one in recent times who puts in such performances has turned out to not be doping.
> 
> Froome dumped Contador-a convicted doper like last year's news.
> Froome got separated from his whole team, and didn't loose any time.
> Froome almost won the ITT and put more time into his rivals.
> Froome dropped all his competition on Ventoux single-handed.
> 
> That plotline of "superhuman" riding reminds anyone following cycling for the last decade or two of just about every convicted doper of those time. Including some of the worst sleezeball PR guys taking people's money for all they;re worth like Floyd Landis.
> 
> 
> No proof. Just a very healthy dose of cynicism.


1) Contador stopped doping so is slower now. You can't assume Froome is doping by first assuming Contador is doping too.
2) All Froome had to do was shut down 3 tiny attacks from Quintana.. then Martin and Fuglsang attacked so Froome could leave it to everyone else to chase down.
3) Check out his TT performances vs. Wiggins & Martin last year. He's at a similar level this year, nothing surprising. Oddly enough Contador has started TTing like a small spanish climber, I wonder why that is? (for a hint, see my first point)
4) Froome dropped all his competitors with the help of Peter kennaugh and Ritchie Porte. - I mean seriously, have you even watched the stage? By the time Ritchie Porte pulled off the front, it was only Froome and Contador left. 


I think you've had more of a healthy dose of cynicism.. you seem to be exaggerating everything for some reason. I'd guess its because there aren't any real doping scandals to talk about so you have to make one up?


----------



## Marc

ALIHISGREAT said:


> 1) Contador stopped doping so is slower now. You can't assume Froome is doping by first assuming Contador is doping too.
> 2) All Froome had to do was shut down 3 tiny attacks from Quintana.. then Martin and Fuglsang attacked so Froome could leave it to everyone else to chase down.
> 3) Check out his TT performances vs. Wiggins & Martin last year. He's at a similar level this year, nothing surprising. Oddly enough Contador has started TTing like a small spanish climber, I wonder why that is? (for a hint, see my first point)
> 4) Froome dropped all his competitors with the help of Peter kennaugh and Ritchie Porte. - I mean seriously, have you even watched the stage? By the time Ritchie Porte pulled off the front, it was only Froome and Contador left.
> 
> 
> I think you've had more of a healthy dose of cynicism.. you seem to be exaggerating everything for some reason. I'd guess its because there aren't any real doping scandals to talk about so you have to make one up?


Contador stopped doping eh? If you actually believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you. As for the rest, if you think Old Steak Face is clean I'll only be talking to a brick wall. And as Carlton Kirby and Sean Kelly remarked, Porte led Froome up Ventoux-but Froome really didn't seem to need it he just spun up the climb barely breaking a sweat. Froome's ride through the Pyrenees where none of his team could catch up with him should set off warning bells....then turning around and almost winning an ITT...and now this. Like I said, I'm probably talking to a brick wall.

Tell me the number of TdFs in recent times we've had where the yellow jersey has 4+minutes over everyone else with a week to go...where everyone else in the top 10 is separated by seconds...where said YJ ended up being clean.


If it wasn't for Froome's superhuman rides, there's actually be a contest for the GC. Every time in the last few years anyone from anywhere has put in as dominating a performance as Froome, they turned out in short order to be doped to the gills. Every time. Believe if you want, there are those who always do. Just look at how vocal Phil and Paul defended Lance, and Contador, and Floyd, and Hamilton, etc for years. Maybe Contador and Wiggo are clean now...hence there suddenly completely unnoticeable riding this season...but given the history of the sport in the last decade...people should be rasing eyebrows at Froome's single handed domination of everyone else.


----------



## aclinjury

The way Froome just sits in and spin crazy on those attacks is just surreal. It tells me that he still has some left in the tank. Up until now, Froome has never been to do this sort of spin attacks. Look at last year's Vuelta where he struggled up the steeps against the likes of Conti, JRod, Valverde.

You could argue that in last year's Vuelta he was tired because he rode the Tour before that. Yes this is a legit argument. However, you don't go from struggling against the world's best climbers to slaughtering them like lambs 10 months later!
Tell me in what endurance sport where an already well trained athlete make that sort of transformation in 10 months' time?? And I would argue that the transformation took place even sooner because Froome was already killing it in this year's other races before the Tour. It's like a marathon runner who is a 2nd or 3rd finisher who can suddenly put in a 2-3 minute gap on his better rivals... 6 months later... and doing it with sprinting bursts.

This is not any training secret here. It looks more like chemistry at work. I'm curious to know what Armstrong has to say? Has he said anything about Froome's performance?


----------



## love4himies

aclinjury said:


> This is not any training secret here. It looks more like chemistry at work. I'm curious to know what Armstrong has to say? Has he said anything about Froome's performance?


I was wondering the same thing. Not a "politically correct" answer, but his true thoughts.


----------



## aclinjury

love4himies said:


> I was wondering the same thing. Not a "politically correct" answer, but his true thoughts.


Apparently Conti thinks Froome's performance is believable. So does Armstrong (the same cheat who said you can't win the Tour without doping). Omerta is alive and kickin'


----------



## grandprix

love4himies said:


> I was wondering the same thing. Not a "politically correct" answer, but his true thoughts.


He would probably be upset that they are pulling a page directly out of his playbook to explain the performance but not giving him credit. 

Chris Froome's Tour de France success the reward for Team Sky's training | Sport | The Guardian

High cadence strikes again.


----------



## bocksta

I could look past the mountain top finishes that Froome has put in this year. He looks like a good climber, but for him to TT as well as Tony Martin. There no explaining how well hes TT'd over the past 2-3 years. Tony Martin has been one of the better time trial performers in cycling, an hes been doing it since he was 19. 

Do a wiki lookup between Frooms TT wins and Tony Martins TT wins. 

Fact not opinion.

Edit: Both were born in 1985 and turn pro in 2007-2008 so they match up pretty well.


----------



## jnbrown

Either he is superhuman or doping take your pick.
I have not seen anything like that since the year Contador and Rasmussen where sprinting up mountains and we all know they were doping.
Since Froome seems like a genuinely nice guy (unlike LA) I am giving him the benefit of doubt for now.


----------



## Opus51569

Sure, it's naive, but reading through this thread just makes me sad. What you see here... this is the true cost of doping. It's not the hit taken to one individual (financial, reputation) when they get caught. The true cost is to everyone else in the peloton and everyone who aspires to someday be in the peloton.

Now, no matter how much one trains. No matter how hard they work or how much they're motivated. No matter how naturally gifted they may be as a cyclist. Their spectacular performance on any given day will always be clouded by suspicion they they're doping. That's the real cost of all this.

Will we ever get to a point where we can watch a rider put in an exceptional performance without assuming/presuming they are cheating?


----------



## jaggrin

I believe Armstrong's statement that you couldn't win the TDF without doping is true today. Everyone doped when Armstrong raced and he was winning the TDF by 6 or 7 minutes. Sky has the better doping program just like USPS and it shows in the time gaps.


----------



## zero85ZEN

Opus, to answer your question: 

"Will we ever get to a point where we can watch a rider put in an exceptional performance without assuming/presuming they are cheating?"


Short answer: NO!

Sad to say, but it's the way of the world we live in.


----------



## tlg

Opus51569 said:


> Now, no matter how much one trains. No matter how hard they work or how much they're motivated. No matter how naturally gifted they may be as a cyclist. Their spectacular performance on any given day will always be clouded by suspicion they they're doping. That's the real cost of all this.
> 
> Will we ever get to a point where we can watch a rider put in an exceptional performance without assuming/presuming they are cheating?


The thing is, if it was a spectacular performance on a single day it'd be plausable. Jens Voigt has them, then drops way back the next day(s). But Froome keeps having them over and over.


----------



## spade2you

aclinjury said:


> Apparently Conti thinks Froome's performance is believable. So does Armstrong (the same cheat who said you can't win the Tour without doping). Omerta is alive and kickin'


Contador isn't exactly gonna say, "well, I'm doping, no way he's clean." 

Odd note, some of my friends on Facebook were rooting for Clenbutador. I was a tad surprised as angry as people got in '09. Personally, I'm trying to figure out a good recipe to post for Carne Astana.


----------



## The Human G-Nome

What is with the doping apologists on the doping forums? This is the same nonsense we heard from the literally millions of people defending LA for so many years. It is as if the person defending is somehow related to the doper in real life, or they have a monetary stake in it. Why thousands of words spent defending someone who has guilt written all over him? Because you're just such a huge fan of due process? What is the point of all this for you?

The "where is the evidence" crowd should have been shushed long ago, but it's like an endless echo chamber, and the apologists will never go away. When someone acts superhuman, they are not actually superhuman according to EVERY instance in the past from every other rider from every other year. But for some, they look at a "superhuman" effort and surmise, "Yep, finally... a real super hero is upon us!" It reads like the logic of a true jingoist to just completely deny history. I suppose the NSA wasn't spying on us either until we just recently had proof?

When you label something a "conspiracy" it does not make it untrue. It simply means it hasn't been proven, and everyone, especially those on a forum designed specially for talking about doping are free to speculate. 



ALIHISGREAT said:


> 1) Contador stopped doping so is slower now. You can't assume Froome is doping by first assuming Contador is doping too.
> 2) All Froome had to do was shut down 3 tiny attacks from Quintana.. then Martin and Fuglsang attacked so Froome could leave it to everyone else to chase down.
> 3) Check out his TT performances vs. Wiggins & Martin last year. He's at a similar level this year, nothing surprising. Oddly enough Contador has started TTing like a small spanish climber, I wonder why that is? (for a hint, see my first point)
> 4) Froome dropped all his competitors with the help of Peter kennaugh and Ritchie Porte. - I mean seriously, have you even watched the stage? By the time Ritchie Porte pulled off the front, it was only Froome and Contador left.
> 
> 
> I think you've had more of a healthy dose of cynicism.. you seem to be exaggerating everything for some reason. I'd guess its because there aren't any real doping scandals to talk about so you have to make one up?


----------



## Data_God

Since you are a self confessed noob let's just say that doping is a very wide brush and covers many, many different levels. When I hear the phrase "Doping" at this point I assume that they mean Oxygen Vector Enhancement using a few different methods. Then there is recovery "Doping" which is a different set of products all together. And lets not forget off season "Doping" which again is different still.

O2 Vector Doping - usually EPO or a new drug of the month. EPO when microdosed is harder to detect execpt when the rider is "Glowing" which from memory is 4 days ? However the benefits may remain for longer than 4 days thus the incentive to try this. It's a miracle drug that's for sure. A riders Hematocrit is increased and his performance goes up. Yeah - there is a downside. Blood like sludge. Heart Attacks in the middle of the night when the HR drops. etc etc.

Closely coupled with this is "Blood Doping" where a riders own blood can be reinfused giving him better O2 transport. It's been well documented that Riders in the bad old days (think Lance Armstrong) were microdosing and blood doping and measuring their Hemotocrit daily and if it spiked too high then they infuse Saline to bring it back down under the radar.

Now to the meat of your question(s) Could they be doping ? Yes. Until something raises a red flag to me I choose to more or less, take performances at face value. I am not privy to all the checks currently being done but I am betting that it is harder to dope now. At least in the well known manner. Something new OTOH ? Sure. But for the time being I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Bill


----------



## Marc

Data_God said:


> Since you are a self confessed noob let's just say that doping is a very wide brush and covers many, many different levels. When I hear the phrase "Doping" at this point I assume that they mean Oxygen Vector Enhancement using a few different methods. Then there is recovery "Doping" which is a different set of products all together. And lets not forget off season "Doping" which again is different still.
> 
> O2 Vector Doping - usually EPO or a new drug of the month. EPO when microdosed is harder to detect execpt when the rider is "Glowing" which from memory is 4 days ? However the benefits may remain for longer than 4 days thus the incentive to try this. It's a miracle drug that's for sure. A riders Hematocrit is increased and his performance goes up. Yeah - there is a downside. Blood like sludge. Heart Attacks in the middle of the night when the HR drops. etc etc.
> 
> Closely coupled with this is "Blood Doping" where a riders own blood can be reinfused giving him better O2 transport. It's been well documented that Riders in the bad old days (think Lance Armstrong) were microdosing and blood doping and measuring their Hemotocrit daily and if it spiked too high then they infuse Saline to bring it back down under the radar.
> 
> Now to the meat of your question(s) Could they be doping ? Yes. Until something raises a red flag to me I choose to more or less, take performances at face value. I am not privy to all the checks currently being done but I am betting that it is harder to dope now. At least in the well known manner. Something new OTOH ? Sure. But for the time being I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> Bill


The other side of it (for new folks to understand) is that LOTS of OTC and off-the-shelf common medications are on banned substances lists at the IOC and UCI etc as they not only address common health issues...but act as PEDs too. Such as pseudoepherine, a very common hay fever and nasal decongestant pill.


----------



## jpdigital

*This.*



tlg said:


> The thing is, if it was a spectacular performance on a single day it'd be plausable. Jens Voigt has them, then drops way back the next day(s). But Froome keeps having them over and over.


For one team, and especially one or two riders from that team, to completely dominate an entire season (or at the very least, half of a season up to this point), and then step it up to _even another level_ raises red flags for me.

Any race lasting longer than three stages that Team Sky entered this year, they dominated at will, and then to step it up at will and make an entire field of world-class climbers and time trialists look like amateurs, to string out 2 weeks of spectacular performances (and it's looking like it'll be 3 weeks) is awfully hard to believe at face value.


----------



## Ventruck

*Let me tell you*

Let me tell all of you doubters and haters simply living in the past. What motivates you to just take down the next big thing in cycling? Are you mad at newfound success? Do you only root for the domestique sheep who by your perception are too slow to be doping? What arbitrary standards do you uphold for a rider to fit the mold of the yellow jersey? Are you just going to doubt EVERY good rider? Not everyone is dirty you know? And that includes Chris Froome. 

Chris Froome is a hero. Numbers can't tell you everything. His success and level of performance is the product of immense hard work and dedication - more so than the rest of the peleton who should maybe try harder on the bike. He trains at high elevation, and rides his bike every day. His team was wisely constructed and followed the same exceptional training regimen as him, but he's their leader because of his natural born talents.

With all this dominance, what is the difference between Froome and Lance Armstrong? Froome doesn't dope. Lance did. Froome doesn't. Froome stared the reporters cold in the eye "I.do.not.dope", not once, but TWICE already. If a guy insists on something like that more than once, there's no reason to think he has anything to hide. He is telling the truth.

Maybe none of you can accept that the rest of the peleton has regressed, that they're all past prime and the new era riders just aren't as talented. Suspicion is only coincidence. Perhaps THEY'RE the real dopers and are suffering from tighter rules as of late. But not Chris Froome. He's just the scapegoat of your frustrations where your own hero can't win. Chris Froome is the future of cycling. What makes him win? He's a better TT'er and climber, recovers faster, has better work ethic. What's he on? his bike, busting his ass 6 hours a day.


----------



## Marc

Ventruck said:


> Let me tell all of you doubters and haters simply living in the past. What motivates you to just take down the next big thing in cycling? Are you mad at newfound success? Do you only root for the domestique sheep who by your perception are too slow to be doping? What arbitrary standards do you uphold for a rider to fit the mold of the yellow jersey? Are you just going to doubt EVERY good rider? Not everyone is dirty you know? And that includes Chris Froome.
> 
> Chris Froome is a hero. Numbers can't tell you everything. His success and level of performance is the product of immense hard work and dedication - more so than the rest of the peleton who should maybe try harder on the bike. He trains at high elevation, and rides his bike every day. His team was wisely constructed and followed the same exceptional training regimen as him, but he's their leader because of his natural born talents.
> 
> With all this dominance, what is the difference between Froome and Lance Armstrong? Froome doesn't dope. Lance did. Froome doesn't. Froome stared the reporters cold in the eye "I.do.not.dope", not once, but TWICE already. If a guy insists on something like that more than once, there's no reason to think he has anything to hide. He is telling the truth.
> 
> Maybe none of you can accept that the rest of the peleton has regressed, that they're all past prime and the new era riders just aren't as talented. Suspicion is only coincidence. Perhaps THEY'RE the real dopers and are suffering from tighter rules as of late. But not Chris Froome. He's just the scapegoat of your frustrations where your own hero can't win. Chris Froome is the future of cycling. What makes him win? He's a better TT'er and climber, recovers faster, has better work ethic. What's he on? his bike, busting his ass 6 hours a day.


If it is that simple, you'd think all the other teams with million dollar budgets wouod have caught on.


----------



## Rick Draper

jpdigital said:


> any race lasting longer than three stages that team sky entered this year, they dominated at will, and then to step it up at will and make an entire field of world-class climbers and time trialists look like amateurs, to string out 2 weeks of spectacular performances (and it's looking like it'll be 3 weeks) is awfully hard to believe at face value.


giro.


----------



## Ventruck

Marc said:


> caught on.


yes. Caught on.


----------



## Local Hero

The Human G-Nome said:


> The "where is the evidence" crowd should have been shushed long ago, but it's like an endless echo chamber, and the apologists will never go away.


Where do you draw the line with doping speculation?


----------



## Opus51569

tlg said:


> The thing is, if it was a spectacular performance on a single day it'd be plausable. Jens Voigt has them, then drops way back the next day(s). But Froome keeps having them over and over.


I watched Landis on his solo TdF breakaway and Cancellara's Paris-Roubaix when there was speculation he was using a motor. Even singular efforts aren't plausible for a lot of folks. Sure, for Landis it was true, but it was assumed long before it was proven. The assumption of cheating is becoming the de facto status quo. 

JMHO, but IF it's ever proven that Jens is doping, I think I might stop watching racing altogether.


----------



## spade2you

Opus51569 said:


> I watched Landis on his solo TdF breakaway and Cancellara's Paris-Roubaix when there was speculation he was using a motor. Even singular efforts aren't plausible for a lot of folks. Sure, for Landis it was true, but it was assumed long before it was proven. The assumption of cheating is becoming the de facto status quo.
> 
> JMHO, but IF it's ever proven that Jens is doping, I think I might stop watching racing altogether.


Methinks Jens will be the only doper in history allowed to never confess due to the amount of men who will openly cry in public for weeks.


----------



## cda 455

Ventruck said:


> Let me tell all of you doubters and haters simply living in the past. What motivates you to just take down the next big thing in cycling? Are you mad at newfound success? Do you only root for the domestique sheep who by your perception are too slow to be doping? What arbitrary standards do you uphold for a rider to fit the mold of the yellow jersey? Are you just going to doubt EVERY good rider? Not everyone is dirty you know? And that includes Chris Froome.
> 
> Chris Froome is a hero. Numbers can't tell you everything. His success and level of performance is the product of immense hard work and dedication - more so than the rest of the peleton who should maybe try harder on the bike. He trains at high elevation, and rides his bike every day. His team was wisely constructed and followed the same exceptional training regimen as him, but he's their leader because of his natural born talents.
> 
> With all this dominance, what is the difference between Froome and Lance Armstrong? Froome doesn't dope. Lance did. Froome doesn't. Froome stared the reporters cold in the eye "I.do.not.dope", not once, but TWICE already. If a guy insists on something like that more than once, there's no reason to think he has anything to hide. He is telling the truth.
> 
> Maybe none of you can accept that the rest of the peleton has regressed, that they're all past prime and the new era riders just aren't as talented. Suspicion is only coincidence. Perhaps THEY'RE the real dopers and are suffering from tighter rules as of late. But not Chris Froome. He's just the scapegoat of your frustrations where your own hero can't win. Chris Froome is the future of cycling. What makes him win? He's a better TT'er and climber, recovers faster, has better work ethic. What's he on? his bike, busting his ass 6 hours a day.



For some reason I believe your poast should include this quote:


I did not. Have sexual relations. With that woman. Ms. Lewinsky. :shrugs:


----------



## spade2you

cda 455 said:


> For some reason I believe your poast should include this quote:
> 
> 
> I did not. Have sexual relations. With that woman. Ms. Lewinsky. :shrugs:


I'll bet the sexal relations he didn't have with her were amazing.


----------



## The Human G-Nome

Local Hero said:


> Where do you draw the line with doping speculation?


I'm not sure why people feel that a line should be drawn at all. This is like having your spouse cheat on you for 20 years, get caught red-handed a few dozen times while all the while denying it, and then have a friend tell you that "you are just stuck in the past and too cynical" when you think that maybe she's cheating again since none of her stories add up and her fantastic reasoning isn't believable. 

How many times do cycling fans have to get jilted at the Tour alter before they stop showing up for the procession?

Every other year some wunderkind shows up, and we're all convinced, "this time... this time... the magic is REAL!" We will never stop believing. There are plenty of doting spouses out there who will refuse to believe what's right in front of their eyes because "she is my whole world, and I'm in love!" With as many apologists as we still have in this sport, love can be the only answer. No one one wants their bubble of illusions popped and yet another "hero" to be outed as a fraud and a cheat. We take too much glee in the spectacular performances to allow that to be true. 

So for me, no, a line does not need to be drawn. However, unlike some others, I enjoy fiction, I enjoy tragedies, and this may as well be Game of Thrones for me. I know it's not real, but I don't have to pretend that it's real to truly enjoy it.


----------



## spade2you




----------



## aclinjury

Rick Draper said:


> giro.


wet weather, a couple falls, messed up Wiggins' mind completely.

To be fair, Nibali was riding like a man possesed, both on the climb and on the wet descent


----------



## Slartibartfast

The Human G-Nome said:


> What is with the doping apologists on the doping forums? This is the same nonsense we heard from the literally millions of people defending LA for so many years. It is as if the person defending is somehow related to the doper in real life, or they have a monetary stake in it. Why thousands of words spent defending someone who has guilt written all over him? Because you're just such a huge fan of due process? What is the point of all this for you?


Personally I think a few of the apologists are shills for Sky. If Sky are as thorough as they're given credit for, wouldn't they be monitoring and participating in social media? Other major companies do it. 

Sometimes I've even wondered if some of you guys are roadbikereview trolls, stirring the pot.


----------



## PJay

LA had a more believable story.
He lost all of his muscles from cancer treatment. This included tri-Athlon muscles.
He then re-built his body specifically for road-cycling.
He had a team that worked together to support only him for GC. How many other teams have that? This included Hincapie.
He had a team that focused on TdF, as he focuses specifically on TdF. How many other riders have that?
His aerobic physiology was supposed to be so interesting that scholarly medical articles have been published about him and indexed in Medline.
He is known to have strategically reconnoitered many significant stages, including finishes.
His moves toward the top 3 in the TdF became more dominating as the years went on - indicating learning from experience and building a better program.
He has father issues.
The love-interests that were waiting for him at the top of the hill.
Finally, he is from Texas. (Note that only Oklahoma could be flatter than Richardson, Texas, and the max grade in the vicinity is by Joe Pool Lake, with 12% for 50 yards. Nonetheless, being from Texas contributes a lot to any world challenge.)

Froome doesn't have any of this, except the recent before/after story of him getting treated for some unknown African water parasite just before he stepped onto the world stage.

Vino is another guy who, like Landis, had one outstanding day sandwiched between two normal days. 
popped. Rasmussen had a bunch of great days. Popped.

So, even with everything set up to your favor without the drug aspect, the drug aspect seems to end up being a part of the story.


----------



## Marc

The Human G-Nome said:


> How many times do cycling fans have to get jilted at the Tour alter before they stop showing up for the procession?


Eh, most people are there to watch the spectacle and aren't that bothered over the wonders over who may or may not be doping.

They simply accept it...and you have exactly what we have now. Reporters and fans who see it, enjoy watching it...and then ask, "what chemical cocktail are you on" to whomever podiums in the GC. Because almost no informed fan believes anyone who claims to not be guilty anymore, we've seen it too many times...because as with our criminal justice system-everyone pleads not guilty no matter how guilty as sin they know themselves to be and no matter that the perp was witnessed and caught on tape stealing a front-end skid loader and witnessed attempting to steal an ATM leading cops on a chase all over town before crashing into a school doing $50,000 of damages along the way....he still pleads "not guilty".


----------



## pedalruns

The tour has been going on for 100 years.. fans imo aren't going away.. I'll still watch the chemical show anyway... But I'll always be pulling for a somewhat clean tour and when I see the obvious like the Sky chemical train... I'll come to the doping forms and say my peace.. lol..

I think the good thing I'm seeing now, is most fans and more media (not all of course) do now see the farce for what it is.. When the riders (omerta) try and act like all is normal they look like IDIOTS.. I think it is good to question and team Sky better get used to all the questions...

Now... how many minutes does everyone think Froome will win by?? He is at 4:14 now.. I think it could go up to maybe 8:00 minutes!!


----------



## RTSO2112

pedalruns said:


> The tour has been going on for 100 years.. fans imo aren't going away.. I'll still watch the chemical show anyway... But I'll always be pulling for a somewhat clean tour and when I see the obvious like the Sky chemical train... I'll come to the doping forms and say my peace.. lol..
> 
> I think the good thing I'm seeing now, is most fans and more media (not all of course) do now see the farce for what it is.. When the riders (omerta) try and act like all is normal they look like IDIOTS.. I think it is good to question and team Sky better get used to all the questions...
> 
> Now... how many minutes does everyone think Froome will win by?? He is at 4:14 now.. I think it could go up to maybe 8:00 minutes!!


8 minutes would make it TOO obvious...I'm betting no more than 7 or 7:15!


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

RTSO2112 said:


> 8 minutes would make it TOO obvious...I'm betting no more than 7 or 7:15!


Contador is always stronger in the 3rd week (for some reason :idea So I don't think Froome will take too much more time.

Especially since everyone will be having a good go at Sky.


----------



## Ventruck

ALIHISGREAT said:


> Contador is always stronger in the 3rd week (for some reason :idea So I don't think Froome will take too much more time.
> 
> Especially since everyone will be having a good go at Sky.


Mainly in the 3rd week, as opposed to literally all of them.


----------



## The Tedinator

ALIHISGREAT said:


> Contador is always stronger in the 3rd week (for some reason :idea So I don't think Froome will take too much more time.
> 
> Especially since everyone will be having a good go at Sky.


So, you think Contador will dope for the third week, yet will still lose time to Froome, yet not as much as the first two weeks?


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

The Tedinator said:


> So, you think Contador will dope for the third week, yet will still lose time to Froome, yet not as much as the first two weeks?


I'm saying that there won't be as much of a difference as in the first two weeks; I'm not saying Froome will necessarily loose time.

And surely certain methods are more effective in the 3rd week when riders not using these methods are even weaker than in the 2nd week?


----------



## The Tedinator

ALIHISGREAT said:


> I'm saying that there won't be as much of a difference as in the first two weeks; I'm not saying Froome will necessarily loose time.
> 
> And surely certain methods are more effective in the 3rd week when riders not using these methods are even weaker than in the 2nd week?


But what methods? I assumed; and correct me if I am wrong, that the smilie you placed in your post indicated that you thought AC was going to avail himself of a blood transfusion. If that is what you meant, I was just asking if you thought Froome would still be able to take time out of him; which he indeed did today.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

The Tedinator said:


> But what methods? I assumed; and correct me if I am wrong, that the smilie you placed in your post indicated that you thought AC was going to avail himself of a blood transfusion. If that is what you meant, I was just asking if you thought Froome would still be able to take time out of him; which he indeed did today.


I just laugh every time the commentators mention that Contador is usually stronger in the 3rd week, and transfusions are one method that a cheat may use to maintain higher levels of performance in a three week tour. For the record I don't think Contador is doping - just thought I'd try and fit in by putting some suggestion in my post! 

But yeah, I think it will be close, and can see Contador taking some time.. but Froome will probably reply to that by taking it back.


----------



## Chainstay

Contador came to the tour with the intention of riding himself into shape. Evans and Schleck are way off the pace. Nibali isn't riding. Van Den Brouke had to abandon due to a crash. Froome is the only top rider in peak form this year.


----------



## The Tedinator

ALIHISGREAT said:


> I just laugh every time the commentators mention that Contador is usually stronger in the 3rd week, and transfusions are one method that a cheat may use to maintain higher levels of performance in a three week tour. For the record I don't think Contador is doping - just thought I'd try and fit in by putting some suggestion in my post!
> 
> But yeah, I think it will be close, and can see Contador taking some time.. but Froome will probably reply to that by taking it back.


We agree to disagree again then! I think Contador is clean(er)than in the past. But I can see no logical reason why he would quit using blood bags. It is still not able to be tested for, IIRC.
And not just Contador, but Piti and Purito too! They obviously used the rest day to fine tune their "strategy"!


----------



## Local Hero

The Human G-Nome said:


> I'm not sure why people feel that a line should be drawn at all. This is like having your spouse cheat on you for 20 years, get caught red-handed a few dozen times while all the while denying it, and then have a friend tell you that "you are just stuck in the past and too cynical" when you think that maybe she's cheating again since none of her stories add up and her fantastic reasoning isn't believable.


That analogy is OK. And when you put it that way it makes sense. 

But it would be better analogy if it were a string of relationships and not a single relationship of 20 years, as we have had several winners of the TdF over the past 20 years. Back to the relationship analogy: Some relationships lasted one year. Some last 6 years and the cheater confessed later. Some may not have cheated at all. But now you're suspicious of every new person you date, paranoid even. Even in the complete absence of evidence you think people are cheating on you, especially when it seems too good to be true. 

Does that sound normal?


----------



## grandprix

The Tedinator said:


> I think Contador is clean(er)than in the past. But I can see no logical reason why he would quit using blood bags.


Certainly all the contenders in the peloton are transfusing blood, that it is even illegal in the first place is ridiculous. But it is illegal and against the rules.

I don't see the need to draw a line for speculation for quite some time. The people in charge of organized cycling have done nothing, other than superficial marketing, to change the motivations behind doping. Thus doping continues. Were it not for a mistake by the Phonak doping scientists as applied to Floyd Landis, the same explanations being offered for Sky would still be on offer for Landis and US Postal et al.

That doesn't mean I can't enjoy the race. I can watch Lance Armstrong Tour De France Best (Drug Induced) Finish Ever - YouTube and still be enthralled by the goings on, even though every single rider in the frame is a confirmed doper, as well as the entire GC rundown to 8th place. (9th? doping starts back up to 15th) I'd like to see cycling cleaned up for the kids who are riding on training wheels. The next few generations are lost.


----------



## 55x11

Chainstay said:


> Contador came to the tour with the intention of riding himself into shape. Evans and Schleck are way off the pace. Nibali isn't riding. Van Den Brouke had to abandon due to a crash. Froome is the only top rider in peak form this year.


If Froome wasn't in the tour we would be talking about a close race between 6 or 7 riders including Contador, Mollema, Quintana, ten Dam, Kreuziger etc.
This is what I would have expected from a clean peloton - many riders with similar, close abilities, perhaps some are better some days, some others, some better at climbing Alps, some at Pyranees, some at flat ITT, some at hilly ITT etc.

Instead we have a single rider who dominates ITTs, and EVERY SINGLE mountain stage, and who is head and shoulders above everyone else. For that matter, his own teammate is arguably stronger than many runner ups. 

To argue that only Sky thought of peaking their riders for the tour, and all other teams and riders didn't realize what month Tour de France takes place and mistimed their peak shape is sort of silly. 

I think Contador is now riding clean, and so is Schleck, Valverde, Basso and others.
But Froome is all of a sudden riding at the level of Armstrong, Ullrich and Basso of 10 years ago, just a few years after being kicked out of Giro for having to hold on to the cars on climbs, which makes me very suspicious. All of a sudden he has higher power than best ITT like Martin, and better power/weight ratio than pure climbers like Quintana. This is Armstrong territory for sure. The whole approach to racing reminds me of Postal days. The fact that they wouldn't release basic biopassport information, or even basic power data (which a lot of us, joe-schmoes use every day for training nowadays), using the "too complex" and "could be misinterpreted" explanation is laughable. So is Froome's deliberate misinterpretation of journalist's question about doing "450 Watts" or whatever for entire stage, rather than 20min section of Ax3 climb.
This is just too strange, and Sky should have realized the environment of distrust that surrounds cycling and be more transparent, instead of playing the victim while hiding all data.

Finally, I would be less suspicious if we were talking of naturally smooth and efficient riders like Contador, Valverde or Quintana. But Froome looks like he is only 80% efficient with a lot of wasted motion, horrible form and worse aerodynamics. And yet he manages times (and supposedly even higher power levels) that were only achieved by a handful of riders at the height of doping.


----------



## Cableguy

IMO the fact that Contador is publically supporting Froome's freakishly superhuman domination of everyone as being "clean" is a tell that Contador himself is still doping... I see it like this. If Conty was actually 100% clean, his mentality would be more like Lemond's in that he would be suspicious of the guy and probably even quietly resent the fact he could be stealing the Tour from him by cheating. There would be no reason to go public with his support, especiallly considering Contador can't actually know Froome isn't doping... 

On the other hand, if Conty is doping it would be in his better interest not to rock the boat... who knows maybe he's even interested in joining Sky at some point.


----------



## roddjbrown

Cableguy said:


> IMO the fact that Contador is publically supporting Froome's freakishly superhuman domination of everyone as being "clean" is a tell that Contador himself is still doping... I see it like this. If Conty was actually 100% clean, his mentality would be more like Lemond's in that he would be suspicious of the guy and probably even quietly resent the fact he could be stealing the Tour from him by cheating. There would be no reason to go public with his support, especiallly considering Contador can't actually know Froome isn't doping...
> 
> On the other hand, if Conty is doping it would be in his better interest not to rock the boat... who knows maybe he's even interested in joining Sky at some point.


Couldn't agree more. If Contador is clean there's absolutely no reason for him to back up Froome because he should be resenting Froome's performances - even supposing Froome were clean Contador has enough ego that he'd presume it was through cheating. 

Nice to see the Omerta is alive and well though. Cycling does a much better job of it than sprinters - who does Gay think he is promising to explain everything.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

roddjbrown said:


> Couldn't agree more. If Contador is clean there's absolutely no reason for him to back up Froome because he should be resenting Froome's performances - even supposing Froome were clean Contador has enough ego that he'd presume it was through cheating.
> 
> Nice to see the Omerta is alive and well though. Cycling does a much better job of it than sprinters - who does Gay think he is promising to explain everything.



But if Contador is clean and he knows his limits, and how far they are from the theoretical physiological limits, he can know that there is room for stronger riders with better numbers than him.


----------



## spade2you

ALIHISGREAT said:


> But if Contador is clean and he knows his limits


and if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.


----------



## cda 455

spade2you said:


> and if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.


:lol: :lol: :lol:


Pa-da, tish!


----------

