# What is Froome on? (Gene doping??)



## bbrrxx

besides his bike 6hrs/day...

Is the most plausible explanation Aicar?? And is the whole purpose behind that type of doping to lower your bodyweight by 20lbs and increase your endurance? So it essentially uses your fat stores for energy?

He looks freakishly skinny and there's no way that body type is natural even for TDF athletes.


----------



## Retro Grouch

Froome does look like an exhibit at your local high school science fair.

You might be on to something.


----------



## JoelS

I hear they don't have a test for AICA ribonucleotide. I assume from the name, that's exactly the same as AICAR referenced above. I'm not up on doping products :-/


----------



## aclinjury

when you look at the past dominant guys Armstrong, Indurian, Merckx, Ulrich, Fignon, Lemond, you see that they weren't anorexic looking. Most were skinny compared to the average person, but they were normal looking. Froome,, he just looks alien. It's pretty amazing that a guy can lose that much weight and at the same time most likely increase power.


----------



## Local Hero

Froome is on gene doping, AKA, _the boogieman_


----------



## Creakyknees

I can't remember the names of the drugs but saw them mentioned on another forum, they act differently than EPO/CERA and technically are not yet banned substances, nor is there a test for them.


----------



## kmak

I would also bet on AICAR. Especially given the cost. It will create a real split of haves and have-nots in the peleton.


----------



## AJL

Creakyknees said:


> I can't remember the names of the drugs but saw them mentioned on another forum, they act differently than EPO/CERA and technically are not yet banned substances, nor is there a test for them.


Hematide and ZMP (AICAR). There is a test for AICAR, but we don't know if it's being used (because of the cost, a team or 'anonymous donor' would have to foot the bill for for the treatments, reducing the likihood of its use by an individual rider).


----------



## The Tedinator

I have thought some about Sky being on some wonder drug.

But in the end, Armstrong was using the same gear as everyone else. Nothing super special or top secret; just had Hein and Phat Pat backing his play. No worries of a bust...and that was USPS's biggest "marginal gain".


----------



## 9W9W

How can you be asked to foot the bill for something you are denying all along? I guess return of fees if it tests negative? Which shifts the burden of "certainty" onto the doping control folks.


----------



## 9W9W

BTW, how expensive can the test be? Crowd source 100,000 Froome haters, each chips in $10. Done.


----------



## The Tedinator

9W9W said:


> BTW, how expensive can the test be? Crowd source 100,000 Froome haters, each chips in $10. Done.


bwahahahahahahaha!


----------



## stevesbike

This is a classic example of the hype about Froome's performance. First of all, the clinical evidence (in non-humans) is mixed - there are studies indicating it actually decreases endurance performance, second, there's been a test since 2009, and most importantly, as impressive as Froome is, his actual absolute performance is where sports scientists say clean performances would be. There was a ton of twitter excitement about his Ventoux performance and then the power estimates came out and they didn't support all the hype. It was a fast time because the conditions were favorable, but the watts/kg were below 6.


----------



## 9W9W

I thought his time up Ventoux was third fastest behind only Lance and Pantani? I could be wrong, and fankly don't have the chops to get mixed up in a stats/power ratings convo. Peace.


----------



## eyebob

Well, i had to go to Wiki to see what AICAR is, and they had this

In 2009, the French Anti-Doping Agency, suspected that AICAR had been used in the 2009 Tour de France. Although a detection method was reportedly given to the World Anti-Doping Agency, it was unknown if this method was implemented.[16] As of January 2011, AICAR was officially a banned substance in the World Anti Doping Code,[17] and the standard levels in elite athletes have been determined, to interpret test results.[18]


----------



## The Tedinator

9W9W said:


> I thought his time up Ventoux was third fastest behind only Lance and Pantani? I could be wrong, and fankly don't have the chops to get mixed up in a stats/power ratings convo. Peace.


This is what I thought too.

Remember, in the past; guys like Vaughters and Brailsford trumpeted slower times as proof that the modern peloton is clean(er). That is, until Ax-3-Domaines. The day before this stage; Johan Brailsford trotted out his now famous "clean riders will one day(errrrrrr, tomorrow)surpass the times of EPO dopers." Vaughter's was truly flabbergasted by Froomestrong's ride on Ax-3-Domaines.


----------



## Tupelo

I don't think it's AICAR, but more like a well tested in human trials and much more easily had and not on the banned list, Telmisartan. Telmisartan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

9W9W said:


> I thought his time up Ventoux was third fastest behind only Lance and Pantani? I could be wrong, and fankly don't have the chops to get mixed up in a stats/power ratings convo. Peace.


Time essentially means nothing since if Froome had a raging tailwind and Lance had a blustery headwind, then its entirely possible you will get close to his time with much less power.


----------



## 9W9W

I couldn't help myself...

I think Contador's interview on Ventoux was the equivalent of putting Chris on blast, well, if you an amateur between-the-lines reader. He said "he is on a whole another level. It's impossible 1 on 1 to win" or something very close to this. 

btw, it may not come across this way but I'm the biggest Froom fan. I simply like to see both sides of the argument.


----------



## The Tedinator

ALIHISGREAT said:


> Time essentially means nothing since if Froome had a raging tailwind and Lance had a blustery headwind, then its entirely possible you will get close to his time with much less power.


But without time you cannot calculate power either. It is for sure that Sky thinks time matters. Pre tour they used Armstrong's times up the Madone as one factor to determine if Froome was hitting his markers.


----------



## Chainstay

The third fastest time that was reported was for a segment of the climb that began with his first attack. prior to that the pace was quite slow.


----------



## The Tedinator

Chainstay said:


> The third fastest time that was reported was for a segment of the climb that began with his first attack. prior to that the pace was quite slow.


Can you quantify "quite slow"? I know from watching the stage that Phil and Paul were dumbfounded by the fact that the peloton covered the first 200k of this stage at over 30 mph. Considering that, it would be understandable if the first say 12-14k of Ventoux were somewhat slower.


----------



## natedg200202

aclinjury said:


> when you look at the past dominant guys Armstrong, Indurian, Merckx, Ulrich, Fignon, Lemond, you see that they weren't anorexic looking.


He looks a lot like Bjarne Riis in his extreme thin build as well as a combination of climbing and time trial power.


----------



## The Tedinator

Riis looks like "Fat [email protected]" from the Austin Powers movies compared to Froome. And not just Froome, but Wiggins, Gesink, and Ryder too. I look back and think that Wiggins is what first tripped my "stink-o-meter". How do you drop 5-8 kgs from a guy who is already at 3% body fat without eating into his power? Johan Brailsford quipped "calorie deficit" to that question in Corsica. Nope, you'd lose power out the wahoo. I just can't get over Froome's physique. I could buy the mountain climbing. But TT'ing on a flat power course equal to the World Champ (Tony Martin)? Sorry. Not normal.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

The Tedinator said:


> But without time you cannot calculate power either. It is for sure that Sky thinks time matters. Pre tour they used Armstrong's times up the Madone as one factor to determine if Froome was hitting his markers.


I will confess that I ride the same climbs frequently and use Strava to time myself and compare my form.. but you can't look at one time in isolation due to the variables involved.

Now looking at one set of power data in isolation is an entirely different prospect and the pro's train with power... but I'm not implying _power estimation_ is useful in the same way as actual power data from a power meter.


----------



## stevesbike

watch the stage and look at the flags on the side of the road - there was a big tailwind most of the day. Alex Simmons (who posts here quite a bit) has a blog covering errors in wind estimates:

Alex's Cycle Blog: Windbags

you can read veloclinic if you want to see the estimates and models that are used (which are not validated models) here:

2013 TDF Ventoux DpVAM / DpW/kg : And They Stay There ? veloclinic

He estimated Froome's Ventoux performance at: 5.87-5.98 w/kg


Two years ago, Science of Sport said 6 watts/kg was the sign of hope:

"What is the physiology of riding at 6W/kg? If a cyclist has an efficiency of 24%, then the VO2 at 6W/kg is about 71 ml/kg/min. If this represents 85% of a maximum, then a VO2max of 83 ml/kg/min is estimated. If the efficiency is 23% (measured by Coyle for Armstrong in 1999), incidentally, then the VO2 is 74ml/kg/min and the estimated max would be 87 ml/kg/min. Neither jumps out as not-seen-before-physiology."







The Tedinator said:


> Can you quantify "quite slow"? I know from watching the stage that Phil and Paul were dumbfounded by the fact that the peloton covered the first 200k of this stage at over 30 mph. Considering that, it would be understandable if the first say 12-14k of Ventoux were somewhat slower.


----------



## aclinjury

To me, the *REAL* trigger flag is how fast Froome has improved. Basically he has managed to up it to another level within a 6-10 months period. Up until 6-10 months ago, he was a good climber, but there was absolutely zero indication that he would be able to blitz the world's best 6 months later. You do not improve dramatically like that at this level.

Let me ask this question. Asafa Powell and Tyson Gay both have not been able to beat Usain Bolt, because Bolt is in a class of his own. Then suddenly, 6-10 months later, Powell and Gay are blitzing Bolt. Is there anyone in here who would not suspect that sort of performance enhancement in 6-10 months time from already well-trained athletes?

Same case for Froome. It is not all about the sheer W/kg, it is also about the rapid rate of improvement for an already well honed endurance athlete. After 5 years of hard and methodical training, an endurance athlete has pretty much maxed out most of his potential. You can't say that he still has 50% of untapped potential like a junior has. So what sort of "training secrets" does Sky know that the rest of the peloton does not know?

I find it an insult to be listening to Brailsford talking about inviting "scientists" to see the Sky method while refusing to release power data. What sort of any self-respecting scientist would even bother with such childish invitation? Miracles do not happent at top levels. It happens at the junior levels, maybe, but not at the top levels. You do not find "diamond in the rough" at the top, but Sky seems to have a formula to finding them quite easily. Is the formula simply training secrets? Sure sure.


----------



## Local Hero

aclinjury said:


> To me, the *REAL* trigger flag is how fast Froome has improved. Basically he has managed to up it to another level within a 6-10 months period. Up until 6-10 months ago, he was a good climber, but there was absolutely zero indication that he would be able to blitz the world's best 6 months later.


6-10 months? 

Froome did place second in an obscure French race about a year ago. Some people think he could have won it.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

He placed second in an even more obscure Spanish race the year before too!


----------



## jorgy

natedg200202 said:


> He looks a lot like Bjarne Riis in his extreme thin build as well as a combination of climbing and time trial power.


You didn't really just cite Bjarne Riis' to provide support for Froome not doping, did you?


----------



## lspangle

He looks like The Chicken to me...what was he on again? 

oh yeah via wikipedia "Rasmussen admitted that he had used performance-enhancing drugs and methods, including EPO, growth hormones, insulin, testosterone, DHEA, IGF-1, cortison and blood doping, for most of his professional career.[3]"


----------



## aclinjury

to go from placing 2nd to a rival or group of rivals, to blitzing all of them a year later, in an amazing display of whoopass,... it don't happen at this level due to training methods

Methinks the real formula is:

Froome = (Lance 2.0) - (AholeFactor) !


----------



## stevesbike

his margin of victory over Nibali last year: ~3 minutes. Next closest was 7 minutes down. The margins aren't different this year (Nibali isn't doing the Tour) and the course is more suited to Froome this year and he doesn't have to climb with Wiggins this year. He climbed the same way in the 2011 Vuelta. Again, more hype than reality in these doping allegations.



aclinjury said:


> to go from placing 2nd to a rival or group of rivals, to blitzing all of them a year later, in an amazing display of whoopass,... it don't happen at this level due to training methods
> 
> Methinks the real formula is:
> 
> Froome = (Lance 2.0) - (AholeFactor) !


----------



## Tupelo

Aicar & GW1516 / GW501516 - Doping [English subtitles - Français - Español - Português] - YouTube

French TV expose' on AICAR. The last bit is an interview with Eric Boyer speaking to the same subject that The Tedinator is implying.


----------



## bbrrxx

aclinjury said:


> Let me ask this question. Asafa Powell and Tyson Gay both have not been able to beat Usain Bolt, because Bolt is in a class of his own. Then suddenly, 6-10 months later, Powell and Gay are blitzing Bolt. Is there anyone in here who would not suspect that sort of performance enhancement in 6-10 months time from already well-trained athletes?


That's almost like saying the Bolt isn't on anything... lol. When you go from running 10 secs+ to 9.5x in a couple years. YOU'RE ON SOME GOOD STUFF!!! I think the stuff that Bolt is on is so expensive $$ that he only uses it for the big competitions. It's typical of him to post medicore times during the season... then when the Olympics comes around he hits the blazing times for all the prize money and fame.


----------



## AJL

stevesbike said:


> his margin of victory over Nibali last year: ~3 minutes. Next closest was 7 minutes down. The margins aren't different this year (Nibali isn't doing the Tour) and the course is more suited to Froome this year and he doesn't have to climb with Wiggins this year. He climbed the same way in the 2011 Vuelta. Again, more hype than reality in these doping allegations.


He's crushing a bunch of known dopers, just like last year. Doping today is not the same as it was up to 2010; clearly everyone is taking greater care not to get popped. He has an advantage. Maybe, just maybe, he is the best cycling talent in years; but to believe that he is 100% clean - it goes against cycling's recent and current history. Maybe just the standard PEDs like EPO, etc. and a carefully managed training and racing machine with big dollars allowing the recruitment of the best support talent is enough for Froome to beat everyone else. But not doping - hogwash. The average speeds on this tour seem incredibly high, and yet a select few still have the power to crank up the climbs and make repeated attacks on the climbs after these blazing fast stages. Froome's style is a classic sign of someone who responds well to EPO: attack, rapid recovery, attack, rapid recovery; rinse and repeat. This similarities to Postal (etc.) and Contador's teams is just absurd.

I don't dislike Chris Froome. I just irritated about watching a Lance and Contador like dominance so soon. Oddly, I find myself hoping he doesn't get caught - another blow to cycling like that might just kill off pro coverage in the US and crater sponsorships worldwide. 

I'm going to step off my soap box and just enjoy the rest of the race. The race for 2nd and 3rd that is, and the sprint on the Champs.


----------



## cda 455

AJL said:


> He's crushing a bunch of known dopers, just like last year. Doping today is not the same as it was up to 2010; clearly everyone is taking greater care not to get popped. He has an advantage. Maybe, just maybe, he is the best cycling talent in years; but to believe that he is 100% clean - it goes against cycling's recent and current history. Maybe just the standard PEDs like EPO, etc. and a carefully managed training and racing machine with big dollars allowing the recruitment of the best support talent is enough for Froome to beat everyone else. But not doping - hogwash. The average speeds on this tour seem incredibly high, and yet a select few still have the power to crank up the climbs and make repeated attacks on the climbs after these blazing fast stages. Froome's style is a classic sign of someone who responds well to EPO: attack, rapid recovery, attack, rapid recovery; rinse and repeat. This similarities to Postal (etc.) and Contador's teams is just absurd.
> 
> I don't dislike Chris Froome. I just irritated about watching a Lance and Contador like dominance so soon. Oddly, I find myself hoping he doesn't get caught - another blow to cycling like that might just kill off pro coverage in the US and crater sponsorships worldwide.
> 
> I'm going to step off my soap box and just enjoy the rest of the race. The race for 2nd and 3rd that is, and the sprint on the Champs.


Disclaimer: Speculation on my part!

Like I said in another poast; I think Sky leadership is probably a little angry with Froome's Mt. Ventoux performance display.


Froome's performance the 10km up Mt Ventoux looked downright ridiculous. I think Froome couldn't help himself from publicly humiliating his rivals (Payback, if you will) as a result from what went down on stage 13. 

I really think Sky's leadership wanted to keep it low key to help minimize suspicion and now Froome has totally torpedoed that!

I believe once the peloton reaches Paris and Froome wins the TDF suspicion, speculation, and doubts are only going to get bigger and relentless.


----------



## cda 455

aclinjury said:


> To me, the *REAL* trigger flag is how fast Froome has improved. Basically he has managed to up it to another level within a 6-10 months period. Up until 6-10 months ago, he was a good climber, but there was absolutely zero indication that he would be able to blitz the world's best 6 months later. You do not improve dramatically like that at this level.
> 
> Let me ask this question. Asafa Powell and Tyson Gay both have not been able to beat Usain Bolt, because Bolt is in a class of his own. Then suddenly, 6-10 months later, Powell and Gay are blitzing Bolt. Is there anyone in here who would not suspect that sort of performance enhancement in 6-10 months time from already well-trained athletes?
> 
> Same case for Froome. It is not all about the sheer W/kg, it is also about the rapid rate of improvement for an already well honed endurance athlete. After 5 years of hard and methodical training, an endurance athlete has pretty much maxed out most of his potential. You can't say that he still has 50% of untapped potential like a junior has. So what sort of "training secrets" does Sky know that the rest of the peloton does not know?
> 
> I find it an insult to be listening to Brailsford talking about inviting "scientists" to see the Sky method while refusing to release power data. What sort of any self-respecting scientist would even bother with such childish invitation? Miracles do not happent at top levels. It happens at the junior levels, maybe, but not at the top levels. You do not find "diamond in the rough" at the top, but Sky seems to have a formula to finding them quite easily. Is the formula simply training secrets? Sure sure.


Good points.


I'll only add that we have history to compare performances with. The longest held lie in pro cycling was unveiled last Oct and we now can look at history to help validate suspicions with current riders.

Nothing of what Sky is saying regarding their performance is unique. It really sounds like the exact same script that USPS used during their reign.


----------



## roddjbrown

cda 455 said:


> Good points.
> 
> 
> I'll only add that we have history to compare performances with. The longest held lie in pro cycling was unveiled last Oct and we now can look at history to help validate suspicions with current riders.
> 
> Nothing of what Sky is saying regarding their performance is unique. It really sounds like the exact same script that USPS used during their reign.


We do have history to compare performances with and before I make my next point I'll just add the disclaimer that I think Sky are on a program. 

However, one thing I do think is that it's hard for us to judge performances as suspicious when we have absolutely no idea what a clean peloton looks like. Nobody knows what a normal professional bike race looks like if every rider is clean.


----------



## SFTifoso

kmak said:


> I would also bet on AICAR. Especially given the cost. It will create a real split of haves and have-nots in the peleton.


Might explain why Froome and Porte are so much better than the rest of Team Sky. Everyone else in Sky get's dropped quickly, except these two. And after pacing at the front, Porte get's dropped, but is able to recover and catch up again. Must be that special mattress!


----------



## cda 455

roddjbrown said:


> We do have history to compare performances with and before I make my next point I'll just add the disclaimer that I think Sky are on a program.
> 
> However, one thing I do think is that it's hard for us to judge performances as suspicious when we have absolutely no idea what a clean peloton looks like. Nobody knows what a normal professional bike race looks like if every rider is clean.


You bring up a good point.

The closest we can come to a clean peloton is before EPO was introduced to the peloton.


EPO was/is a _huge_ game changer. Huge!

About 1989-1990 would be when EPO first showed up. By about 1993/4 is when EPO was used pretty much throughout the entire peloton. That's why I use 1993 as a time frame for looking at doping.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

cda 455 said:


> Disclaimer: Speculation on my part!
> 
> Like I said in another poast; I think Sky leadership is probably a little angry with Froome's Mt. Ventoux performance display.
> 
> 
> Froome's performance the 10km up Mt Ventoux looked downright ridiculous. I think Froome couldn't help himself from publicly humiliating his rivals (Payback, if you will) as a result from what went down on stage 13.
> 
> I really think Sky's leadership wanted to keep it low key to help minimize suspicion and now Froome has totally torpedoed that!
> 
> I believe once the peloton reaches Paris and Froome wins the TDF suspicion, speculation, and doubts are only going to get bigger and relentless.


Humiliating his rivals indicates two things:

1 - Froome's strength
2 - His rivals' weakness 

I think its more down to 2) to be honest since Quintana arguably went too early again, and 1' 23" into Nieve? 1' 43' into Fuglsang? are those really indications of doping.

A lot of people seem to look at the headlines like "Froome beats Contador by X-amount" and form their judgement based on that, but you have to have a context for Contador's performance before you use it as a baseline for Froome.. and the context for Contador's performance shows that its pretty average. So deciding Froome is doping based on comparison to an average performance doesn't really make sense.

If Contador and the other GC riders were performing exceptionally well, and Froome was still consistently beating them by big time gaps then that would be more concerning.


----------



## Wookiebiker

cda 455 said:


> About 1989-1990 would be when EPO first showed up. By about 1993/4 is when EPO was used pretty much throughout the entire peloton. That's why I use 1993 as a time frame for looking at doping.


There has been discussion about EPO showing up as early as late 1988 and in full on use by the large majority of the peloton in 1990.

Even before that you still had blood packing for big stages, steroids and other various drugs that could be used to greatly increase performance both in training and racing. Blood packing became a big part of Armstrong's routine through his 7 tour wins and is quite effective if done properly.

The reality for a more or less "Clean" peloton you need to go back into the 70's, maybe 60's since blood packing has been around since the mid to late 60's.

So ... at this point, we really have "Zero" idea what a really clean peloton looks like which makes judging performances very, very hard.


----------



## cda 455

Wookiebiker said:


> There has been discussion about EPO showing up as early as late 1988 and in full on use by the large majority of the peloton in 1990.
> 
> Even before that you still had blood packing for big stages, steroids and other various drugs that could be used to greatly increase performance both in training and racing. Blood packing became a big part of Armstrong's routine through his 7 tour wins and is quite effective if done properly.
> 
> The reality for a more or less "Clean" peloton you need to go back into the 70's, maybe 60's since blood packing has been around since the mid to late 60's.
> 
> So ... at this point, we really have "Zero" idea what a really clean peloton looks like which makes judging performances very, very hard.



Was blood packing, by itself, as big a game changer as EPO was/is?


----------



## Local Hero

aclinjury said:


> to go from placing 2nd to a rival or group of rivals


Froome placed second to Wiggans last year. Wiggans and Froome are teammates, not rivals. 

LOL

How many times are you going to post things that are just _wrong_?


----------



## Local Hero

bbrrxx said:


> That's almost like saying the Bolt isn't on anything... lol. When you go from running 10 secs+ to 9.5x in a couple years. YOU'RE ON SOME GOOD STUFF!!! I think the stuff that Bolt is on is so expensive $$ that he only uses it for the big competitions. It's typical of him to post medicore times during the season... then when the Olympics comes around he hits the blazing times for all the prize money and fame.


That's not how it works for sprinting. 

With cycling we see riders doping up--raising their red blood cell count--for big events. We know that endurance athletes can pack blood cells or dope with EPO prior to important events to boost their performance. This doesn't work in sprinting, as it's more of a strength event. It is not endurance and not as influenced by RBC. Sprinting is based on muscle strength.

That said, with sprinters what matters is strength. So what exactly is it that you think sprinters take to quickly and temporarily boost their muscular strength?


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> That's not how it works for sprinting.
> 
> With cycling we see riders doping up--raising their red blood cell count--for big events. We know that endurance athletes can pack blood cells or dope with EPO prior to important events to boost their performance. This doesn't work in sprinting, as it's more of a strength event. It is not endurance and not as influenced by RBC. Sprinting is based on muscle strength.
> 
> That said, with sprinters what matters is strength. So what exactly is it that you think sprinters take to quickly and temporarily boost their muscular strength?


Umh. There's an oxygen component to sprinting...


----------



## Cableguy

To those pointing out how Froome finished 2nd in last year's Tour, and had to actually hold back not to drop Wiggins on climbs, as evidence that he didn't improve that dramatically from last year...

Yeah his magnificant improvement began closer to *that* time, more specifically since the 2011 Vuelta.


----------



## roddjbrown

Cableguy said:


> To those pointing out how Froome finished 2nd in last year's Tour, and had to actually hold back not to drop Wiggins on climbs, as evidence that he didn't improve that dramatically from last year...
> 
> Yeah his magnificant improvement began closer to *that* time, more specifically since the 2011 Vuelta.


Nobody is disputing that. The quote was:

"Up until 6-10 months ago, he was a good climber, but there was absolutely zero indication that he would be able to blitz the world's best 6 months later."


----------



## aclinjury

Local Hero said:


> Froome placed second to Wiggans last year. Wiggans and Froome are teammates, not rivals.
> 
> LOL
> 
> How many times are you going to post things that are just _wrong_?


I used the word "rival" in a broad sense and with the common sense that most folks would understand "rival" as a opponent on another team competing against you. Surely Froome has other rivals because he did races with other teams and without Wiggin. But somehow you chose to define rival in the most limited scope possible and said I'm wrong. Knitpicking your way online is fine, but are you like this with your wife/gf too at home dude??


----------



## r1lee

Chris Froome's data has been released, well sort of.

Team Sky releases Chris Froome's data in bid to combat doping claims | Sport | guardian.co.uk


----------



## aclinjury

bbrrxx said:


> That's almost like saying the Bolt isn't on anything... lol. When you go from running 10 secs+ to 9.5x in a couple years. YOU'RE ON SOME GOOD STUFF!!! I think the stuff that Bolt is on is so expensive $$ that he only uses it for the big competitions. It's typical of him to post medicore times during the season... then when the Olympics comes around he hits the blazing times for all the prize money and fame.


No that's not saying Bolt isn't on anything. I just don't want to start speculating on Bolt in here. But now that you speculated on Bolt, I'll play. I think his performance is amazing, and if it was Assafa or Gay going from sub-10 to 9.5-9.6, then I'd say they doping. Reason is this. Tyson is a training freak. He's US, he has access to the best training, and at his age, he's pretty much top out. Asafa is also top out but mainly due to his age, and accumulated injuries. Bolt, now I'm still suspicous of him taking PEDs, but he is young, and his training is that of a lazy athlete, talented but lazy (think Lawrence Taylor, Daryl Strawberry, gifted but lazy).. so because of his youth and past laziness (undiscipline), I give him some benefit of doubt of him now tapping his untapped potential. The other factor is Bolt came to the sport relatively late, so it makes him kinda like a late bloomer (which is also rare). But this is not to say I think he is 100% clean.

But I think another factor that favors Bolt is anatomy. He simply has huge strides. He would lose out the first 50m and only starts to pull away in the last 50m. They say that Bolt's top speed is not always the fastest of the bunch (but it is fast no doubt about it), and that he is actually very slow out of the block in the first 30m, but the difference is that once Bolt hits the last 50m segment, he is able to still main his speed while others start to fade, and they think this is partly due to his anatomy.


----------



## aclinjury

stevesbike said:


> his margin of victory over Nibali last year: ~3 minutes. Next closest was 7 minutes down. The margins aren't different this year (Nibali isn't doing the Tour) and the course is more suited to Froome this year and he doesn't have to climb with Wiggins this year. He climbed the same way in the 2011 Vuelta. Again, more hype than reality in these doping allegations.


He may climb the same way in 2011 and even in 2012 Vuelta. The difference to my eyes is the intensity, and I personally think he still has maybe 5%-6% more in the tank judging by how he is pulling away seated. The past dopers like Lance, Pantani, was never able to pull away on a seated power climb like that. Perhaps it's the Sky technique. Time will tell if this was reality or hype.


----------



## stevesbike

watch his attack on Cobo at the 2011 Vuelta - a much steeper climb. His power data for 2 years was released and examined. Says the same thing - consistent performances over 2 years. 



aclinjury said:


> He may climb the same way in 2011 and even in 2012 Vuelta. The difference to my eyes is the intensity, and I personally think he still has maybe 5%-6% more in the tank judging by how he is pulling away seated. The past dopers like Lance, Pantani, was never able to pull away on a seated power climb like that. Perhaps it's the Sky technique. Time will tell if this was reality or hype.


----------



## mikerp

cda 455 said:


> Disclaimer: Speculation on my part!
> 
> Like I said in another poast; I think Sky leadership is probably a little angry with Froome's Mt. Ventoux performance display.
> 
> 
> Froome's performance the 10km up Mt Ventoux looked downright ridiculous. I think Froome couldn't help himself from publicly humiliating his rivals (Payback, if you will) as a result from what went down on stage 13.
> 
> I really think Sky's leadership wanted to keep it low key to help minimize suspicion and now Froome has totally torpedoed that!
> 
> I believe once the peloton reaches Paris and Froome wins the TDF suspicion, speculation, and doubts are only going to get bigger and relentless.


I'd call it ingenious/physiologically crushing.
Bottom line it worked, he dug deep, put out an effort and the rest gave up.


----------



## Cableguy

stevesbike said:


> watch the stage and look at the flags on the side of the road - there was a big tailwind most of the day. Alex Simmons (who posts here quite a bit) has a blog covering errors in wind estimates:
> 
> Alex's Cycle Blog: Windbags
> 
> you can read veloclinic if you want to see the estimates and models that are used (which are not validated models) here:
> 
> 2013 TDF Ventoux DpVAM / DpW/kg : And They Stay There ? veloclinic
> 
> He estimated Froome's Ventoux performance at: 5.87-5.98 w/kg.


I'm unable to view the Veloclinic link that substantiates 5.87-5.98 w/kg, but it is interesting how you first reference an article explaining how wind makes power estimation a nightmare, then your next link has... a power estimation, and I'm guessing it corroborates with your belief in whether Froome is doping or not? What assumptions did the Veloclinic make on the wind to arrive at 5.87-5.98? Does that include the whole climb?


----------



## Cableguy

ALIHISGREAT said:


> I will confess that I ride the same climbs frequently and use Strava to time myself and compare my form.. but you can't look at one time in isolation due to the variables involved.


Oh my what a confession! 

I'm surprised you use time to judge your form considering you had the following to say about the entirely non-isolated list of times for Ventoux,



ALIHISGREAT said:


> Time essentially means nothing since if Froome had a raging tailwind and Lance had a blustery headwind, then its entirely possible you will get close to his time with much less power.


If there had been a blustery headwind when Lance climbed it I'm pretty sure he would not have set the best time that day.


----------



## albert owen

What is Froome on?
A Pinarello, that's what.
Ask a stupid question etc.,......................


----------



## stevesbike

I referenced veloclinic because it's one of the sources that's getting a lot of coverage about power estimates and doping (the NYT had a story on it today). The issue of estimation error is a big one on the blogs this Tour - Alex Simmons, Allen Hunter, A. Coggan etc. are all strong critics of the approach. Given that, it's noteworthy that even the high end of the estimates - 5.98 - is what was taken as a sign that cycling was cleaning up a few years ago. You'll have to access the veloclinic site for details. There are a number of models used and the details are too long to get into here. Bottom line: Froome's performance is impressive but not physiologically implausible. 



Cableguy said:


> I'm unable to view the Veloclinic link that substantiates 5.87-5.98 w/kg, but it is interesting how you first reference an article explaining how wind makes power estimation a nightmare, then your next link has... a power estimation, and I'm guessing it corroborates with your belief in whether Froome is doping or not? What assumptions did the Veloclinic make on the wind to arrive at 5.87-5.98? Does that include the whole climb?


----------



## Cableguy

roddjbrown said:


> Nobody is disputing that. The quote was:
> 
> "Up until 6-10 months ago, he was a good climber, but there was absolutely zero indication that he would be able to blitz the world's best 6 months later."


Yeah but that quote would seem to imply his "big improvement" was 6-10 months ago, but his biggest improvement was more like 2-3 years ago. This year he seems to be even faster, but the suspicious part is how did the dots connect beforehand.


----------



## Cableguy

stevesbike said:


> Given that, it's noteworthy that even the high end of the estimates - 5.98 - is what was taken as a sign that cycling was cleaning up a few years ago.


I'm curious what the "best case" scenario is considered to be to arrive at the 5.98 figure, and whether this is for the whole climb. The best case scenario still might assume some type of tailwind, I don't know. If it was for the whole climb iteslf, a 5.98 would be extremely impressive because it's obvious Froome was holding back for the majority of the climb in the paceline with the others.


----------



## DrSmile

aclinjury said:


> No that's not saying Bolt isn't on anything. I just don't want to start speculating on Bolt in here. But now that you speculated on Bolt, I'll play. I think his performance is amazing, and if it was Assafa or Gay going from sub-10 to 9.5-9.6, then I'd say they doping. Reason is this. Tyson is a training freak. He's US, he has access to the best training, and at his age, he's pretty much top out. Asafa is also top out but mainly due to his age, and accumulated injuries. Bolt, now I'm still suspicous of him taking PEDs, but he is young, and his training is that of a lazy athlete, talented but lazy (think Lawrence Taylor, Daryl Strawberry, gifted but lazy).. so because of his youth and past laziness (undiscipline), I give him some benefit of doubt of him now tapping his untapped potential. The other factor is Bolt came to the sport relatively late, so it makes him kinda like a late bloomer (which is also rare). But this is not to say I think he is 100% clean.
> 
> But I think another factor that favors Bolt is anatomy. He simply has huge strides. He would lose out the first 50m and only starts to pull away in the last 50m. They say that Bolt's top speed is not always the fastest of the bunch (but it is fast no doubt about it), and that he is actually very slow out of the block in the first 30m, but the difference is that once Bolt hits the last 50m segment, he is able to still main his speed while others start to fade, and they think this is partly due to his anatomy.


I assume you're aware of the BALCO angle and Angel Guillermo “Memo” Heredia, aka Angel Hernandez?


----------



## roddjbrown

Cableguy said:


> Yeah but that quote would seem to imply his "big improvement" was 6-10 months ago, but his biggest improvement was more like 2-3 years ago. This year he seems to be even faster, but the suspicious part is how did the dots connect beforehand.


I think you've misunderstood. I agree, the quote is b*llocks as Froome had a hell of a palmares 6-10 months ago. My point is that is why people are referencing his performance being consistent with last year. Clearly that is not when the magical performance improvement occurred


----------



## anotherguy

stevesbike said:


> His power data for 2 years was released and examined. Says the same thing - consistent performances over 2 years.


To play devils advocate...I wouldn't say it was released as much as it was given to l'Equipe, which is owned by the same company that own Le Tour, who would presumably have a vested interest in selling the story of a clean race this year.


----------



## anotherguy

To argue against my previous post a bit. If they released the actual data, no matter what people would likely still be claiming doping. Without a known clean control group, the data is meaningless.


----------



## Cableguy

anotherguy said:


> To argue against my previous post a bit. If they released the actual data, no matter what people would likely still be claiming doping. Without a known clean control group, the data is meaningless.


I'm sure whatever power data Froome has it is impressive and there would always be people who would glance at it and think, "Wow... that's a lot, he must cheat" but I'm sure the cycling community, including experts who are not with L'Equipe, would analyze it closely and reach some well thought out conclusions. Don't really buy it, just sounds like an excuse.


----------



## anotherguy

I agree that a lot of people would absolutely understand what they were looking at and be able to fairly and reasonably judge the data. That doesn't stop the naysayers from naysaying though. 

It does beg the question though, what rider can you point to with comparable times up the same climbs, since power meters showed up in the peloton, who you absolutely know is clean as a basis for comparison?


----------



## Wookiebiker

cda 455 said:


> Was blood packing, by itself, as big a game changer as EPO was/is?


It wasn't as big ... but it was a game changer. The big thing is people forget that it has been around since the 60's so they give people passes and call the doping era starting with EPO, when the reality it was much, much earlier.

EPO made it easier to dope (thus better for the masses) because you didn't have to draw blood early in the season, store it, then reinsert it during a tour or just before a big one day race ... it had a higher risk of getting a rider caught with a needle in their arm than EPO did/does.


----------



## bluelena69

Froome is not the anorexic beanpole some make him out to be. Sure, he is rail thin, with shoulders the width of my 8 year olds. However look closely at his hips and thighs and he looks to be absolutely packed with plenty of the power one would expect of such a top level pro


----------



## Wookiebiker

bluelena69 said:


> Froome is not the anorexic beanpole some make him out to be. Sure, he is rail thin, with shoulders the width of my 8 year olds. However look closely at his hips and thighs and he looks to be absolutely packed with plenty of the power one would expect of such a top level pro


I still say he stepped off the "Mothership" not long ago ... though he did get a little bit of a tan from all the riding and is wearing a wig these days so he fit's in with the human race a little better:

View attachment 284437


----------



## Local Hero

aclinjury said:


> I used the word "rival" in a broad sense and with the common sense that most folks would understand "rival" as a opponent on another team competing against you. Surely Froome has other rivals because he did races with other teams and without Wiggin. But somehow you chose to define rival in the most limited scope possible and said I'm wrong. Knitpicking your way online is fine, but are you like this with your wife/gf too at home dude??


Froome lost to a teammate last year, not a rival. 

He probably could have defeated Wiggans last year. 

To say that Froome lost to a rival -- or that Froome never showed TdF potential 6-10 months ago -- is flat out wrong. 



> Knitpicking your way online is fine, but are you like this with your wife/gf too at home dude??


You're the one writing idiotic things. Don't try to make this about me and my love life. Don't get mad at me for pointing out your blatant errors.


----------



## bbrrxx

the guy looked somewhat human on Alp d'huez. Richie porte had better legs than him ?!? weird.


----------



## Ridin'Sorra

stevesbike said:


> There was a ton of twitter excitement about his Ventoux performance and then the power estimates came out and they didn't support all the hype. It was a fast time because the conditions were favorable, but the watts/kg were below 6.


What about the power readings were tampered? A little change of calibration here and there and you can be on whatever power you want.

Even if the company making the power meters has control over them, Sky could have found ways to tamper with them.

Who knows... it's all speculations. I'd like to think they are riding clean until proven otherwise. Froome has had amazing performances, but if you ask me, the one doped to the gills is Porte.

When on earth was Porte supposed to outclimb the likes of Froome and Contador?
After pulling Froome for like 16 stages flat or climb?


----------



## AJL

bbrrxx said:


> the guy looked somewhat human on Alp d'huez. Richie porte had better legs than him ?!? weird.


He was bonking. If Porte hadn't gone back for that energy bar (probably something high in sugar) Froome probably would have cracked. There should have been a fine for that (and a time penalty, but technically Porte is the one who'd get nailed), but I haven't watched today's stage yet so I'm avoiding Pro-Cycling and news sites.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

bbrrxx said:


> the guy looked somewhat human on Alp d'huez. Richie porte had better legs than him ?!? weird.


Porte soft-pedalled round the TT on the previous day so he was far fresher than Froome.


----------



## r1lee

Ridin'Sorra said:


> Who knows... it's all speculations. *I'd like to think they are riding clean until proven otherwise*. Froome has had amazing performances, but if you ask me, the one doped to the gills is Porte.


and that's the problem here, not with you but with basically everyone. I personally think everyone is doping, since it seems to be the norm in all sports. View sporting events as entertainment and you'll never think about who the hell is doping and isn't.


----------



## Big-foot




----------



## SFTifoso

AJL said:


> He was bonking. If Porte hadn't gone back for that energy bar (probably something high in sugar) Froome probably would have cracked. There should have been a fine for that (and a time penalty, but technically Porte is the one who'd get nailed), but I have watched today's stage yet so I'm avoiding Pro-Cycling and news sites.


True. Also, whatever he's on, it definitely isn't as strong and effective as the drugs Armstrong used, but it's still cheating. Even if it improves his performance by only 1% that's a lot when everybody is the red.


----------



## Atty

AJL said:


> He was bonking. If Porte hadn't gone back for that energy bar (probably something high in sugar) Froome probably would have cracked. There should have been a fine for that (and a time penalty, but technically Porte is the one who'd get nailed), but I have watched today's stage yet so I'm avoiding Pro-Cycling and news sites.


They did get a time penalty and the team was fined.


----------



## Atty

aclinjury said:


> He may climb the same way in 2011 and even in 2012 Vuelta. The difference to my eyes is the intensity, and I personally think he still has maybe 5%-6% more in the tank judging by how he is pulling away seated. The past dopers like Lance, Pantani, was never able to pull away on a seated power climb like that. Perhaps it's the Sky technique. Time will tell if this was reality or hype.


Wow....you are amazing!! You can tell that he still has (a very specific) 5 - 6% in the tank just by watching him on TV. You are wasted on t'internet.


----------

