# Aww, Froome is all butthurt that the media doesn't believe him:



## robdamanii

Froome calls out 'irresponsible' Tour de France reporting | Cyclingnews.com

And calling the science that Ross Tucker and Vayer are doing right now "pseudoscience" and calling them "irresponsible fools" doesn't help your case, Mrs. Froome. 

Many of the quotes in that article remind me of things a certain testicular cyclops used to say about 10-15 years ago.

I can't wait until he AND Sky get busted. It'll be a wonderful day for cycling to expose the truth of the "marginal gains" bullsh*t.


----------



## Ventruck

"evry1 h8s me =["

woe is Froome. Lance Classtrong was trying take responsibility for everyone hating Froome, and all that tool has to say is that his charity ride is a "non-event" and letting his team pile on him.


----------



## spade2you

robdamanii said:


> I can't wait until he AND Sky get busted. It'll be a wonderful day for cycling to expose the truth of the "marginal gains" bullsh*t.


The cynic in me doesn't think Sky will get busted. The SNAFU of US Postal taught teams what not to do. They're going to be much more discreet and riders will keep their mouths shut.


----------



## Retro Grouch

It is truly sad that the spectere of doping has made any achievement in the sport of professional cycling suspect.


----------



## stevesbike

robdamanii said:


> Froome calls out 'irresponsible' Tour de France reporting | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> And calling the science that Ross Tucker and Vayer are doing right now "pseudoscience" and calling them "irresponsible fools" doesn't help your case, Mrs. Froome.
> 
> Many of the quotes in that article remind me of things a certain testicular cyclops used to say about 10-15 years ago.
> 
> I can't wait until he AND Sky get busted. It'll be a wonderful day for cycling to expose the truth of the "marginal gains" bullsh*t.


people who actually understand the science Tucker is pushing know that it doesn't provide any evidence of doping for individuals. For one, the random error is simply too high. That's established by a peer-reviewed paper. For another, even assuming they are not imprecise, the estimates at this year's tour for Froome are not implausible. Swart showed that for stage 10 - the one Tucker wrote about.


----------



## olr1

I think he's all 'butthurt' because people are throwing piss in his face, which seems a reasonable attitude to take.


----------



## Marc

Retro Grouch said:


> It is truly sad that the spectere of doping has made any achievement in the sport of professional cycling suspect.


We have reason to be cynical.

How many top finishers on the GC of this millennium did NOT get popped for doping at some time this millennium? As a bonus round question, how many of those popped for doping came out and admitted it immediately: and how many claimed innocence for years only to fess up after their fame and fortune were gone?




olr1 said:


> I think he's all 'butthurt' because people are throwing piss in his face, which seems a reasonable attitude to take.


Actually, Froome's been quoting the Lance Armstrong playbook for a long while regarding people questioning his "unbelievable" (to quote Christian VdV) performances. Urine or no urine to the face.


----------



## ibericb

stevesbike said:


> people who actually understand the science Tucker is pushing know that it doesn't provide any evidence of doping for individuals. For one, the random error is simply too high. That's established by a peer-reviewed paper. For another, even assuming they are not imprecise, the estimates at this year's tour for Froome are not implausible. Swart showed that for stage 10 - the one Tucker wrote about.


Prexactly !



Marc said:


> We have reason to be cynical.


Yes we do. But we also have reason to be hopeful that Froome is for real. It's quite possible that Froome is genetically gifted, and together with Team Sky they have figured out the combination of training, nutrition and recovery that allows Froome (and probably others on the team) to better optimize their performance relative to their own potential. It may be that Froome just has appreciably more potential to begin with, and is better optimized and supported in the course of the race than others.

That others who preceded him gave us ample reason to be suspicious and cynical is not sound reason to condemn Froome or Sky when he excels. It very reasonable that he is the real thing.


----------



## David Loving

The triumph of hope over experience.


----------



## Marc

ibericb said:


> Prexactly !
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we do. But we also have reason to be hopeful that Froome is for real. It's quite possible that Froome is genetically gifted, and together with Team Sky they have figured out the combination of training, nutrition and recovery that allows Froome (and probably others on the team) to better optimize their performance relative to their own potential. It may be that Froome just has appreciably more potential to begin with, and is better optimized and supported in the course of the race than others.
> 
> That others who preceded him gave us ample reason to be suspicious and cynical is not sound reason to condemn Froome or Sky when he excels. It very reasonable that he is the real thing.


I like to believe in Santa Claus too.

OTOH, I live in the real world...and every single time someone has showed up in the UCI peloton looking "genetically gifted", completely dominant over all his rivals who can't attack him or barely even keep up with him on a measly Cat 2 mountain it turned out that he just had a really good pharmacist.

Here's a fun fact...all the riders who ascended rapidly to dominance on Team Sky and then went to other teams...guess what....faded and quickly became has-beens. You'd think if it was training or nutrition or recovery, those riders would have learned it and kept it.


----------



## ibericb

Marc said:


> ... You'd think if it was training or nutrition or recovery, those riders would have learned it and kept it.


Not on another team. All of that changes.


----------



## robdamanii

Marc said:


> I like to believe in Santa Claus too.
> 
> OTOH, I live in the real world...and every single time someone has showed up in the UCI peloton looking "genetically gifted", completely dominant over all his rivals who can't attack him or barely even keep up with him on a measly Cat 2 mountain it turned out that he just had a really good pharmacist.
> 
> Here's a fun fact...all the riders who ascended rapidly to dominance on Team Sky and then went to other teams...guess what....faded and quickly became has-beens. You'd think if it was training or nutrition or recovery, those riders would have learned it and kept it.


Second interesting fact: the two biggest "offenders" of this Tour are both ex-Barloworld riders. A team which left the Tour and lost it's sponsor because of doping issues.

Nope, no reason to be suspicious at all. 

Sounds much like Captain Renault: "I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find out there's GAMBLING going on in here!"



ibericb said:


> Not on another team. All of that changes.


You are completely delusional if you think Sky is doing something special the rest of the teams in pro cycling aren't. Well, I take that back: they're doping better. 

I'm sure hiring Leinders had nothing to do with it. Team camps in Tenerife have nothing to do with it. Et al.


----------



## Marc

ibericb said:


> Not on another team. All of that changes.


Because when a less-winning team snipes a top-rider from a supremely-dominant-team...the last thing you'd ever consider doing is tearing apart that rider's brain for every factoid of what their former winning employer did, in order to replicate their winning streak.

Hate to break it to you but unicorns, mermaids, riders of Nazgul, Smurfs, talking ducks and rabbits, and so on are all imaginary.


----------



## ibericb

Marc said:


> Hate to break it to you but unicorns, mermaids, riders of Nazgul, Smurfs, talking ducks and rabbits, and so on are all imaginary.


You're truly laughable. You must love conspiracy theories, broadly. Here a few facts about belief for you to ponder:

- People who believe in one conspiracy theory are likely to espouse others, even when they are contradictory.

- Conspiracy ideation is also linked with mistrust of science, including well-established
findings.

- Mere exposure to information supporting various fringe explanations can erode engagement in societal discourse.​
Enjoy yourself, and your belief.


----------



## Marc

ibericb said:


> You're truly laughable. You must love conspiracy theories, broadly. Here a few facts about belief for you to ponder:
> - People who believe in one conspiracy theory are likely to espouse others, even when they are contradictory.
> 
> - Conspiracy ideation is also linked with mistrust of science, including well-established
> findings.
> 
> - Mere exposure to information supporting various fringe explanations can erode engagement in societal discourse.​
> Enjoy yourself, and your belief.


Says the one willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt when every single fact says he shouldn't.

I suppose you're happy, if foolishly trusting, at least there's that. Would you like to buy a bridge?


----------



## Local Hero

I wonder what a clean athlete would say when faced with accusations?


----------



## love4himies

Local Hero said:


> I wonder what a clean athlete would say when faced with accusations?


Exact same thing as a doping one.


----------



## spade2you

robdamanii said:


> Second interesting fact: the two biggest "offenders" of this Tour are both ex-Barloworld riders. A team which left the Tour and lost it's sponsor because of doping issues.


Forgot that G was on Barloworld. I used to have a corgi named Barlow and still have a Bianchi.


----------



## Marc

Local Hero said:


> I wonder what a clean athlete would say when faced with accusations?


Something like these:

Quotes About Doping (12 quotes)


----------



## stevesbike

Marc said:


> Says the one willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt when every single fact says he shouldn't.
> 
> I suppose you're happy, if foolishly trusting, at least there's that. Would you like to buy a bridge?


it's not about giving anyone the benefit of the doubt; it's about whether there's specific evidence to support the claim that Froome is doping. The correct answer is, who knows? His performance could plausibly be the result of excellent preparation plus being a genetic outlier (which almost certainly is true) or that he's doping. Claiming he's doping because riders in the past were is a weak inductive argument. Certainly the claims like on cyclingnews forum that his bike has a bluetooth-controlled motor that the team car operates remotely and then arguing for pages about the effective range of a bluetooth signal is tinfoil hat craziness.

What's revealing to me is how little attention has been paid to the performance of other riders. Nibali has been far under-performing based on last year (which was higher than Froome's 2013 level), Contador is performing poorly, which could plausibly be explained by the Giro, Quintana is getting stronger and will likely be better than Froome in the alps. I think it says alot that Gesnik was 4th on stage 10 - the real story isn't a superhuman Froome (who is at his 2013 level) but a relatively weak performance by the other GC riders so far.


----------



## spade2you

One can't forget that Armstrong had plenty of possible reasons that other riders were doing so poorly. Off the top of my head, in 1999 Pantani had been busted and did not start, Jan was injured and did not start, Zulle was now clean and towards the end of his career, Jullich crashed out, etc. Even Pantani's '98 TdF win could be due to the fact that Jan was out of shape and so many riders were busted or quit.


----------



## Marc

stevesbike said:


> it's not about giving anyone the benefit of the doubt; it's about whether there's specific evidence to support the claim that Froome is doping. The correct answer is, who knows? His performance could plausibly be the result of excellent preparation plus being a genetic outlier (which almost certainly is true) or that he's doping. Claiming he's doping because riders in the past were is a weak inductive argument. Certainly the claims like on cyclingnews forum that his bike has a bluetooth-controlled motor that the team car operates remotely and then arguing for pages about the effective range of a bluetooth signal is tinfoil hat craziness.
> 
> What's revealing to me is how little attention has been paid to the performance of other riders. Nibali has been far under-performing based on last year (which was higher than Froome's 2013 level), Contador is performing poorly, which could plausibly be explained by the Giro, Quintana is getting stronger and will likely be better than Froome in the alps. I think it says alot that Gesnik was 4th on stage 10 - the real story isn't a superhuman Froome (who is at his 2013 level) but a relatively weak performance by the other GC riders so far.


Either Froome is superhuman thanks to the Sky pharmacist, or the competition was tired out before the race even started. Or both.

That the competition can't even keep Froome's wheel on Cat 2 Pyrenees mountains should set off alarms...hell Quintana for "getting stronger" still can't attack Froome enough to even gain a seconds separation. Even Froome's Sky teammates (most of whom weren't that remarkable as climbers) are able to dump the competition when the road pitches up.


----------



## goodboyr

Remember that earlier in his career he was a mediocre level cyclist that "suddenly" achieved spectacular results. That doesn't support the genetic outlier theory.


----------



## robdamanii

ASO calculating 7 W/Kg. Presumably on a different rider weight:

Un reportage qui accable (encore) Froome - 7SUR7.be


----------



## PBL450

ibericb said:


> Prexactly !
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we do. But we also have reason to be hopeful that Froome is for real. It's quite possible that Froome is genetically gifted, and together with Team Sky they have figured out the combination of training, nutrition and recovery that allows Froome (and probably others on the team) to better optimize their performance relative to their own potential. It may be that Froome just has appreciably more potential to begin with, and is better optimized and supported in the course of the race than others.
> 
> That others who preceded him gave us ample reason to be suspicious and cynical is not sound reason to condemn Froome or Sky when he excels. It very reasonable that he is the real thing.


"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to ibericb again."


----------



## ibericb

Marc said:


> Says the one willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt when every single fact says he shouldn't.


I have yet to see any credible fact that indicates doping on Froome's part. Your only argument thus far has been a series of references to your disbelief in fictitious characters. That's hardly fact.


----------



## SwiftSolo

Just to be sure I understand what drives you and the others, has there ever been an athlete in any sport who excelled who wasn't on the juice?


Marc said:


> Says the one willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt when every single fact says he shouldn't.
> 
> I suppose you're happy, if foolishly trusting, at least there's that. Would you like to buy a bridge?


----------



## ibericb

SwiftSolo said:


> Just to be sure I understand what drives you and the others, has there ever been an athlete in any sport who excelled who wasn't on the juice?


We'll neer really know, will we ?


----------



## Marc

ibericb said:


> I have yet to see any credible fact that indicates doping on Froome's part. Your only argument thus far has been a series of references to your disbelief in fictitious characters. That's hardly fact.


Most of the top-10 GC on TdF of this millennium have been pinged for doping sooner or later, or admitted it. Of the 160 men to finish in the top-10, 2/3 of them have been found to have doped later. That includes Valverde who got caught in Operacion Puerto and Contador getting caught. Does not include Cadel Evans who was a documented client of Ferarri

Fact, Froome and his Sky _domestiques _are putting out efforts than just about none of the other teams can even keep up with


This thread is about Froome being butthurt that the media doesn't give him a pass and believe him. Well, there's no reason to believe him. The GC in the grand tours has been doped to the gills for years. Is his honest opinion really that his competition sucks so badly that even his domestiques can pass them? Why on Earth shouldn't they be asking questions?



SwiftSolo said:


> Just to be sure I understand what drives you and the others, has there ever been an athlete in any sport who excelled who wasn't on the juice?


In cycling in the GC of the TdF...not many. Most of the 60/160 not pinged are very recent-all bet money future testing will ping them.


----------



## SwiftSolo

It's a sad way to go through life. To accept that everyone who excels does so by cheating ensures a life of mediocrity. It destroys motivation and enthusiasm. I feel genuine sympathy for those with such a pathetic outlook. I feel even worse for the employers and family of such individuals.

This is not to imply that there is no room for skepticism, however, those who have certainty about the answer without first suffering the inconvenience of hearing/seeing evidence are a dangerous mob.


ibericb said:


> We'll neer really know, will we ?


----------



## Marc

SwiftSolo said:


> It's a sad way to go through life. To accept that everyone who excels does so by cheating ensures a life of mediocrity. It destroys motivation and enthusiasm. I feel genuine sympathy for those with such a pathetic outlook. I feel even worse for the employers and family of such individuals.
> 
> This is not to imply that there is no room for skepticism, however, those who have certainty about the answer without first suffering the inconvenience of hearing/seeing evidence are a dangerous mob.


Professor at the University in my town was fired recently.

Rumors surfaced of him at a students apartment. social media came up. And his @$$ was out the door, actually took a really long time as such things go (several months and he was still teaching). Didn't break the law IIRC, but certainly crossed a bunch of ethical boundaries and institutional regs.

Well. He's done teaching. Permanently. Blacklisted, a pile of degrees and debt in a field that will no longer employ him. Seemed a decent bird on the clock. Couldn't keep it in his pants.



These guys, they're just cyclists. They're not f*ng Mother Theresa, they're not teachers....the most that can be said is they have amazing legs and motivated the rest of us to wride our bikes more. They're entertainers, as much as the Roman Gladiators.


----------



## asgelle

Marc said:


> Fact, Froome and his Sky _domestiques _are putting out efforts than just about none of the other teams can even keep up with


Just curious, have you read Jonathan Vaughters on recruiting and retaining talent?


----------



## ibericb

Maybe Froome is doped to the gills, and has figured out how to get away with it. Armstrong pulled it off until, well after the fact, a whole long line of people decided to tell the story. That's the only way he got nailed. Could Froome be another? Sure. But he could just as probably be an exception. There is nothing seen that sways the probability one way or the other. You've provided nothing of merit to show he isn't. That's the point.

Got facts? Bring 'em. Until then you're running on a suspicion, and a conspiracy theory, and nothing more. 

Enjoy your beliefs.


----------



## asgelle

SwiftSolo said:


> It's a sad way to go through life. To accept that everyone who excels does so by cheating ensures a life of mediocrity. It destroys motivation and enthusiasm. I feel genuine sympathy for those with such a pathetic outlook. I feel even worse for the employers and family of such individuals.


I believe the words you're looking for are, 
"But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. But this is one hell of a race. This is a great sporting event and you should stand around and believe it. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it."


----------



## Marc

asgelle said:


> Just curious, have you read Jonathan Vaughters on recruiting and retaining talent?


What is more funny is how that talent seems to disappear as soon as a rider leaves Sky



ibericb said:


> Maybe Froome is doped to the gills, and has figured out how to get away with it. Armstrong pulled it off until, well after the fact, a whole long line of people decided to tell the story. That's the only way he got nailed. Could Froome be another? Sure. But he could just as probably be an exception. There is nothing seen that sways the probability one way or the other. You've provided nothing of merit to show he isn't. That's the point.
> 
> Got facts? Bring 'em. Until then you're running on a suspicion, and a conspiracy theory, and nothing more.
> 
> Enjoy your beliefs.


Nothing to sway the probabilites than the majority of the last 16 top-10-GC TdFs being caught doping. BTW Armstrong has admitted to doping. It took the whole world telling him "we know hoss" to get him to shatter his own delusions. The last 20 years of cycling have shown that "unbelievable efforts" (To quote convicted ex-doper/cyclist Christian VdV) tend to always be just exactly that.

Sooner or later Sky will get dinged. Is it a "suspicion"? Sure? Is it beyond reasonable doubt? Not at all. Journalists are doing what they should, asking questions. Journalists not asking questions is why things like the Iraq war happened.


----------



## robdamanii

ibericb said:


> Maybe Froome is doped to the gills, and has figured out how to get away with it. Armstrong pulled it off until, well after the fact, a whole long line of people decided to tell the story. That's the only way he got nailed. Could Froome be another? Sure. But he could just as probably be an exception. *There is nothing seen that sways the probability one way or the other.* You've provided nothing of merit to show he isn't. That's the point.
> 
> Got facts? Bring 'em. Until then you're running on a suspicion, and a conspiracy theory, and nothing more.
> 
> Enjoy your beliefs.


The past is a great indicator of the probability of Froome being dirty. Just like Nibali last year.

You don't believe history repeats itself I guess. Or you believe the crap out there about a "clean peloton." Even Vaughters, who DOES believe in a cleaner peloton is puzzled by "Mr. Skeleton Humping A Bicycle."


----------



## asgelle

Marc said:


> Journalists are doing what they should, asking questions. Journalists not asking questions is why things like the Iraq war happened.


Journalists should ask questions, but there's a difference between investigating a story to learn the truth and repeating unfounded suspicions and asking those involved for comments. Having raised suspicions, I see on one in the press moving the story forward to find the truth.

For those who think things are suspicious, great;we get it. Now tell me how to resolve those suspicions one way or another; and no, raising more questions does not resolve the truth one way or another.


----------



## yogidabear

He's so physically gifted for this sport that he has asthma. I hope he's not cheating, but his performance and his trammates' performances are suspicious. And, as others have noted, his former teammates never seem to reach the same level once they leave Sky. Pro cycling remains a sad sport.


----------



## asgelle

yogidabear said:


> And, as others have noted, his former teammates never seem to reach the same level once they leave Sky. Pro cycling remains a sad sport.


Noted, but no names provided, so how can one say one way or another.

Not that it matters. Even accepting the proposition that every rider who leaves Sky underperforms relative to how they did before, what does that prove? And no, suspicion is not the same as proof.


----------



## asdf1234

robdamanii said:


> You are completely delusional if you think Sky is doing something special the rest of the teams in pro cycling aren't. Well, I take that back: they're doping better.


Totally agree. I think all other teams are micro-dosing and thus all at an even level. Sky seem to be on to something altogether different.

And skepticism isn't based just on Froome's "unbelievable" performances. I can even buy that he could possible be a genetic freak. Even though that type of talent tends to manifest itself from early on in an athlete's career. But then what are the odds that you have a team stacked with similar genetic freaks. Come on, Porte out-climbs Quintana and "G" out-climbs Contador. Porte crushes LAs time up the Madone. I'd love to see the scientific advances in training and nutrition that allow middling domestiques to beat the best in the world in a few seasons.

Add to that all of Froome's undisclosed TUEs and things don't look good. I imagine Porte will get popped at some point. Froome probably not.


----------



## asgelle

asdf1234 said:


> But then what are the odds that you have a team stacked with similar genetic freaks.


With an unlimited budget? Pretty good.


----------



## PBL450

Marc said:


> I like to believe in Santa Claus too.
> 
> OTOH, I live in the real world...and every single time someone has showed up in the UCI peloton looking "genetically gifted", completely dominant over all his rivals who can't attack him or barely even keep up with him on a measly Cat 2 mountain it turned out that he just had a really good pharmacist.
> 
> Here's a fun fact...all the riders who ascended rapidly to dominance on Team Sky and then went to other teams...guess what....faded and quickly became has-beens. You'd think if it was training or nutrition or recovery, those riders would have learned it and kept it.


Didn't one of them (an ex-Sky guy) get the stage win today? And on a team that didn't offer a lot of support?




Marc said:


> I like to believe in Santa Claus too.





Marc said:


> OTOHYou'd think if it was training or nutrition or recovery, those riders would have learned it and kept it.




Didn't he skip the Giro specifically to recover and train exclusively for TdF? Nutrition I think they all have pretty well down pat...


----------



## robdamanii

PBL450 said:


> Didn't one of them (an ex-Sky guy) get the stage win today? And on a team that didn't offer a lot of support?
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't he skip the Giro specifically to recover and train exclusively for TdF? Nutrition I think they all have pretty well down pat...


Greipel was not a Sky guy. And he has an entire train built around him.


----------



## PBL450

robdamanii said:


> Greipel was not a Sky guy. And he has an entire train built around him.


Right. Sorry. YESTERDAY!


----------



## robdamanii

PBL450 said:


> Right. Sorry. YESTERDAY!


Cummings won from a breakaway. How is that terribly strange? It's not like he shelled Quintana to win on a mountaintop... 

And he hasn't raced for Sky since 2011.


----------



## ibericb

Marc said:


> Is it a "suspicion"? Sure? Is it beyond reasonable doubt? Not at all. Journalists are doing what they should, asking questions.


Clearly, you don't understand reasonable doubt. There is more than reasonable doubt, and at this point there is not one shred of evidence. You're chasing a hypothetical, or caught in a conspiracy theory.


----------



## ibericb

robdamanii said:


> You are completely delusional if you think Sky is doing something special the rest of the teams in pro cycling aren't. Well, I take that back: they're doping better.
> 
> I'm sure hiring Leinders had nothing to do with it. Team camps in Tenerife have nothing to do with it. Et al.


First, every rider presents a unique genetic potential. The key is picking the right ones and then optimizing against that potential as much as legitimately possible. That ability in itself is unique for each team. If you know how to select, and you can pay the price, you can stack the deck for the best. It's not a lot different than horse racing in that regard.

Beyond that each team has it's own seperate battery of experts that it uses, researches it turns to, and confidential research efforts in which it participates for proprietary solutions. If you believe all teams have equal access you're sadly misinformed. This is where money, connections, and confidentiality agreements play a huge role. 

Sky has long history of working with University groups at the forefront of exercise physiology and nutrition, and they are probably doing it differently from other teams. Are they doing it enough differently to gain a legitimate competitive edge? We won't know until any useable technology that might come from that makes it out into the public domain.


----------



## Fireform

Marc said:


> Here's a fun fact...all the riders who ascended rapidly to dominance on Team Sky and then went to other teams...guess what....faded and quickly became has-beens. You'd think if it was training or nutrition or recovery, those riders would have learned it and kept it.


You must be referring to Steve Cummings, Michael Rogers and Mark Cavendish?

Seriously, this is a giant myth. Sky's history is full of guys who had more success with other teams than they did after joining Sky (Boasson Hagen, Dombrowski, Henao, Swift and Uran, to name just a few).


----------



## den bakker

robdamanii said:


> Greipel was not a Sky guy. And he has an entire train built around him.


the train was not the reason the stage ended as it did.


----------



## den bakker

robdamanii said:


> And he hasn't raced for Sky since 2011.


thump 
thump
the sound of goal posts being moved.


----------



## Fireform

I'm not going to say I think the team is clean. I will say, however, that no one has explained how they managed to pull the wool over David Walsh's eyes. Walsh ferreted out the truth about Armstrong long, long before the world was ready to hear about it, and was not the least bit shy about exposing it, and weathering the torrents of legal actions and the public backlash from Lance's fanboi army. So his bona fides in the area are pretty damned solid.

Walsh was embedded with Sky for an extended period and had, by his own and other's accounts, open access to anything and anyone he wanted to see. He certainly knows more about doping and about Team Sky than any of us do, and he says they're clean. 

That gives me pause. If it wasn't for Walsh's reputation, history and his publications about the team, I would be way over on the skeptical end of the spectrum. As it is, I'm in the hopeful middle.


----------



## yogidabear

Fireform said:


> I'm not going to say I think the team is clean. I will say, however, that no one has explained how they managed to pull the wool over David Walsh's eyes. Walsh ferreted out the truth about Armstrong long, long before the world was ready to hear about it, and was not the least bit shy about exposing it, and weathering the torrents of legal actions and the public backlash from Lance's fanboi army. So his bona fides in the area are pretty damned solid.
> 
> Walsh was embedded with Sky for an extended period and had, by his own and other's accounts, open access to anything and anyone he wanted to see. He certainly knows more about doping and about Team Sky than any of us do, and he says they're clean.
> 
> That gives me pause. If it wasn't for Walsh's reputation, history and his publications about the team, I would be way over on the skeptical end of the spectrum. As it is, I'm in the hopeful middle.


Walsh is good, but he somehow missed Froome's lifelong asthma that just came out last year. It's odd, if nothing else.


----------



## den bakker

yogidabear said:


> Walsh is good, but he somehow missed Froome's lifelong asthma that just came out last year. It's odd, if nothing else.


is induced astma something particularly unusual among endurance athletes?


----------



## Fireform

yogidabear said:


> Walsh is good, but he somehow missed Froome's lifelong asthma that just came out last year. It's odd, if nothing else.


It is a little, but it's not as if asthma is unheard of in endurance athletes. 

In my post above I overstated walsh's position. He won't state the whole team is clean--it's a big team with a lot of riders--but he does vouch for Froome in particular.


----------



## ibericb

den bakker said:


> is induced astma something particularly unusual among endurance athletes?


Nope. It's a very common problem, and suffered by many elite endurance athletes.


----------



## den bakker

ibericb said:


> Nope. It's a very common problem, and suffered by many elite endurance athletes.


well sorry for leading people along the leading questions. 
It's not exactly surprising Walsh did not spend time on something common. 
Whether sky is doping. well. we don't exactly have a Simeoni or back-datings or Andreus yes.


----------



## PBL450

robdamanii said:


> Cummings won from a breakaway. How is that terribly strange? It's not like he shelled Quintana to win on a mountaintop...
> 
> And he hasn't raced for Sky since 2011.


I thought those ex-Sky riders were worthless without the doping program? Isn't that the point that was being made? Cummings must have missed the memo? You are supposed to vanish after leaving our doping program, not come from nowhere on a long shot, underdog team and capture a stage win! Random ex-sky rider does it... He must have taken the doping program with him? That's is the only way a cyclist wins a race. Poor bastard... Making history and the like... Just another doper. 

So what's the standard for racing clean? No stage wins? Then the peloton is way more clean then dirty. If any good performance is evidence of doping, then only poor performance can be considered clean...teams should be focused on the bottom of the GC. It's the only way to gain credibility.


----------



## Horze

A mad CF:












I am warning you CF will take some of you to Nairobi to be sorted out.


----------



## Horze

Jalabert said nothing.
He used the word 'surreal' and that means nothing. Certainly it isn't an insinuation. I too might have used that term in comparison to CF's rivals.

It's not about what LJ said but the rest of the media trying to stir things up. "Ooh look what LJ said... surreal."

There are usually flaws in making a smooth translation between French and English (be it American). We've seen this on several counts in the past as well.


----------



## coldash

Horze said:


> Jalabert said nothing.
> He used the word 'surreal' and that means nothing. Certainly it isn't an insinuation. I too might have used that term in comparison to CF's rivals.
> 
> It's not about what LJ said but the rest of the media trying to stir things up. "Ooh look what LJ said... surreal."
> 
> There are usually flaws in making a smooth translation between French and English (be it American). We've seen this on several counts in the past as well.


Not only did Jalabert say the reported words (on a live broadcast), he was later interviewed in French and had the exact same words, in French, repeated to him to ask for clarification at which point he denied saying them! I expect we might get a "I misspoke" from him or maybe not. He has no credibility in France let alone elsewhere.


----------



## Local Hero

Cavendish sucked at Sky. 

Was he outside of the circle, one of a few clean racers on the team?

Or maybe that's why he left.


----------



## spade2you

The funny thing about Froome's asthma was that he had it all his life, but it didn't make his biography. 

I have had it all my life and it was very bad when I was a kid. If I ever wrote an autobigraphy, there would be a few chapters devoted to how much asthma used to suck before some of the better meds came out. Finishing a bike race wouldn't have been possible when my asthma wasn't controlled. I'm always thankful that things are much better now.


----------



## spade2you

Local Hero said:


> Cavendish sucked at Sky.
> 
> Was he outside of the circle, one of a few clean racers on the team?
> 
> Or maybe that's why he left.


He wasn't that bad on Sky. Sure, it was a slow year for him. Sir Wiggo was still able to lead him out in Paris for the win. 

I would think the lessons learned from US Postal is to keep doping very secret. Nobody sees anything and probably won't be in a hurry to confess.


----------



## David Loving

I guess all us pro cycling fans would like Pro-Wrestling.


----------



## Local Hero

spade2you said:


> He wasn't that bad on Sky. Sure, it was a slow year for him. Sir Wiggo was still able to lead him out in Paris for the win.
> 
> I would think the lessons learned from US Postal is to keep doping very secret. Nobody sees anything and probably won't be in a hurry to confess.


OK agreed. But was was not as though Cavendish suddenly had Sagan's ability to get to tough finishes, or Degenkolb's ability to bridge across large gaps like he did in Paris Roubaix. I think either of these things could happen if Cav were doped to the gills. So instead of seeing improvement on Sky we see a slow year for Cav. 

That cuts against the "Get on Sky, get high" theory. It does not eliminate it but it is a counterpoint.


----------



## GueroAz

The real issue is fandom. When fans start to leave, the UCI will be forced to react. I watch the tour every year. When the winners start to look superhuman, or come out of nowhere, or both I switch it off. The moment Froome and Sky crushed guys last Tuesday was the last TV footage I consumed. 

I think with LA we should have learned that when it's your guy or your country you will cling to anything to validate him winning.


----------



## AJL

robdamanii said:


> ASO calculating 7 W/Kg. Presumably on a different rider weight:
> 
> Un reportage qui accable (encore) Froome - 7SUR7.be


I don't think people understand how important this is. In LA's time, 7 W/Kg was the magic number for winning the tour - a guarantee.
With Froome hitting this number, no one else can win unless some disaster befalls him.

When we learned that this was approximately the power/weight ratio that Lance achieved - it was explained away at the time by a fantastical description of how he was, basically, a physiological mutant (I think the Discovery channel even did a show on LA's physiology).

I don't believe in the existence of naturally occurring physiological mutants (to this degree) anymore. Case closed.


----------



## asgelle

AJL said:


> I don't think people understand how important this is. In LA's time, 7 W/Kg was the magic number for winning the tour - a guarantee.
> With Froome hitting this number, no one else can win unless some disaster befalls him.
> 
> When we learned that this was approximately the power/weight ratio that Lance achieved - it was explained away at the time by a fantastical description of how he was, basically, a physiological mutant (I think the Discovery channel even did a show on LA's physiology).
> 
> I don't believe in the existence of naturally occurring physiological mutants (to this degree) anymore. Case closed.


I did over 7 W/kg on my Saturday ride and it was no great effort and I'm a middling Cat 4 rider. Greipel was probably in the neighborhood of 20 W/kg yesterday.


----------



## den bakker

AJL said:


> I don't think people understand how important this is. In LA's time, 7 W/Kg was the magic number for winning the tour - a guarantee.
> With Froome hitting this number, no one else can win unless some disaster befalls him.
> 
> When we learned that this was approximately the power/weight ratio that Lance achieved - it was explained away at the time by a fantastical description of how he was, basically, a physiological mutant (I think the Discovery channel even did a show on LA's physiology).
> 
> I don't believe in the existence of naturally occurring physiological mutants (to this degree) anymore. Case closed.


wonder where they got the wattage from. wonder how many were above 6watt/kg that day.


----------



## spade2you

Semantics aside, I think we can all hit 7w/kg. Sustaining it is a different ballgame. 

I climbed Larch Mountain about a week ago and held 4w/kg for more than an hour and thought I was gonna die.


----------



## asgelle

spade2you said:


> Semantics aside, I think we can all hit 7w/kg. Sustaining it is a different ballgame.


So saying a value for W or W/kg means anything is absurd.


----------



## coldash

IIRC, the "expert" was Pallet who came up with the 7 W/kg which was for peak power output (over a five minute period). That was calculated (usual assumption etc.) from the overall power estimate of the climb of just below 6 W/kg. 

The 7 W/kg got headlined without any qualification or explanation.


----------



## ibericb

coldash said:


> IIRC, the "expert" was Pallet who came up with the 7 W/kg which was for peak power output (over a five minute period). That was calculated (usual assumption etc.) from the overall power estimate of the climb of just below 6 W/kg.
> 
> The 7 W/kg got headlined without any qualification or explanation.


7 W/kg for a 5-minute peak is within the well established range for world class athletes as determined by Coggan, et al, at TrainingPeaks. But that doesn't answer the question of doped or clean, because nobody can be certain of the state of the riders profiled to get those numbers.

Power data neither confirms nor refutes whether a rider is clean or not. Suspicion is fine, but the analysis, even if accurate, proves nothing.


----------



## asgelle

ibericb said:


> Power data neither confirms nor refutes whether a rider is clean or not. Suspicion is fine, but the analysis, even if accurate, proves nothing.


At one time Coggan estimated the limits of performance by taking highest recorded values for VO2max, % of VO2max sustainable at threshold, and efficiency and came up with a value greater than 9 W/kg for FTP. I can't locate his analysis right now, but in light of that, all these values being thrown around are so far from the ceiling that there's no point looking at them any more closely for evidence for or against doping.


----------



## ibericb

Maybe UCI can do something similar to what NASCAR did a few decades ago - establish a power limit for the engine. I'm sure a crafty engineer could come up with a way to put a limiter in a bicycle drivetrain. Would that resolve the issue? Not at all.


----------



## coldash

ibericb said:


> 7 W/kg for a 5-minute peak is within the well established range for world class athletes as determined by Coggan, et al, at TrainingPeaks. But that doesn't answer the question of doped or clean, because nobody can be certain of the state of the riders profiled to get those numbers.
> 
> Power data neither confirms nor refutes whether a rider is clean or not. Suspicion is fine, but the analysis, even if accurate, proves nothing.


Agreed.


----------



## PBL450

Fireform said:


> I'm not going to say I think the team is clean. I will say, however, that no one has explained how they managed to pull the wool over David Walsh's eyes. Walsh ferreted out the truth about Armstrong long, long before the world was ready to hear about it, and was not the least bit shy about exposing it, and weathering the torrents of legal actions and the public backlash from Lance's fanboi army. So his bona fides in the area are pretty damned solid.
> 
> Walsh was embedded with Sky for an extended period and had, by his own and other's accounts, open access to anything and anyone he wanted to see. He certainly knows more about doping and about Team Sky than any of us do, and he says they're clean.
> 
> That gives me pause. If it wasn't for Walsh's reputation, history and his publications about the team, I would be way over on the skeptical end of the spectrum. As it is, I'm in the hopeful middle.


Great post. Rational... and Fireform makes a great point. We may never know 100%. But the best ferret with pretty open access to the team? If they are pulling that off, then they win I guess.


----------



## AJL

coldash said:


> IIRC, the "expert" was Pallet who came up with the 7 W/kg which was for peak power output (over a five minute period). That was calculated (usual assumption etc.) from the overall power estimate of the climb of just below 6 W/kg.
> 
> The 7 W/kg got headlined without any qualification or explanation.


Were did you get that info (peak W over 5 minutes)? A link to your source would be nice. The article I quoted didn't say peak wattage.


----------



## AJL

ibericb said:


> 7 W/kg for a 5-minute peak is within the well established range for world class athletes as determined by Coggan, et al, at TrainingPeaks. But that doesn't answer the question of doped or clean, because nobody can be certain of the state of the riders profiled to get those numbers.
> 
> Power data neither confirms nor refutes whether a rider is clean or not. Suspicion is fine, but the analysis, even if accurate, proves nothing.


If it were sustained power output - it would qualify the rider as operating well above the norms for maximum power/weight ratios.


----------



## den bakker

AJL said:


> Were did you get that info (peak W over 5 minutes)? A link to your source would be nice. The article I quoted didn't say peak wattage.


how was wattage estimated in your source? whole climb? part of climb? normalized to ftp?


----------



## ibericb

den bakker said:


> how was wattage estimated in your source? whole climb? part of climb? normalized to ftp?


How good is your French? You can watch the broadcast report on YouTube here. Key points shown:

@0:30 what was analyzed - The Climb up La Pierre -Saint - Martin: distance 15.3 km, 40' 43", which gave puissance moyenne (average power) for that segment of 425 watts.

@1:10 puissance maximale aerobie (maximum aerobic power) 500 watts, which for Chris Froome using 71 kg as his weight gives rise to the reported 7.04 W/kg. It is being shown as maximum aerobic power over the duration of the climb.

So by Sallet's analysis Froome put out an average power of 425 watts for 40' 43". If the 71 kg is right that's an average of 5.99 W/kg up the climb. He also reported a maximum aerobic power of 500 watts (be nice to know how he did that - absent actual power data, instantaneous speed and grade, along with wind, and Froome's bio marketers would all be needed), leading to the now famous 7.04 W/kg. 

Frankly, I don't have any problem with either of those numbers. In 1975 Eddy Merckx put out a one-hour average of 455 watts on an ergoemeter (stationary). We don't know his weight exactly then, but at 73 kg that leads to 6.23 W/kg for an hour, indoors, stationary. 

None of us know exactly what data Sallet had access to, or how he conducted his analysis, but from what is seen in the aired video that has caused the stir, I would surmise he's a physiology geek caught up in some analysis without real data, and on a witch hunt to further his organization.


----------



## Fireform

The other obvious problem is the presumption that we know his weight exactly. What is quoted in a press release might not have much bearing on his actual mass in the midst of the tour, and that could introduce a significant bias.

Indeed, today he disclosed that his racing weight is 67-68 kg, not the often cited 71. That changes the watts/kg numbers quite a bit.


----------



## den bakker

ibericb said:


> How good is your French? You can watch the broadcast report on YouTube here. Key points shown:
> 
> @0:30 what was analyzed - The Climb up La Pierre -Saint - Martin: distance 15.3 km, 40' 43", which gave puissance moyenne (average power) for that segment of 425 watts.
> 
> @1:10 puissance maximale aerobie (maximum aerobic power) 500 watts, which for Chris Froome using 71 kg as his weight gives rise to the reported 7.04 W/kg. It is being shown as maximum aerobic power over the duration of the climb.
> 
> So by Sallet's analysis Froome put out an average power of 425 watts for 40' 43". If the 71 kg is right that's an average of 5.99 W/kg up the climb. He also reported a maximum aerobic power of 500 watts (be nice to know how he did that - absent actual power data, instantaneous speed and grade, along with wind, and Froome's bio marketers would all be needed), leading to the now famous 7.04 W/kg.
> 
> Frankly, I don't have any problem with either of those numbers. In 1975 Eddy Merckx put out a one-hour average of 455 watts on an ergoemeter (stationary). We don't know his weight exactly then, but at 73 kg that leads to 6.23 W/kg for an hour, indoors, stationary.
> 
> None of us know exactly what data Sallet had access to, or how he conducted his analysis, but from what is seen in the aired video that has caused the stir, I would surmise he's a physiology geek caught up in some analysis without real data, and on a witch hunt to further his organization.


funny how context changes things. thanks. 
(although I did expect we were in BS country when it was stated to 7.04 watt/kg. Quite a few significant digits on that one).


----------



## robdamanii

PBL450 said:


> I thought those ex-Sky riders were worthless without the doping program? Isn't that the point that was being made? Cummings must have missed the memo? You are supposed to vanish after leaving our doping program, not come from nowhere on a long shot, underdog team and capture a stage win! Random ex-sky rider does it... He must have taken the doping program with him? That's is the only way a cyclist wins a race. Poor bastard... Making history and the like... Just another doper.
> 
> So what's the standard for racing clean? No stage wins? Then the peloton is way more clean then dirty. If any good performance is evidence of doping, then only poor performance can be considered clean...teams should be focused on the bottom of the GC. It's the only way to gain credibility.


Point of order: I never stated they were "worthless". I said their performances rarely, if ever, enter "extraterrestrial" territory following their Sky departure.



PBL450 said:


> Great post. Rational... and Fireform makes a great point. We may never know 100%. But the best ferret with pretty open access to the team? If they are pulling that off, then they win I guess.


What better way to pretend to be transparent than showing someone who has "street cred" all the pretty things and hiding the pre-race doping. Kimmage had a very different experience with Sky, being denied access to the Sky world for the first week of the tour, if I recall correctly.

Not to mention Walsh is a definite fan of Sky's programs (obvious from his patriotism and previous writing about Sky) so there's a bit of examiner bias there...


----------



## BacDoc

The problem that a lot of us notice is throughout professional sports, the peak performances from modern athletes has always been linked to doping. The more incredible the results, the amount of money involved and the more sophisticated the programs has always been implicated in doping. 

Whether it's baseball, football, basketball, track and field or cycling, we have seen incredible gains over relatively short periods of time - just look at pics of Barry Bonds or LeBron James (or even Tiger Woods) and how the body changes over time. Cyclists going from mediocre to exceptional just by changing "programs" etc. Over time it all comes out even after lots of negative tests and the vehement denials, it's like the Walking Dead, everybody is infected and they all turn.

Maybe I'm just realistic or just cynical, but when lots of money is involved, whether it's sports or politics or business, there will always be cheating and corruption and the more money involved the higher more sophisticated level of cheating will occur. In other words, maybe most small time amateur competition is clean but pro sports?

If anyone can effectively argue the opposite, I've yet to hear it but I'm all ears.


----------



## Fireform

robdamanii said:


> Point of order: I never stated they were "worthless". I said their performances rarely, if ever, enter "extraterrestrial" territory following their Sky departure.
> 
> 
> 
> What better way to pretend to be transparent than showing someone who has "street cred" all the pretty things and hiding the pre-race doping...


I'm calling bs on this one. That is not what happened at all. You're just fabricating stuff out of whole cloth. 

And as far as patriotism goes, Walsh is Irish. If you think Ireland and England are the same country, you don't know much about their histories.


----------



## AJL

ibericb said:


> How good is your French? You can watch the broadcast report on YouTube here. Key points shown:
> 
> @0:30 what was analyzed - The Climb up La Pierre -Saint - Martin: distance 15.3 km, 40' 43", which gave puissance moyenne (average power) for that segment of 425 watts.
> 
> @1:10 puissance maximale aerobie (maximum aerobic power) 500 watts, which for Chris Froome using 71 kg as his weight gives rise to the reported 7.04 W/kg. It is being shown as maximum aerobic power over the duration of the climb.
> 
> So by Sallet's analysis Froome put out an average power of 425 watts for 40' 43". If the 71 kg is right that's an average of 5.99 W/kg up the climb. He also reported a maximum aerobic power of 500 watts (be nice to know how he did that - absent actual power data, instantaneous speed and grade, along with wind, and Froome's bio marketers would all be needed), leading to the now famous 7.04 W/kg.
> 
> <snip>


My French is extremely limited - so thanks for decoding the video for me. So...bogus data boo hiss! I'm still not convinced Sky/Froome are clean (or the top 10 on GC for that matter) - but we will likely have to wait a long time before we know the details of Sky's 'program' and whether it involved doping or not.


----------



## Horze

coldash said:


> Not only did Jalabert say the reported words (on a live broadcast), he was later interviewed in French and had the exact same words, in French, repeated to him to ask for clarification at which point he denied saying them! I expect we might get a "I misspoke" from him or maybe not. He has no credibility in France let alone elsewhere.


What wrong with the word 'surreal'?
There's nothing wrong with it nor is there anything wrong with saying someone 'was on another planet'. Because in all likelihood they were (as a figure of speech.)

Listen, we now have the tech to take CF home.




AJL said:


> .
> .
> .
> *I don't believe in the existence of naturally occurring physiological mutants (to this degree) anymore. Case closed.*


Why??
If you think this is in 2015, you couldn't call CF's 2013 tour a fluke either.

Now the 2014 winner was a fluke.


----------



## coldash

Horze said:


> What wrong with the word 'surreal'?
> There's nothing wrong with it nor is there anything wrong with saying someone 'was on another planet'. Because in all likelihood they were


Why then did Jalabert subsequently deny the words which he uttered and were recorded and as I guess you know the French press used "on another planet" wrt Lance. It's their way to claim that someone is doping without getting called out on it


----------



## ibericb

BacDoc said:


> The problem that a lot of us notice is throughout professional sports, the peak performances from modern athletes has always been linked to doping. The more incredible the results, the amount of money involved and the more sophisticated the programs has always been implicated in doping. ...


Your points are valid, but your view is way too limited. It's not just professional sports. As long as there are significant awards at stake, whether direct monetary or fame, there has been someone who will cheat to try to game the system. It extends well beyond professional sports, and it is hardly just modern. It's the same in entertainment, business, gambling you name it. It goes back millenia. In sports it's not just the pros; have you forgotten the long history of "cheating" or illicit drug use in the Olympic games? Cycling is no different, and never has been. Look up the history of Choppy Warburton in the 19th century. Merckx was busted for what would today be called doping at least three times in his career.


----------



## robdamanii

Fireform said:


> I'm calling bs on this one. That is not what happened at all. You're just fabricating stuff out of whole cloth.
> 
> And as far as patriotism goes, Walsh is Irish. If you think Ireland and England are the same country, you don't know much about their histories.


Then show me.

And I realize Ireland and England are not the same country. But I also don't think Walsh is part of the IRA either, and he certainly has a loving relationship with Sky.



Horze said:


> What wrong with the word 'surreal'?
> There's nothing wrong with it nor is there anything wrong with saying someone 'was on another planet'. Because in all likelihood they were (as a figure of speech.)
> 
> Listen, we now have the tech to take CF home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why??
> If you think this is in 2015, you couldn't call CF's 2013 tour a fluke either.
> 
> Now the 2014 winner was a fluke.


So the guy who won the Vuelta and the Giro winning the tour in a weak field was a fluke?

That's some fluke....




As far as news goes, Sky released Froome's (very limited) power data today (with few other biological metrics.) Claiming 5.79 W/kg.

Amazing how he beat Quintana by a minute when Q was projected around 5.85-5.9 W/kg....

I'm sure there's nothing susipcious going on here. 

Transparency my butt.

The biggest laugh is how questioning performances of guys like Armstrong was commonplace and expected. Question Froome and you're a cynic and a buzzkill. Funny how public perception of personality plays into it.


----------



## ibericb

There is a good reflective  Op-Ed article by Ed Bradley, editor-in-chief at Velo News, that puts Froome's performance into what I believe is a proper perspective. As Bradly notes, we simply don't know, nobody knows. Everything being suggested about Froome is simply suspicion based and speculative at best.

To be fair to Froome, had it not been for the Armstrong era he wouldn't be so suspect. As Bradley notes, Froome's performance in stage 10 relative to the other GC contenders isn't that spectacular when viewed in the light of pre-Lance TdF's, such as LeMond's accomplishments in the 1986 TdF. That year LeMond finished stage 13 in the Pyrenees, which included Col de Tourlamet, Col de Aspin and Col de Peyresourde, a full 1' 12" ahead of Robert Millar who came in second. After that, LeMond and Hinault finished stage 18 together, after climbing Alp d'Huez, a full 5' 15" ahead of Urs Zimmerman. When it was all said and done, LeMond led by 3' 10" over Hinault, and 10' 54" over Zimmerman.

Post-Armstrong, Froome is in a difficult position. He can't prove he's completely clean, but there isn't any credible fact that indicates he isn't. As a result suspicion and skepticism will continue.


----------



## ibericb

robdamanii said:


> ...As far as news goes, Sky released Froome's (very limited) power data today (with few other biological metrics.) Claiming 5.79 W/kg.
> 
> Amazing how he beat Quintana by a minute when Q was projected around 5.85-5.9 W/kg.....


Aren't those the same kinds of "projections" that gave rise to 7.04 W/kg for Froome? What's suspiscious are the projections.

If you want analyze power, you need to measure power, not videotape.

Sallet's analysis produced an average power for Froome of 425 W over 40' 43", which at 71 kg leads to 5.95 W/kg. Hardly remarkable for a world class cyclist.


----------



## robdamanii

ibericb said:


> Aren't those the same kinds of "projections" that gave rise to 7.04 W/kg for Froome? What's suspiscious are the projections.
> 
> If you want analyze power, you need to measure power, not videotape.
> 
> Sallet's analysis produced an average power for Froome of 425 W over 40' 43", which at 71 kg leads to 5.95 W/kg. Hardly remarkable for a world class cyclist.


Except that he's expressedly stated (from his own mouth) he's closer to 67-68Kg. That's 6.35 w/kg @ 67Kg. Chris Froome agrees to possible release of power data by Team Sky | Sport | The Guardian

Personally, I suspect he's a bit lighter than that.

Even at the 414 W released by Sky, that's 6.17 W/Kg. They claim error of 6% from stages and osymmetric rings. 

Still suspicious, despite your desparate pleading for us to empathize with your love of the Skyborgs.



ibericb said:


> There is a good reflective  Op-Ed article by Ed Bradley, editor-in-chief at Velo News, that puts Froome's performance into what I believe is a proper perspective. As Bradly notes, we simply don't know, nobody knows. Everything being suggested about Froome is simply suspicion based and speculative at best.
> 
> To be fair to Froome, had it not been for the Armstrong era he wouldn't be so suspect. As Bradley notes, Froome's performance in stage 10 relative to the other GC contenders isn't that spectacular when viewed in the light of pre-Lance TdF's, such as LeMond's accomplishments in the 1986 TdF. That year LeMond finished stage 13 in the Pyrenees, which included Col de Tourlamet, Col de Aspin and Col de Peyresourde, a full 1' 12" ahead of Robert Millar who came in second. After that, LeMond and Hinault finished stage 18 together, after climbing Alp d'Huez, a full 5' 15" ahead of Urs Zimmerman. When it was all said and done, LeMond led by 3' 10" over Hinault, and 10' 54" over Zimmerman.
> 
> Post-Armstrong, Froome is in a difficult position. He can't prove he's completely clean, but there isn't any credible fact that indicates he isn't. As a result suspicion and skepticism will continue.


And suspicion and skepticism is good for this sport. It's the only way we prevent a repeat of history. Last time the ASO and the UCI told us "everything is different", it turned out everything was the same.


----------



## ibericb

robdamanii said:


> Except that he's expressedly stated (from his own mouth) he's closer to 67-68Kg. That's 6.35 w/kg @ 67Kg. Chris Froome agrees to possible release of power data by Team Sky | Sport | The Guardian
> 
> Personally, I suspect he's a bit lighter than that.
> 
> Even at the 414 W released by Sky, that's 6.17 W/Kg. They claim error of 6% from stages and osymmetric rings.
> 
> Still suspicious, despite your desparate pleading for us to empathize with your love of the Skyborgs.


What you suspect is totally irrelevant. That's the point - it's all nothing more than your suspicion searching for confirmation based on bias.

How about use 68 kg, which is the weight reported on his Personal Fact Sheet on the TdF site? If you use the Sky 414 number, based on acutally measured power data, you get 6.08 W/kg, if you use the 425 Sallet estimate you get 6.25 W/kg. Neither is remarkable for a 40' average power for his class of athlete. Merckx was measured in 1972 at 6.24 W/kg over a full hour on an ergometer.


----------



## Fireform

It appears that Froome's actual power numbers were considerably more modest than those being tossed around by the armchair experts, whether one corrects for the osymmetric chain rings or not. Who could have seen that coming?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-reveal-froomes-tour-de-france-data-from-stage-10

But hey, you go on and crucify him anyway, based on whatever suppositions you can dream up.


----------



## den bakker

robdamanii said:


> Still suspicious, despite your desparate pleading for us to empathize with your love of the Skyborgs.


way to make yourself irrelevant. congrats.


----------



## ibericb

Fireform said:


> It appears that Froome's actual power numbers were considerably more modest than those being tossed around by the armchair experts, whether one corrects for the osymmetric chain rings or not.
> 
> Team Sky reveal Froomeâ€™s Tour de France data from stage 10 | Cyclingnews.com


Good reporting on the press conference. For those who don't want to plow through the analysis presented by Sky's coach, Tim Kerrison, here's a summary of the pertinent figures from Froome's ride up La Pierre-Saint-Martin in stage 10:

Average power over 41’ 30” = 414 W measured
Froome weight = 67.5 kg
Average power:weight over 41’ 30” , uncorrected for Osymetirc chainrings= 6.13 W/kg
Average power corrected for Osymetric chain rings = 390 W
Average power:weight over 41’ 30”, corrected = 5.78 W/kg

Attack period over 450 W = 0’ 24” duration
Average power during attack, uncorrected = 556 W
Peak power recorded during attack, uncorrected = 929 W
Maximum 10-second power, uncorrected = 652 W​
Reportedly, Sky has sent the pertinent data to the UK's anti-doping agency for whatever they want to do with it.


----------



## Fireform

Good numbers. Not mutant numbers. The fact that he spanked the field with those numbers is a good sign


----------



## GueroAz

I want to see Quintana's and Van Garderen's numbers now. That is the only way to form a context for what was presented. At some point, each rider will have their power data transmitted directly to race authority for possible review. That would be interesting.



Fireform said:


> Good numbers. Not mutant numbers. The fact that he spanked the field with the do those numbers is a good sign


----------



## den bakker

GueroAz said:


> I want to see Quintana's and Van Garderen's numbers now. That is the only way to form a context for what was presented. At some point, each rider will have their power data transmitted directly to race authority for possible review. That would be interesting.


well the watt/kg for most of the climb will be clear for either since you know Froomes now and the time differences as a function of time. in other words Quintana is rather close for almost all the climb but for the attack. 
Not sure how you think you can just anything on Froome based on that or more accurate numbers.


----------



## ibericb

GueroAz said:


> I want to see Quintana's and Van Garderen's numbers now. That is the only way to form a context for what was presented. At some point, each rider will have their power data transmitted directly to race authority for possible review. That would be interesting.


If you had the comparable analysis of others what would that tell you, other than they put out more or less average power, or maybe even power peaks (which is typically self evident without detailed analysis)? Would any of that confirm or be indicative of illicit drug use? What would be your basis for comparison? Certainly not Armstrong, or others from that era? What then? 

I really don't see any value in transmitting power data to race officials. Power data is generally meaningless for the proof or rebuttal of doping, unless you have a background reference value for each and every rider in a known-to-be-clean state under comparable conditions. If you can do that then just establish the known-to-be-clean state before each race, and maintain it. That's the real goal - clean riders, clean races, not power restrictions.


----------



## GueroAz

I was speaking more about the manipulation of data rather than the comparison of the data itself. Say if Froome releases his data from stage 10, then a few days later Van Garderen releases his. You can compare the two and if Froome's w/kg is less or worse materially less one could argue fraud.

Releasing random data from training is in large part worthless. Releasing incomplete data is the same. As a once cyclist now turned soccer player but full on math geek, I would think obtaining complete data from a stage from say the top 10 riders would be ideal.

I could really care less about power meter data from training, but the same from in competition riders would be a powerful piece of information for an anti-doping agency that simply doesn't have a genetic test for the latest and greatest drug. 



ibericb said:


> If you had the comparable analysis of others what would that tell you, other than they put out more or less average power, or maybe even power peaks (which is typically self evident without detailed analysis)? Would any of that confirm or be indicative of illicit drug use? What would be your basis for comparison? Certainly not Armstrong, or others from that era? What then?
> 
> I really don't see any value in transmitting power data to race officials. Power data is generally meaningless for the proof or rebuttal of doping, unless you have a background reference value for each and every rider in a known-to-be-clean state under comparable conditions. If you can do that then just establish the known-to-be-clean state before each race, and maintain it. That's the real goal - clean riders, clean races, not power restrictions.


----------



## asgelle

GueroAz said:


> I could really care less about power meter data from training, but the same from in competition riders would be a powerful piece of information for an anti-doping agency that simply doesn't have a genetic test for the latest and greatest drug.


Can you explain, using specific numbers, how an ADA would use power data?


----------



## den bakker

GueroAz said:


> I was speaking more about the manipulation of data rather than the comparison of the data itself. Say if Froome releases his data from stage 10, then a few days later Van Garderen releases his. You can compare the two and if Froome's w/kg is less or worse materially less one could argue fraud.


at this point you might as well argue that SKY is actually hacking the other teams making the powerprofiles such that Froomes would be more believable.


----------



## Local Hero

GueroAz said:


> I want to see Quintana's and Van Garderen's numbers now. That is the only way to form a context for what was presented. At some point, each rider will have their power data transmitted directly to race authority for possible review. That would be interesting.


To what end though? On what basis do we say that 6w/kg is ok but 6.1w/kg is not? We know the fastest rider to the top will have the highest w/kg. 

Even if I think a guy is dirty, I would not feel comfortable issuing a sanction based on high numbers in the absence of a positive test or biological passport alarm.


----------



## GueroAz

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but aren't anti-doping agencies now more physiological detectives than straight up lab technicians? Wouldn't you want all pertinent data?

Power meter data wouldn't be the smoking gun, but it might trigger deeper examination of a particular rider. Imagine what a full database of power meter data would do for to weed out the cheaters or exonerate the guys doing it right.

I am not a power meter expert, but I don't think it's possible for two guys to start at the same spot on a climb and the winning rider puts down less power than the losing one.

Consider sources also, is Sky going to release data that brings more speculation upon their rider? Of course not, are they really going to give a guy "total access" if they are cheating? Are they really going to give a guy total access whose goal is to weed out cheaters? Of course not!

It's unfortunate, but a lot of people were fooled by LA and are taking it out on the current riders in the peleton. It sucks, but that is just the way it is.



asgelle said:


> Can you explain, using specific numbers, how an ADA would use power data?


----------



## den bakker

GueroAz said:


> Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but aren't anti-doping agencies now more physiological detectives than straight up lab technicians? Wouldn't you want all pertinent data?
> 
> Power meter data wouldn't be the smoking gun, but it might trigger deeper examination of a particular rider. Imagine what a full database of power meter data would do for to weed out the cheaters or exonerate the guys doing it right.
> 
> I am not a power meter expert, but I don't think it's possible for two guys to start at the same spot on a climb and the winning rider puts down less power than the losing one.
> 
> Consider sources also, is Sky going to release data that brings more speculation upon their rider? Of course not, are they really going to give a guy "total access" if they are cheating? Are they really going to give a guy total access whose goal is to weed out cheaters? Of course not!
> 
> It's unfortunate, but a lot of people were fooled by LA and are taking it out on the current riders in the peleton. It sucks, but that is just the way it is.


Can the long post be summarized as "no" in relation to asgelles question?


----------



## GueroAz

I get it, you want less transparency. Fair enough, were you against the biological passport? Why even test anything or anyone at all? 

It's really entertainment in the form of a sporting competition. Now, if the fans want the riders to be clean which the LA fiasco seems to confirm, don't you think the fans would love to see more transparency from the riders? What are they hiding? If the data is as cut and dry as it why not allow the race organizers to put a power meter on each competitor which is then downloaded each night?



den bakker said:


> at this point you might as well argue that SKY is actually hacking the other teams making the powerprofiles such that Froomes would be more believable.


----------



## den bakker

GueroAz said:


> I get it, you want less transparency.


maybe someone else will be patient with that kind of BS nonsense and lies but it is not me.


----------



## GueroAz

I also said it wouldn't be the smoking gun, but merely a means to justify deeper examination of a rider.

Didn't some on the board mention the 7w/kg number? Would that not be a starting point? Power meter data might not be valid until there is a sufficient amount of in race data to provide a proper baseline of what is human and what is doped human. Ideally, you pop a guy for EPO or Cortisol or whatever and you have his data from a superhuman effort. Just think of having that going forward.



Local Hero said:


> To what end though? On what basis do we say that 6w/kg is ok but 6.1w/kg is not? We know the fastest rider to the top will have the highest w/kg.
> 
> Even if I think a guy is dirty, I would not feel comfortable issuing a sanction based on high numbers in the absence of a positive test or biological passport alarm.


----------



## Local Hero

I don't know if "butthurt" is the word but I would be upset if someone threw urine in my face.


----------



## GueroAz

What? Good lord that didn't happen to Froome did it? People take this way to seriously.



Local Hero said:


> I don't know if "butthurt" is the word but I would be upset if someone threw urine in my face.


----------



## AJL

Horze said:


> Why??
> If you think this is in 2015, you couldn't call CF's 2013 tour a fluke either.
> 
> Now the 2014 winner was a fluke.


Even though I originally defended LA's tour wins, by ~2008 I was convinced he (and most of the peleton) were doped and that this had been going on for many years (although EPO was a game changer). Knowing what we know now - most of the TDF modern podium winners have been popped for using PEDs at some point in their career or have admitted to doing so in retrospect. Given this, why would I trust CF, or Contador or Nibali or Tejay, etc.?


----------



## Local Hero

GueroAz said:


> What? Good lord that didn't happen to Froome did it? People take this way to seriously.


Chris Froome Claims Urine Thrown at Him During 2015 Tour de France | Bleacher Report


_Froome claimed a spectator drenched him in urine and labelled him a “doper” on the 187.5-kilometre route.

The yellow jersey holder revealed the extent of the incident to BBC Sport, saying, “Unfortunately, someone threw a cup of urine into my face and shouted 'doper' which is extremely wrong on so many different levels."_


----------



## ibericb

GueroAz said:


> I was speaking more about the manipulation of data rather than the comparison of the data itself. Say if Froome releases his data from stage 10, then a few days later Van Garderen releases his. You can compare the two and if Froome's w/kg is less or worse materially less one could argue fraud. ...


Two issues:

1. There are many potential sources for aberrant power data other than fraud. Power meters are well known for their data glitches , require calibration to be useful for comparison, and can just, for no apparent reason, stop functioning. If I want to cheat the data, it's not hard to corrupt the data stream.

2. Even aberrant power data doesn't indicate doping. It indicates only screwed-up power data. Even if you had reliable quality data, it's meaningless for establishing, confirming, or refuting doping. It's nothing more than a witch hunt.

Cycling is the only sport I know that can even supply power data. For the anti-doping agencies cycling is but one of many sports they oversee. My guess is that at some point in the near future WADA, USADA, and others will come out and state categorically that they are not interested in power data from cycling, as it has no value to them and their mission.


----------



## ibericb

Just test more riders, more frequently. That's the only way to prove doping, other than a long line of credible witnesses that overcome the burden of proof. That's how they nailed Amrstrong. 

BTW - the "7 W/kg", as it was described, was well within the normal range for a world-class cyclist. Sky reported this morning that in the La Pierre-Saint-Martin climb Froome had a 24 second peak power segment in which he produced an average of 556 watts (8.2 W/kg), with a peak power output of 929 watts (13.8 W/kg), and a 10-second max of 652 watts (9.7 W/kg).


----------



## ibericb

Doping in the TdF is not a modern invention. It dates back about as far as the Tour.

Wikipedia - Doping at the Tour de France


----------



## Local Hero

2015 Tour de France - Stage 13


_A summary of the demands of the stage are shown below. In the final 15km Greg averaged 391W for just under 19 minutes and made 5 efforts >1000W in the final 10km to stay in contention with the leaders. For his winning attack on the final 600m/9% climb to Rodez he achieved a peak power of ~1350W and averaged over 900W for the final minute of the stage._



I like seeing the numbers.


----------



## kokothemonkey

Local Hero said:


> 2015 Tour de France - Stage 13
> 
> 
> _A summary of the demands of the stage are shown below. In the final 15km Greg averaged 391W for just under 19 minutes and made 5 efforts >1000W in the final 10km to stay in contention with the leaders. For his winning attack on the final 600m/9% climb to Rodez he achieved a peak power of ~1350W and averaged over 900W for the final minute of the stage._
> 
> 
> 
> I like seeing the numbers.


Whoah, thanks for the link. Kudos to them for putting out real numbers (vs. Sky which I firmly believe are doctored to be below 6 W/kg). 

If folks think these riders are putting out these numbers paniagua at the end of blistering hot and fast stages, then I have a bridge to sell you.


----------



## asgelle

kokothemonkey said:


> If folks think these riders are putting out these numbers paniagua at the end of blistering hot and fast stages, then I have a bridge to sell you.


Before I buy that bridge, explain why 6.9 W/kg for 40 min. at the end of the stage isn't possible clean.


----------



## ibericb

kokothemonkey said:


> Whoah, thanks for the link. Kudos to them for putting out real numbers (vs. Sky *which I firmly believe are doctored to be below 6 W/kg*).
> 
> If folks think these riders are putting out these numbers paniagua at the end of blistering hot and fast stages, then I have a bridge to sell you.


1. Why do you believe Sky "doctored" the numbers? Any evidence, or is that just a wildassguess on your part?

2. Maybe you missed this - a summary of what Sky detailed for Froome's climb to La Pierre-Saint-Martin:

Average power over 41’ 30” = 414 W measured
Froome weight = 67.5 kg
Average power:weight over 41’ 30” , uncorrected for Osymetirc chainrings= 6.13 W/kg
Average power corrected for Osymetric chain rings = 390 W
Average power:weight over 41’ 30”, corrected = 5.78 W/kg

Attack period over 450 W = 0’ 24” duration
Average power during attack, uncorrected = 556 W
Peak power recorded during attack, uncorrected = 929 W
Maximum 10-second power, uncorrected = 652 W​
3. Why do you believe those numbers are somehow incredible? Got data?


----------



## kokothemonkey

Not my job to prove the numbers don't hold water, go browse PM data from pros and read for yourselves.

All I know is it doesn't pass the eye test, and really really dirty guys are getting blown out of the water.

Keep on believin, just don't be mad when Santa forgets the presents on Xmas morning.


----------



## love4himies

https://soundcloud.com/offtheball/paul-kimmage-on-chris-froome-team-sky-and-the-2015-tour-de-france

An interesting interview with Paul Kimmage.


----------



## love4himies

Local Hero said:


> I don't know if "butthurt" is the word but I would be upset if someone threw urine in my face.


That was absolutely disgusting, nobody short of of a murder/rapist/pedophile deserves to be treated like that. There is NO proof of Froome doping, just suspicion and fans go overboard to do things like this.


----------



## ibericb

kokothemonkey said:


> Not my job to prove the numbers don't hold water, go browse PM data from pros and read for yourselves.
> 
> All I know is it doesn't pass the eye test, and really really dirty guys are getting blown out of the water.
> 
> Keep on believin, just don't be mad when Santa forgets the presents on Xmas morning.


Nice try, but a complete dodge. You made the assertion. If you can suport it with some facts, great - I'd love to see some credible data. If you can't back it up then it is not credible, and nothing by hot air.

As has been pointed out in other posts, Froome's numbers are not remarkable in light of historic precedent from the pre-Armstrong era, and from the historical data collected by Coggan, et al at TrainingPeaks.

Really dirty guys? And who would those be? Got any evidence for that? Or is that just another unsubstantiated statement of suspicion?

Your posts are clear - you hae nothing but ungrounded suspiscion, no facts.

I'd love to see some facts to show the multitude of claims that Froome's power is somehow superhuman. So far, nobody has been able to do that. You just aded your name to the list.


----------



## kokothemonkey

love4himies said:


> That was absolutely disgusting, nobody short of of a murder/rapist/pedophile deserves to be treated like that. There is NO proof of Froome doping, just suspicion and fans go overboard to do things like this.


Completely agree here. I don't know how on earth someone would think this is acceptable? And I hear Porte was punched? Part of what makes this sport so great is the accessibility to top athletes. It's horrible people think this is acceptable behavior.


----------



## ibericb

love4himies said:


> An interesting interview with Paul Kimmage.


Well, I believe Kimmage hit the basic nail on the head with the questions he raised, but little else of value. Basically, he is calling on Sky to answer the questioning and skepticism with real information and data, making it available to the press. He is calling for Sky (and others) to open their doors, and lay bare the hows and whys of their exceptional performance, and if they are in clean in doing so quiet the skeptics.

I share his sentient, but at the same time I appreciate Brailsford's position of guarding how they do what they do as the basis of their competitive advantage.

Assuming they are truly clean, I believe Sky is between a rock and a hard place. If they don't open up and credibly share and explain their entire program, the skeptics will assert doping, cheating, whatever. Further, I suspect even if they do, they won't really quiet the skeptics. At best I would expect they would just get different voices. Walsh's supposed expose (which is rather meaningless IMO) did nothing to gain any credibility for Team Sky being clean. Until someone figures how how to conclusively prove "clean", I doubt that anyone or any act by Team Sky can. It's the very nature of conspiracy theories and conspiracy beliefs.

While I believe a healthy dose of suspicion and skepticism are warranted based solely on the appearance of Froome's stage 10 performance, I surely wouldn't condemn Sky or Froome without some credible evidence. Thus far I haven't seen anything that comes close to doing the job. So I remain hopeful that it's real, but still skeptical that it just might not be.


----------



## love4himies

ibericb said:


> Well, I believe Kimmage hit the basic nail on the head with the questions he raised, but little else of value. Basically, he is calling on Sky to answer the questioning and skepticism with real information and data, making it available to the press. He is calling for Sky (and others) to open their doors, and lay bare the hows and whys of their exceptional performance, and if they are in clean in doing so quiet the skeptics.
> 
> I share his sentient, but at the same time I appreciate Brailsford's position of guarding how they do what they do as the basis of their competitive advantage.
> 
> Assuming they are truly clean, I believe Sky is between a rock and a hard place. If they don't open up and credibly share and explain their entire program, the skeptics will assert doping, cheating, whatever. Further, I suspect even if they do, they won't really quiet the skeptics. At best I would expect they would just get different voices. Walsh's supposed expose (which is rather meaningless IMO) did nothing to gain any credibility for Team Sky being clean. Until someone figures how how to conclusively prove "clean", I doubt that anyone or any act by Team Sky can. It's the very nature of conspiracy theories and conspiracy beliefs.
> 
> While I believe a healthy dose of suspicion and skepticism are warranted based solely on the appearance of Froome's stage 10 performance, I surely wouldn't condemn Sky or Froome without some credible evidence. Thus far I haven't seen anything that comes close to doing the job. So I remain hopeful that it's real, but still skeptical that it just might not be.


I like his point that as long as Sky is secretive, then there will be suspicion when one of the riders does an exemplary race and the rider and team will not be able to enjoy the rewards due to fan suspicion (for good reason). If there is nothing to hide, Brailsford should give the media what they are asking for and they will leave the team alone and Froome can enjoy the rest of the Tour. This is very much of a reminder of the early 2000's which is still too fresh in everybody's mind. Team Sky should be on cloud nine, but instead they are being abused and hammered by the press. That's not fair to his riders.


----------



## Fireform

kokothemonkey said:


> Not my job to prove the numbers don't hold water, go browse PM data from pros and read for yourselves.
> 
> All I know is it doesn't pass the eye test, and really really dirty guys are getting blown out of the water.
> 
> Keep on believin, just don't be mad when Santa forgets the presents on Xmas morning.


In other words, you got nothing but a hunch. Thanks for that.


----------



## Fireform

No successful team in any sport is going to want to lay bare the nuts and bolts of their training system, any more than a successful company is going to want to lay bare the details of their operations. They feel with some justification that in those details lay the basis of their success. That is not hard to understand at all.

You can reasonably argue that knowing what numbers you need to produce in order to beat Froome up the Alpe and being able to actually produce those numbers are two very different things. But spelling out his entire training regime, which is basically what people are asking for, could be seen as giving away part of their competitive advantage. Personally, I can see it both ways, and I don't think the critics are going to be satisfied by anything Sky can be expected to do.


----------



## ibericb

It's a valid point. So is Brailford's about competitive advantage.

The real question Brailsford should put to others, perhaps a "blue ribbon panel" of independent experts is, how can Team Sky address the suspicion, without revealing their methods that underly any advantage they may bring? Regardless of UCI's opinion, if I were Brailsford I would commission a group (actually have it commissioned by a credible third party, but pay the costs), include someone like LeMond, Voigt, etc., top exercise physiologist, sports attorneys, doping experts, etc., let them ponder the questions and issues, and see what they come up with. The question is not just about Team Sky, it's about professional cycling in general. This is Brailford's opportunity to be a catalyst for real, significant change. It could well be his personal legacy in pro cycling.

Sky has been put in the situation by the press of having to prove their innocence, beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a near impossible situation to win. It's certainly not fair to the riders. But then who put them in that situation - Team Sky, or the (questionable) press?


----------



## 55x11

exactly, they choose a longer period of time to "dilute" the Watts/Kg.
Does everyone here understand that the power curve keeps going down as the duration gets longer?

To me personally, the power numbers themselves only reveal something we all knew all along - that calculations of ammattipyöräily, and even sometimes Dr. Ferrari himself, are quite accurate and it's mind boggling why Sky would ridicule their power estimates as fiction.

But the key issue is not absolute numbers, it's the fact that Froome is dominating the field in the way we haven't seen since Armstrong times. And Armstrong was a huge talent as a junior - Froome has done nothing of importance and then exploded when he turned 25 and joined Sky. But also look at the entire Sky team. Armstrong had Chechu and Heras who would normally lead their own teams, and Hincapie and Landis who went from flat-lander domestiques to winning mountain top stages in dominant fashion against actual climbers.
Well, Froome has Porte who finishes 2nd in the most decisive mountain stage so far, and Gerraint Thomas, who went from track rider to classics guy to now outclimbing Nibali and Tejay. After setting the tempo at the front that sheds all second-tier favorites, like Gesink, Pinot, Bardet, everyone. And he is currently 6th overall. WTF?!

Seriously it doesn't set off any bells for anyone?

I am sorry but I don't need to see the power numbers to be reminded that this is Pharmstrong and US Postal all over again. Froome putting a minute on Quintana over 6K (most of over just a few Ks), 2 min on Valverde, 2:30 on Tejay, almost 3min on Contador and 4.5 minutes on Nibali. Meanwhile Porte loses only 1 min and Thomas is 2 min back, after doing SO. MUCH. WORK on the front. Come on.

This is like Lance winning with Chechu finishing in 2nd, and Hincapie top 10, outclimbing Ullrich, Mayo, Beloki and Pantani. But if that ever happened (it didn't), we would hear how this because US Postal is so professional at researching the stages, bluffing about their strategy, training together and also spinning really really fast (cardio can be doped and improved a lot more than muscular response so spinning fast - which loads cardio and takes off load from muscles, is a big doping marker for me after Armstrong). Also Johan Bruyneel is a strategic genius!


----------



## Fireform

If our index of doping is dominance, I guess Fausto Coppi was on the EPO in 1950. He won the GC by 28 minutes.


----------



## Rich Gibson

ibericb said:


> I have yet to see any credible fact that indicates doping on Froome's part. Your only argument thus far has been a series of references to your disbelief in fictitious characters. That's hardly fact.


I'm relatively new to these cycling forums and only began riding less than two years ago, but I have been following the tour since 2000 (I'm 73). If you could only look objectively at your passionate defense of Froome and Sky and see how similar it all is to LA when he was flying high. "There's no proof" etc. etc. 

To watch the Sky team walk away from the world's best(on those first climbs) like that with blank stares on their faces and no signs of exhaustion while the competitors were struggling begs credulity. When even his supporters waste the top competitors one has to stop and wonder. I wouldn't take such a passionate stand with what happened only a few years ago. 'It's deja vu all over again' as they say.

They're so adamant about drugs and testing it may be possible they have found something or a process which tests out as normal but gives them the edge. It will out eventually once someone becomes disaffected, needs money or slips up. I was crushed when LA's lies all came apart; I didn't want to believe it. I've lived long enough to be cautious now about heralding superhuman athletic performance. I began to be suspicious when Landis did so well.

Rich


----------



## ibericb

Fireform said:


> If our index of doping is dominance, I guess Fausto Coppi was on the EPO in 1950. He won the GC by 28 minutes.


Well, Coppi was an admitted amphetamine user (_la bomba_). But it was not against the rules then. FYI - he won the KOM too (same in '49).


----------



## ibericb

Rich Gibson said:


> I'm relatively new to these cycling forums and only began riding less than two years ago, but I have been following the tour since 2000 (I'm 73). If you could only look objectively at your passionate defense of Froome and Sky and see how similar it all is to LA when he was flying high. "There's no proof" etc. etc. ...
> Rich


Sorry, Rich, You've completely misunderstood my posts, and you've also missed the point. I'm not defending Sky or Froome. I'm asking for those who are condemning them to bring something credible and objective, not just suspicion based on observation (such as yours, and mine too). 

You ask for objectivity, but thus far all I've seen is subjective judgment, save the attempts at power analysis (which prove nothing). I too am guarded about Froome and Sky, having been stung by Lance, et al. But I'm not going to leap to conclusions absent some reasonable facts or information indicative of wrongdoing.

Tonight NBCSN rebroadcast stage 10. After a couple of days of this discussion I watched it very closely to follow closely what happened, in sequence. Well before Froome began his attack, Nibali and Contador dropped from the the the peloton lead. It was clear that TVG was struggling, but hanging on a few places behind Qunitana who was locked on Froome's wheel. At that point Froome made an attack. NQ hesitated about 3 heartbeats too long, and as a result could not keep Froome in check. Nobody else responded. After he was out about 200m ahead of NQ, Froome settled back into a steady pace as NQ settled into just staying ahead of the rest behind. As it happened Ligget and Roll both separately commented that this was typical for Sky - to launch an attack in the early mountain climbs to establish a lead, as if it was strategically expected. In the post-stage interview Froome commented that he attacked when he did after hearing on the radio of other key contenders (Nibali and Contador specifically mentioned) dropping off.

If you look back into the pre-Armstrong days, there were more impressive stage attacks launched by the likes of LeMond and Hinault that opened wider margins in finishing climbs. In light of those performances, Froome's doesn't appear so spectacular or superhuman at all. Should they now also be condemned, because they appear even more extreme than Froome?

So again, if you have something objective, please bring it. That's not a defense. It's a request for something real, beyond just purely subjective suspicion.


----------



## Local Hero

GueroAz said:


> I want to see Quintana's and Van Garderen's numbers now. That is the only way to form a context for what was presented. *At some point, each rider will have their power data transmitted directly to race authority for possible review*. That would be interesting.


This is silly.


----------



## il sogno

55x11 said:


> But the key issue is not absolute numbers, it's the fact that Froome is dominating the field in the way we haven't seen since Armstrong times. And Armstrong was a huge talent as a junior - Froome has done nothing of importance and then exploded when he turned 25 and joined Sky. But also look at the entire Sky team. Armstrong had Chechu and Heras who would normally lead their own teams, and Hincapie and Landis who went from flat-lander domestiques to winning mountain top stages in dominant fashion against actual climbers.
> 
> Well, Froome has Porte who finishes 2nd in the most decisive mountain stage so far, and Gerraint Thomas, who went from track rider to classics guy to now outclimbing Nibali and Tejay. After setting the tempo at the front that sheds all second-tier favorites, like Gesink, Pinot, Bardet, everyone. And he is currently 6th overall. WTF?!
> 
> Seriously it doesn't set off any bells for anyone?
> 
> I am sorry but I don't need to see the power numbers to be reminded that this is Pharmstrong and US Postal all over again. Froome putting a minute on Quintana over 6K (most of over just a few Ks), 2 min on Valverde, 2:30 on Tejay, almost 3min on Contador and 4.5 minutes on Nibali. Meanwhile Porte loses only 1 min and Thomas is 2 min back, after doing SO. MUCH. WORK on the front. Come on.
> 
> This is like Lance winning with Chechu finishing in 2nd, and Hincapie top 10, outclimbing Ullrich, Mayo, Beloki and Pantani. But if that ever happened (it didn't), we would hear how this because US Postal is so professional at researching the stages, bluffing about their strategy, training together and also spinning really really fast (cardio can be doped and improved a lot more than muscular response so spinning fast - which loads cardio and takes off load from muscles, is a big doping marker for me after Armstrong). Also Johan Bruyneel is a strategic genius!


^^^ This. Exactly.


----------



## robdamanii

Fireform said:


> It appears that Froome's actual power numbers were considerably more modest than those being tossed around by the armchair experts, whether one corrects for the osymmetric chain rings or not. Who could have seen that coming?
> 
> Team Sky reveal Froome?s Tour de France data from stage 10 | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> But hey, you go on and crucify him anyway, based on whatever suppositions you can dream up.


So he beat Gesink by a minute and a half while putting out significantly lower power? When Gesink's whole data file has been released?

That's SOME efficiency he's got there... 

The Froome believers are just as bad as the dyed-in-the-wool Armstrong believers. Hell, even FERRARI has said that nothing's changed, and he should be the one to know.


----------



## robdamanii

55x11 said:


> exactly, they choose a longer period of time to "dilute" the Watts/Kg.
> Does everyone here understand that the power curve keeps going down as the duration gets longer?
> 
> To me personally, the power numbers themselves only reveal something we all knew all along - that calculations of ammattipyöräily, and even sometimes Dr. Ferrari himself, are quite accurate and it's mind boggling why Sky would ridicule their power estimates as fiction.
> 
> But the key issue is not absolute numbers, it's the fact that Froome is dominating the field in the way we haven't seen since Armstrong times. And Armstrong was a huge talent as a junior - Froome has done nothing of importance and then exploded when he turned 25 and joined Sky. But also look at the entire Sky team. Armstrong had Chechu and Heras who would normally lead their own teams, and Hincapie and Landis who went from flat-lander domestiques to winning mountain top stages in dominant fashion against actual climbers.
> Well, Froome has Porte who finishes 2nd in the most decisive mountain stage so far, and Gerraint Thomas, who went from track rider to classics guy to now outclimbing Nibali and Tejay. After setting the tempo at the front that sheds all second-tier favorites, like Gesink, Pinot, Bardet, everyone. And he is currently 6th overall. WTF?!
> 
> Seriously it doesn't set off any bells for anyone?
> 
> I am sorry but I don't need to see the power numbers to be reminded that this is Pharmstrong and US Postal all over again. Froome putting a minute on Quintana over 6K (most of over just a few Ks), 2 min on Valverde, 2:30 on Tejay, almost 3min on Contador and 4.5 minutes on Nibali. Meanwhile Porte loses only 1 min and Thomas is 2 min back, after doing SO. MUCH. WORK on the front. Come on.
> 
> This is like Lance winning with Chechu finishing in 2nd, and Hincapie top 10, outclimbing Ullrich, Mayo, Beloki and Pantani. But if that ever happened (it didn't), we would hear how this because US Postal is so professional at researching the stages, bluffing about their strategy, training together and also spinning really really fast (cardio can be doped and improved a lot more than muscular response so spinning fast - which loads cardio and takes off load from muscles, is a big doping marker for me after Armstrong). Also Johan Bruyneel is a strategic genius!


This is the truth. However, people will believe what they want to believe, and some people want to believe Froome is the new golden boy and Sky just taught him how to eat properly. 

This will not change. If the LA debacle is any preview, it won't change even after he's popped.


----------



## Fireform

robdamanii said:


> This is the truth. However, people will believe what they want to believe, and some people want to believe Froome is the new golden boy and Sky just taught him how to eat properly.
> 
> This will not change. If the LA debacle is any preview, it won't change even after he's popped.


The problem is that your complete lack of objectivity and eagerness to embrace any speculation virtually begs for someone to play devils advocate. As I've said, I'm not saying I believe the team is clean. But the numbers I've seen are credible and the arguments you're presenting are not remotely proving anything. Some of the arguments, such as the idea that riders routinely have great results at Sky and vanish when they leave them, are just rubbish. When some proof comes to light I will be quick to accept it. By so far...


----------



## ibericb

David Walsh - Sunday Times chief sports writer :

_"I've also spent a lot of time looking at the people around Chris Froome, looking at what's going on in Team Sky. We're now three years into the Froome story. At the three-year point into my investigation into Lance Armstrong I had six people in his team who told me he doped. 

"I haven't had one person, who works with Sky now or who was sacked by Sky, who has given me anything to go on or investigate. In fairness to Chris Froome my conclusion has to be that I've seen nothing that indicates he dopes and I'm inclined to believe him when he says he doesn't. It doesn't mean I know, but I certainly believe his claims."
_ 

Walsh, who was a key journalist in uncovering Lance Armstrong's doping regime, was speaking on BBC Radio 5 live's Victoria Derbyshire programme.


----------



## Fireform

I am reading David Millar's book right now. It's a very interesting read, and what he has to say about Brailsford and the way team GB was run, and the anti-doping culture there even during the dark days of the EPO era is illuminating, and perhaps relevant to this thread.

"Team GB's thinking and professionalism was having a profound impact on me. After long discussions with GB's sports scientists, I decided I would put a stop to all needles, which meant no more "recovery" injections. they had convinced me that there was no scientific proof of injectable recoup speeding up an active athletes recovery. I simply had to be diligent with the food and drinks i used and my body would recover just as well, if not better. "

"Dave Brailsford and team GB give me another option. They had an anti-doping stance that they truly believed in, and they operated in a matter that made you want to be clean. I had in many ways given up on Cofidis and the European pro scene, but the prospect of being part of Team GB for the Athens Olympics inspired me. "

Coming from a guy of Millar' stature, candor and experience on both sides of the doping issue, this is strong stuff.


----------



## MoonHowl

Somehow comparing wattage number over different years/decades, different conditions is purportedly more important than watching what Sky is doing to the best in the world right now on what should be a level playing field. Don't believe your eyes people just look at these wattage numbers.


----------



## asgelle

ibericb said:


> Sorry, Rich, You've completely misunderstood my posts, and you've also missed the point. I'm not defending Sky or Froome. I'm asking for those who are condemning them to bring something credible and objective, not just suspicion based on observation (such as yours, and mine too).


Absolutely. I don't know why so many people automatically jump from questioning the evidence to defending the rider. It reminds me of the Landis case. Lots of people were pointing out that the lab operations were so sloppy or downright wrong, that their results should never be used to determine someone's guilt or innocence. We were then pilloried for defending Landis and people questioned how we could possibly believe he was innocent, which we were never claiming in the first place. In the end, as soon as the Landis case was resolved, that lab lost its accreditation.

This situation is similar, almost everyone agrees there's cause for suspicion, but suspicion is not proof, and the question is how do we move forward. What would it take to resolve those suspicions?

Finally for those who keep drawing analogies between Froome and Armstrong, lets remember Armstrong returned a positive test at the very first stage of the very first tour at which he showed any promise as a GC rider. It's not like there wasn't any direct evidence in Armstrong's case. If there's anything similar for Froome, I'm not aware of it. (and don't bring up TUEs which were filed within the rules even though the public didn't know about them.)


----------



## stevesbike

robdamanii said:


> So he beat Gesink by a minute and a half while putting out significantly lower power? When Gesink's whole data file has been released?
> 
> That's SOME efficiency he's got there...
> 
> The Froome believers are just as bad as the dyed-in-the-wool Armstrong believers. Hell, even FERRARI has said that nothing's changed, and he should be the one to know.


1. It's entirely possible for a rider to climb a segment in less time than another rider while putting out less W/kg. It's one reason why a rider will sit on another rider's wheel. Wind shielding is one of the largest contributors to power estimation random error. 

2. Even using power meter data, there is error. The most obvious one are the oval chainrings, but there's also issues of calibration, temperature calibration, etc. that will have an effect. So, varying estimates by a few percent to account for this eliminates the discrepancy among various riders.

3. Even if there's no correction for Froome's power meter data, the uncorrected estimate is physiologically plausible, particularly taking into account 1) stage 10 followed a rest day, 2) the rest day was preceded by a TTT, which has the lowest training stress of a Tour stage, 3) the race up to the final climb was relatively easy - power data shows this too. 

4. The most interesting thing about Froome's data - which no one seems to be talking about - is the attack. It suggests he has an interesting power profile and likely a higher anaerobic contribution to his performance than most others. If this is the case, I can see why Sky might want to keep it undisclosed, as it could suggest ways to race against him.


----------



## Fireform

Gosh, you mean the guy in the yellow jersey with a team working hard for him is putting out fewer watts? Alert the media!


----------



## smokva

goodboyr said:


> Remember that earlier in his career he was a mediocre level cyclist that "suddenly" achieved spectacular results. That doesn't support the genetic outlier theory.


Suddenly at age 28 he becomes superhuman and guys who were top class during junior and senior years cant follow his wheel.
Someone said right, he is genetically gifted, but i would add...genetically gifted to respond to doping better than others.
Also how tall is he, i never saw climber of 190 that can outclimb an midget like Quintana.
We all know that naturally current most gifted GC riders are Conti, Valverde and Quintana.
Nibali reads race the best and is great tactician.
Everything about Froom screams something is wrong.


----------



## AJL

Fireform said:


> I am reading David Millar's book right now. It's a very interesting read, and what he has to say about Brailsford and the way team GB was run, and the anti-doping culture there even during the dark days of the EPO era is illuminating, and perhaps relevant to this thread.
> 
> "Team GB's thinking and professionalism was having a profound impact on me. After long discussions with GB's sports scientists, I decided I would put a stop to all needles, which meant no more "recovery" injections. they had convinced me that there was no scientific proof of injectable recoup speeding up an active athletes recovery. I simply had to be diligent with the food and drinks i used and my body would recover just as well, if not better. "
> 
> "Dave Brailsford and team GB give me another option. They had an anti-doping stance that they truly believed in, and they operated in a matter that made you want to be clean. I had in many ways given up on Cofidis and the European pro scene, but the prospect of being part of Team GB for the Athens Olympics inspired me. "
> 
> Coming from a guy of Millar' stature, candor and experience on both sides of the doping issue, this is strong stuff.


LOL! Well, that's bunk. Blood doping *does* improve performance (EPO, transfusions). That's why they are banned practices. It's also why truckloads of EPO ampules have been stolen just before the Olympics on several occasions. A few examples (EPO): https://www.google.com/webhp?source...espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=performance gains using epo


----------



## GueroAz

This along with David Walsh just fall short of unbiased opinions to me. Why would Millar throw his country's team under the bus and why would Walsh who gets his salary from a British newspaper do the same. It just doesn't make sense to me.



Fireform said:


> I am reading David Millar's book right now. It's a very interesting read, and what he has to say about Brailsford and the way team GB was run, and the anti-doping culture there even during the dark days of the EPO era is illuminating, and perhaps relevant to this thread.
> 
> "Team GB's thinking and professionalism was having a profound impact on me. After long discussions with GB's sports scientists, I decided I would put a stop to all needles, which meant no more "recovery" injections. they had convinced me that there was no scientific proof of injectable recoup speeding up an active athletes recovery. I simply had to be diligent with the food and drinks i used and my body would recover just as well, if not better. "
> 
> "Dave Brailsford and team GB give me another option. They had an anti-doping stance that they truly believed in, and they operated in a matter that made you want to be clean. I had in many ways given up on Cofidis and the European pro scene, but the prospect of being part of Team GB for the Athens Olympics inspired me. "
> 
> Coming from a guy of Millar' stature, candor and experience on both sides of the doping issue, this is strong stuff.


----------



## Fireform

AJL said:


> LOL! Well, that's bunk. Blood doping *does* improve performance (EPO, transfusions). That's why they are banned practices. It's also why truckloads of EPO ampules have been stolen just before the Olympics on several occasions. A few examples (EPO): https://www.google.com/webhp?source...espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=performance gains using epo


You're such an expert on doping, yet you don't know who David Millar is? Maybe you should read his book. He was busted and banned for EPO and writes very clearly about the effects it had on him, both physical and mental. 

Jeebus.


----------



## AJL

Fireform said:


> You're such an expert on doping, yet you don't know who David Millar is? Maybe you should read his book. He was busted and banned for EPO and writes very clearly about the effects it had on him, both physical and mental.
> 
> Jeebus.


I know well who Millar is**. I was responding to this:


> "Team GB's thinking and professionalism was having a profound impact on me. After long discussions with GB's sports scientists, I decided I would put a stop to all needles, which meant no more "recovery" injections. they had convinced me that there was no scientific proof of injectable recoup speeding up an active athletes recovery. I simply had to be diligent with the food and drinks i used and my body would recover just as well, if not better. "


Which is just ridiculous. I'm not an EPO expert, but have read very good descriptions posted or linked through this thread over the years, so I'm not exactly a novice when it comes to doping knowledge either.



** I'm a long time follower of this site and first joined in 2006 and have been involved in many doping conversations. I took a 'clean' break from this site in 2008 for reasons to long to recount here. Allot of blood doping material was covered here especially during and after Armstrong's 'comeback' tour.


----------



## asgelle

AJL said:


> Which is just ridiculous. I'm not an EPO expert, but have read very good descriptions posted or linked through this thread over the years, so I'm not exactly a novice when it comes to doping knowledge either.


I've never heard of EPO used as a recovery injection, which is what Miller was referring to.


----------



## ibericb

smokva said:


> Suddenly at age 28 he becomes superhuman and guys who were top class during junior and senior years cant follow his wheel.


You obviously don't know anything about Froome's history.


----------



## Fireform

Obviously he wasn't referring the EPO in that passage, but EPO is the main thing Millar wanted to get away from riding with British cycling. 

Seriously it's a good read. The idea that he's interested in covering up anybody's cheating is laughable, as is the idea that these guys would be committed to covering up Team Sky's sins because they happen to be British. It's just more trial by innuendo, and mental masturbation.


----------



## Local Hero

asgelle said:


> I've never heard of EPO used as a recovery injection, which is what Miller was referring to.


He could be referring to cortisone. But EPO will certainly aid recovery.


----------



## Fireform

asgelle said:


> I've never heard of EPO used as a recovery injection, which is what Miller was referring to.


He was talking about eliminating EPO and going further, with no needles for vitamins or iron or other commonly used recovery products either.


----------



## den bakker

GueroAz said:


> This along with David Walsh just fall short of unbiased opinions to me. Why would Millar throw his country's team under the bus and why would Walsh who gets his salary from a British newspaper do the same. It just doesn't make sense to me.


you can be pretty sure Walsh would get plenty of money elsewhere for that story. 
but to make it all fit the british empire is now backed by an irish and a scotsman. Born on Malta no less.


----------



## AJL

Fireform said:


> Obviously he wasn't referring the EPO in that passage, but EPO is the main thing Millar wanted to get away from riding with British cycling.


With the quotes around recovery injections - I thought he was using a euphemism - my bad. I'm sure the book is a good read - and it's only $1.99. I have no reason to doubt Millar - quite the contrary. His book was published in 2008, however, and Brailsford and others may have had a change of heart when it came to producing top results in road racing (given that people like  Jonathan Vaughters refer to the sport as being cleaner - not totally clean).


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Recovery is commonly given as a drip, which are now against the rules. 

Froome's sudden, massive, improvement is certainly questionable. When Froome suddenly exploded on to the scene at the 2011 Vuelta Brailsford himself thought it was questionable. Asked Sky's doctors to figure out if Froome was doping. 

There is certainly a lot of nonsense and pseudo science being tossed around about him but also his performances are very questionable


----------



## philclegg

Marc said:


> Says the one willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt when every single fact says he shouldn't.
> 
> I suppose you're happy, if foolishly trusting, at least there's that. Would you like to buy a bridge?


What 'facts' are you talking about? 
That someone beat someone else in a race? .... That other people have done it before?
Your contempt for success shines like a beacon mate. Your arguments have zero factual foundation when it comes to Sky and Froome. 
What's worse is that you descend into ridicule when faced with argument.
If you have such a dislike of professional cycling then why watch?


Marc said:


> I like to believe in Santa Claus too.
> 
> OTOH, I live in the real world...and every single time someone has showed up in the UCI peloton looking "genetically gifted", completely dominant over all his rivals who can't attack him or barely even keep up with him on a measly Cat 2 mountain it turned out that he just had a really good pharmacist.
> 
> Here's a fun fact...all the riders who ascended rapidly to dominance on Team Sky and then went to other teams...guess what....faded and quickly became has-beens. You'd think if it was training or nutrition or recovery, those riders would have learned it and kept it.


----------



## coldash

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Recovery is commonly given as a drip, which are now against the rules.
> 
> Froome's sudden, massive, improvement is certainly questionable. When Froome suddenly exploded on to the scene at the 2011 Vuelta Brailsford himself thought it was questionable. Asked Sky's doctors to figure out if Froome was doping.
> 
> There is certainly a lot of nonsense and pseudo science being tossed around about him but also his performances are very questionable


Not disputing any of what you've written, but IIRC after 2010 when Froome joined Sky, the thing that concerned Brailsford about Froome was the variability of his performances, subsequently attributed (rightly or wrongly) to the bilharzia issue.

Happy to be corrected on the above.

I also have no problem with Froome's (and others) performances being questioned; it is the way that it is questioned that puzzles me.


----------



## robdamanii

coldash said:


> Not disputing any of what you've written, but IIRC after 2010 when Froome joined Sky, the thing that concerned Brailsford about Froome was the variability of his performances, subsequently attributed (rightly or wrongly) to the bilharzia issue.
> 
> Happy to be corrected on the above.
> 
> I also have no problem with Froome's (and others) performances being questioned; it is the way that it is questioned that puzzles me.


I'd rather like to know how having bilharzia (aka schistosomiasis) doesn't show up in his physiological passport data. I believe said question was also asked and no answer was ever provided.


----------



## ibericb

robdamanii said:


> I'd rather like to know how having bilharzia (aka schistosomiasis) doesn't show up in his physiological passport data. I believe said question was also asked and no answer was ever provided.


It's not a "physiological passport ", it's a _biological passport"._

It's not a medical history. It tracks only specifically selected hematological and steroidal markers related to banned substance testing.

It's all well explained in the pertinent WADA Operating Guidelines.

You need to look elsewhere.


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderator Note*

Ah July, the weather is hot, the TdF is on the TV and the takes in the Doping Forum are chippy. Everyone please stick to the point, and not your unflattering opinions of other posters please.


----------



## ibericb

Fair enough. Let me make amends (edited).


----------



## asdf1234

ibericb said:


> It tracks only specifically selected hematological and steroidal markers related to banned substance testing.


Pretty sure a disease that causes anemia and male menstruation would have an impact on blood values.


----------



## ibericb

asdf1234 said:


> Pretty sure a disease that causes anemia and male menstruation would have an impact on blood values.


It well might have. But that has nothing to do with the passports. The passports don't track personal medical history. Just testing results. It's an electronic database of specific test results. See the document linked.

edit added - If the WADA operating guidelines are too long, try this simple explanation of what's included from UCI.


----------



## asdf1234

ibericb said:


> But that has nothing to do with the passports.


Haha, have you actually read the document you keep linking to. If so then you have a serious deficiency in reading comprehension.


----------



## ibericb

asdf1234 said:


> Haha, have you actually read the document you keep linking to. If so then you have a serious deficiency in reading comprehension.


Another insult? 

Maybe you didn't understand what information is recorded in the passport. It's simply of record of specific test results used to monitor for doping and the use of banned substances. A medical history might be used to explain variations observed, but the medical history and reason for the variations is not included in the passport (data), as was suggested in the prior post that led to my initial response.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

ibericb said:


> It's not a "physiological passport ", it's a _biological passport"._
> 
> It's not a medical history. It tracks only specifically selected hematological and steroidal markers related to banned substance testing.
> 
> It's all well explained in the pertinent WADA Operating Guidelines.
> 
> You need to look elsewhere.


Froome has said the reason he was so slow prior to the 2011 Vuelta was due to bilharzia eating his red blood cells. He has said that he would have occasions when it was not as bad and he would ride well then other times where he felt terrible. 

Fluctuations in Red Blood Cells is one of the key paramaters of the ABP. If the issues are as bad as Froome says then there should have been substantial fluctuation, enough to trigger a review.


----------



## David Loving

another reason not to believe what they say. I trust my lying eyes.


----------



## ibericb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Froome has said the reason he was so slow prior to the 2011 Vuelta was due to bilharzia eating his red blood cells. He has said that he would have occasions when it was not as bad and he would ride well then other times where he felt terrible.
> 
> Fluctuations in Red Blood Cells is one of the key paramaters of the ABP. If the issues are as bad as Froome says then there should have been substantial fluctuation, enough to trigger a review.


Agreed. And maybe there was a review, and his history explained the results to the satisfaction of the inquiring body without further action. 

The point is, the passport is not a medical history record. It is a record of specific test results. Further, it's not a record of actions taken either, at least as I understand it and as it is explained. Finally, any sharing or explanation other than one based on a violation of anti-doping rules and subsequent action would generally (in most civilized western countries) need to come from Froome, as it would constitute a sharing of personal medical information.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

ibericb said:


> Agreed. And maybe there was a review, and his history explained the results to the satisfaction of the inquiring body without further action.
> 
> The point is, the passport is not a medical history record. It is a record of specific test results. Further, it's not a record of actions taken either, at least as I understand it and as it is explained. Finally, any sharing or explanation other than one based on a violation of anti-doping rules and subsequent action would generally (in most civilized western countries) need to come from Froome, as it would constitute a sharing of personal medical information.


UCI asking a rider for clarification of their ABP data is more common then many would think. Froom has been asked if the UCI ever asked him to clarify his numbers. he has said no. 

So his illness was bad enough to shave 5-10% off his output but not bad enough to trigger the ABP. It sounds odd.


----------



## ibericb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> UCI asking a rider for clarification of their ABP data is more common then many would think. Froom has been asked if the UCI ever asked him to clarify his numbers. he has said no.
> 
> So his illness was bad enough to shave 5-10% off his output but not bad enough to trigger the ABP. It sounds odd.


Maybe you should contact Froome and his medical doctors, or those who have been reviewing the data in the ABP's for UCI for clarification. I believe Froome's diagnosis came in 2008, which is the same year UCI began with ABP's. Since then it has been widely discussed and commented in the the open media, I see no reason to be suspicious, outside of a possible UCI-corruption conspiracy of some sort.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

ibericb said:


> Maybe you should contact Froome and his medical doctors, or those who have been reviewing the data in the ABP's for UCI for clarification. I believe Froome's diagnosis came in 2008, which is the same year UCI began with ABP's. Since then it has been widely discussed and commented in the the open media, I see no reason to be suspicious, outside of a possible UCI-corruption conspiracy of some sort.


He was diagnosed in 2010. I am not suggesting any kind of UCI cover up. 

Froome sudden, huge, improvement in 2011 should set off alarm bells with anyone who has been following the sport for a while. Even the top people at Sky were concerned.


----------



## robdamanii

ibericb said:


> It's not a "physiological passport ", it's a _biological passport"._
> 
> It's not a medical history. It tracks only specifically selected hematological and steroidal markers related to banned substance testing.
> 
> It's all well explained in the pertinent WADA Operating Guidelines.
> 
> You need to look elsewhere.


I know how the bio passport works, and I know very well what it's called. 

My iPhone voice transcription missed the "and" between "physiological" and "passport". Sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities.


----------



## ibericb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> He was diagnosed in 2010. I am not suggesting any kind of UCI cover up.
> 
> Froome sudden, huge, improvement in 2011 should set off alarm bells with anyone who has been following the sport for a while. Even the top people at Sky were concerned.


You're right - it was either 2009 or 2010, depending on which source you look at.

Brailsford commented somewhere on Froome's surge in performance post 2008, and attribute it to a proper diagnosis of bilharzia, and the ensung treatment. I don't recall the timeline. Is that real? I have no clue.

There was a flap last year about his DNA, and a preliminary statement that he had non-human DNA. I never heard how that was resolved, but my SWAG would be contamination or an analytical.

The bottom line is while there is a lot of suspicion, with valid reason, nobody has come up with any credible evidence that Froome has doped. But then anything they did find on Armstrong got suppressed for years. That just further fuels the suspicion in the post-Armstrong era.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

ibericb said:


> There was a flap last year about his DNA, and a preliminary statement that he had non-human DNA.


Finally, someone comes with the Space Alien angle. It is about time


----------



## robdamanii

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Froome has said the reason he was so slow prior to the 2011 Vuelta was due to bilharzia eating his red blood cells. He has said that he would have occasions when it was not as bad and he would ride well then other times where he felt terrible.
> 
> Fluctuations in Red Blood Cells is one of the key paramaters of the ABP. If the issues are as bad as Froome says then there should have been substantial fluctuation, enough to trigger a review.


This is the simple deductive reasoning I was using. 

Apparently, ibericb, you are grasping at straws attempting to defend Froomestrong. You don't even have the basic concept of how the disease affects the body....


----------



## ibericb

robdamanii said:


> I know how the bio passport works, and I know very well what it's called.
> 
> My iPhone voice transcription missed the "and" between "physiological" and "passport". Sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities.


Really, can we stop with the demeaning insults? It does nothing for your arguments.

As has been discussed, maybe the effects of bilharzia is reflected in his passport data. If so, how would you or anyone else outside of Froome, and those legitimately reviewing the data in confidence know? That information, which is generally confidential medical information, is rather restricted.


----------



## ibericb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Finally, someone comes with the Space Alien angle. It is about time


Even Brailsford commented specifically on that, last year. I suspect his tongue was firmly planted in his cheek when he did.


----------



## robdamanii

ibericb said:


> Really, can we stop with the demeaning insults? It does nothing for your arguments.
> 
> As has been discussed, maybe the effects of bilharzia is reflected in his passport data. If so, how would you or anyone else outside of Froome, and those legitimately reviewing the data in confidence know? That information, which is generally confidential medical information, is rather restricted.


As restricted as his power numbers, which Sky seems to imply are less than that of everyone he's dropped badly already?

And for insults, I see you got a reprimand already. Good job. I can say that the insults do you no good either.

This is not as much about Sky and Froome as it is about transparency. It's a replay of what happened from 99-05. It would have been just the same for any other team. Had Nibali done the same, you don't think people would be screaming for blood?

Lay everything on the table, Sky. Power, VO2, efficiency data, EVERYTHING. The lack of transparency for "protecting our training techniques" is a bullsh*t excuse. Other teams release data freely, and I don't see anyone else complaining of sabotage. Sky is simply either hiding something or paranoid (probably paraniod that something they are hiding will be revealed.)

Power calculations have been proven to be within a couple % of actual values for other riders. No reason to believe it wouldn't be the same for Froome. So thank you, I'll believe the physiologists NOT in the employ of the cheaters.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

ibericb said:


> Even Brailsford commented specifically on that, last year. I suspect his tongue was firmly planted in his cheek when he did.


No he was serious. Froome is an actual alien, that is why Sky is so secretive. 

Shhhhh, don't want the secret to get out or the Feds are going to start doing experiments on him.


----------



## goodboyr

He's a spider from Mars........


----------



## Fireform

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Even the top people at Sky were concerned.


What was the result of that concern?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Fireform said:


> What was the result of that concern?


Nada. 

To be fair Sky, in their efforts to hire people from outside of cycling, have hired a bunch of people who have no idea how to read questionable values. They are clueless


----------



## ibericb

Maybe they already did, and that's why is so fast. But, whose "Feds"?


----------



## PBL450

robdamanii said:


> As restricted as his power numbers, which Sky seems to imply are less than that of everyone he's dropped badly already?
> 
> And for insults, I see you got a reprimand already. Good job. I can say that the insults do you no good either.
> 
> This is not as much about Sky and Froome as it is about transparency. It's a replay of what happened from 99-05. It would have been just the same for any other team. Had Nibali done the same, you don't think people would be screaming for blood?
> 
> Lay everything on the table, Sky. Power, VO2, efficiency data, EVERYTHING. The lack of transparency for "protecting our training techniques" is a bullsh*t excuse. Other teams release data freely, and I don't see anyone else complaining of sabotage. Sky is simply either hiding something or paranoid (probably paraniod that something they are hiding will be revealed.)
> 
> Power calculations have been proven to be within a couple % of actual values for other riders. No reason to believe it wouldn't be the same for Froome. So thank you, I'll believe the physiologists NOT in the employ of the cheaters.


Has Froome been caught doping? Did I miss something? Is he busted? 

If he hasn't been caught, and people have access to a little more than us forum posters, we might want to silence the attack. OR present your evidence! If it's compelling, present it to the authorities! You could change the face of TdF history! Imagine that, "RBR poster nails TdF favorite!" I'm all about that! Go for it! 

Yeah, it looks suspicious. And it may well be warranted. But... If a rider can't have a good performance than the sport is dead and beyond even magical resurrection. We don't need evidence to establish the fact the LA may have destroyed the sport permanently and completely. Even NPR had a bit on it today. It isn't a sport anymore I guess. That's the alternative right?

Present your evidence or move on. There isn't a third option is there?


----------



## SFTifoso

Froome is doping. But whatever sky is doing it's very selective. Imo Froome and select sky riders got a high dose of whatever sky is giving them on stage 10. But he's probably clean now that he only has to match attacks from Quintana and Valverde. Funny how Porte got dropped today after looking so good; GC contender my ass, more like doped up domestique.


----------



## Rich Gibson

PBL450 said:


> Has Froome been caught doping? Did I miss something? Is he busted?
> 
> If he hasn't been caught, and people have access to a little more than us forum posters, we might want to silence the attack. OR present your evidence! If it's compelling, present it to the authorities! You could change the face of TdF history! Imagine that, "RBR poster nails TdF favorite!" I'm all about that! Go for it!
> 
> ...
> 
> Present your evidence or move on. There isn't a third option is there?


It all sounds so familiar..just change the name Froome above to Armstrong. Why was it okay to question Armstrong then but not Froome now?

Rich


----------



## Fireform

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nada.
> 
> To be fair Sky, in their efforts to hire people from outside of cycling, have hired a bunch of people who have no idea how to read questionable values. They are clueless


If Sky has a doping program, why would Brailsford have his doctors investigate Froome's numbers for evidence of doping? It makes no sense. Why not just quietly put him on their program and move on?


----------



## Local Hero

robdamanii said:


> I know how the bio passport works, and I know very well what it's called.
> 
> My iPhone voice transcription missed the "and" between "physiological" and "passport". Sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities.


I hoe nobody overhears you speaking into this forum.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Fireform said:


> If Sky has a doping program, why would Brailsford have his doctors investigate Froome's numbers for evidence of doping? It makes no sense. Why not just quietly put him on their program and move on?


I don't think they have a program. Froome might have his own program but I don't think Sky have one.


----------



## den bakker

Rich Gibson said:


> It all sounds so familiar..just change the name Froome above to Armstrong. Why was it okay to question Armstrong then but not Froome now?
> 
> Rich


besides the positive test? besides the riders speaking out? besides the staff speaking out?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

den bakker said:


> besides the positive test? besides the riders speaking out? besides the staff speaking out?


This, ultimately, is the case. There was a mountain of evidence against lance that people ignore. With Froome the evidence is basically "He climbs fast"


----------



## Local Hero

Fireform said:


> If Sky has a doping program, why would Brailsford have his doctors investigate Froome's numbers for evidence of doping? It makes no sense. Why not just quietly put him on their program and move on?


And Cavendish doesn't fit in this program.


----------



## robdamanii

PBL450 said:


> Has Froome been caught doping? Did I miss something? Is he busted?
> 
> If he hasn't been caught, and people have access to a little more than us forum posters, we might want to silence the attack. OR present your evidence! If it's compelling, present it to the authorities! You could change the face of TdF history! Imagine that, "RBR poster nails TdF favorite!" I'm all about that! Go for it!
> 
> Yeah, it looks suspicious. And it may well be warranted. But... If a rider can't have a good performance than the sport is dead and beyond even magical resurrection. We don't need evidence to establish the fact the LA may have destroyed the sport permanently and completely. Even NPR had a bit on it today. It isn't a sport anymore I guess. That's the alternative right?
> 
> Present your evidence or move on. There isn't a third option is there?


What you JUST WROTE sounds almost verbatim what was said about Armstrong.

Fool me once...

And I frankly don't care if we have to destroy the sport to fix it. Burn the goddamned house down and rebuild it.


----------



## ibericb

robdamanii said:


> What you JUST WROTE sounds almost verbatim what was said about Armstrong.
> 
> Fool me once...
> 
> And I frankly don't care if we have to destroy the sport to fix it. Burn the goddamned house down and rebuild it.


But Froome isn't Armstrong, and this is not the same era as the Armstrong years. 

Give that a rest.


----------



## rufus

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Finally, someone comes with the Space Alien angle. It is about time


In that helmet and dopey glasses, he does look a lot like one of the "greys".


----------



## ngl

After reading (most of) these post it's pretty obvious some people are pissed their man (already previously caught for doping) is not wearing the yellow jersey.


----------



## nocker

Assume they'll be an equally vociferous clamor for Quintana and Nibali data, years of medical history, and in depth analysis by people so qualified to do so they're employed by tv rather than professionally in their chosen field.. or is it a case of because their teams or teammates have already been caught doping it doesn't matter


----------



## GlobalGuy

Given the documented record of PEDs in most major sports and especially the very long and documented cases or history in cycling it is justified IMO to believe there is a reasonable possibility that Froome and other elite riders use PEDs. Froome is a bit more suspect than some of the other elite riders due to his current performance from what it was several years back.


----------



## BacDoc

ibericb said:


> But Froome isn't Armstrong, and this is not the same era as the Armstrong years.


When trying to improve on a "Program" you can see how previous attempts have failed and try to avoid those mistakes. Sky is smart and has the dough.

Yes, this is not the same era, it's a new era and the sophistication of the "Program" evolves, just as U.S. postal program evolved over the past crude programs. It almost worked but some mistakes were made and it all came out. Learn from previous mistakes and take it to new level.

Eventually it will all come out with this latest version as it always does but they keep getting better all the time.

Stay tuned.


----------



## deviousalex

Local Hero said:


> We know the fastest rider to the top will have the highest w/kg.


This is not necessarily true. Riders who weigh more can climb at a slightly lower W/Kg due to wind resistance, rolling resistance, and their bike being less % of total weight than a person who weighs less. 

http://www.chronoswatts.com/img/mag/P_138-141_Science_en.pdf

See page 3.

And that's in an isolated scenario. Drafting can make a huge difference with even a slight headwind. Look at Ross Tucker's blog

Tour 2009: Contador climb | The Science of Sport



> It’s been reported that there was quite a strong wind blowing up the valley on the climb. Alex very helpfully calculated what impact a wind would have on the required power output on the climb. It turns out that with NO WIND, the power output required on the climb is approximately 422W. A tail-wind speed of 3m/s (10km/hour) reduces the power output required to 387W, which is a pretty sizeable difference.


----------



## deviousalex

Local Hero said:


> And Cavendish doesn't fit in this program.


Or maybe Cavendish wanted to go to a team who's priority wasn't getting yellow. Is that so hard to understand or are we going to push conspiracy theories about Cavendish not wanting to be associated with dopers? If so, why did Cav give Richie Port a nice push the other day when Richie was delivering some water bottles? Why do Cav and Wiggins still hang out?


----------



## Local Hero

deviousalex said:


> This is not necessarily true. Riders who weigh more can climb at a slightly lower W/Kg due to wind resistance, rolling resistance, and their bike being less % of total weight than a person who weighs less.
> 
> http://www.chronoswatts.com/img/mag/P_138-141_Science_en.pdf
> 
> See page 3.
> 
> And that's in an isolated scenario. Drafting can make a huge difference with even a slight headwind. Look at Ross Tucker's blog
> 
> Tour 2009: Contador climb | The Science of Sport


Drafting makes less and less of a difference as hill points up. Go to 1:30 here:






Their numbers show that a 15% savings in power from drafting on a flat road will dwindle to w 1.5% savings on a 6% climb. 





deviousalex said:


> Or maybe Cavendish wanted to go to a team who's priority wasn't getting yellow. Is that so hard to understand or are we going to push conspiracy theories about Cavendish not wanting to be associated with dopers? If so, why did Cav give Richie Port a nice push the other day when Richie was delivering some water bottles? Why do Cav and Wiggins still hang out?


I agree what what you wrote. What I was saying is that Cavendish doesn't fit with the idea of a team-wide doping program. I wrote that same thing earlier in this thread.


----------



## goodboyr

We need to think out of the box, here. Froome and sky are not lying or screwing with the numbers. Instead, they've got really good at mechanical doping. I think this explains why they can claim the numbers are true, in spite of the fact they are lower than the riders froome beat. He's got a motor in that pinarello!


----------



## deviousalex

Local Hero said:


> Their numbers show that a 15% savings in power from drafting on a flat road will dwindle to w 1.5% savings on a 6% climb.


Look at 2:26 when they breakdown the forces you are acting against. If you have a headwind those forces will change and the aero drag will be a higher % of the total forces hence making drafting more important.


----------



## love4himies

goodboyr said:


> We need to think out of the box, here. Froome and sky are not lying or screwing with the numbers. Instead, they've got really good at mechanical doping. I think this explains why they can claim the numbers are true, in spite of the fact they are lower than the riders froome beat. He's got a motor in that pinarello!


That's funny you say that. When Froome had his mechanical at the top of the La Toussuire, he was able to take off like he was on a flat and catch up to the GC guys, then pass them to take his place at the front. His legs were spinning so fast it looked unreal.


----------



## Local Hero

deviousalex said:


> Look at 2:26 when they breakdown the forces you are acting against. If you have a headwind those forces will change and the aero drag will be a higher % of the total forces hence making drafting more important.


Sure, with a hard headwind drafting will become more important. And with a tailwind it will be less important. 


But these climbs often start off with GC guys all drafting the skyborg train. Then Froome attacks and others try to catch. If there is a real gap it is Froome and then 15s back Quintana, and then further back other riders. 

I have also seen Quintana and Froome together, taking turns pulling. 

It seems like they all get the same draft benefit unless one is on the attack. And that that point, they are broken apart. Or it is just two of them, taking turns pulling. 

What I have not seen is Froome drafting Quintana all the way to the top, or vice versa, unless it is just for a few minutes at the end of the stage. And nothing looks particularly windy. 

What you wrote is theoretically true but I don't think it is happening in reality.


----------



## ibericb

Valid points indeed.

Given the recent history of others there certainly is sound reason to be suspicious. But, at the same time I wonder what kind of person would go through the extreme effort and sacrifice needed to make it to the TdF, and hopefully winning, only to reasonably expect that if they doped at some point it would come out, their success would be erased, and their reputation would be professionally trashed? Add that, at least in the U.S., they might even face rather expensive civil liabilities after the fact.

Not only do the doping programs become more sophisticated, but so do monitoring and detection methods. Even with more sophisticated capabilities to game the system, it just seems to me that only a very short-sighted fool would, today, go down that path. It's certainly plausible that there are more such short-sighted members in the UCI pro ranks than I would expect.


----------



## SFTifoso

I think we saw a clean Froome today. Sky will be freaking, and give Froome a big "boost"; we will see the return of the alien tomorrow. Froome will win alpe d'huez.


----------



## MoonHowl

SFTifoso said:


> I think we saw a clean Froome today. Sky will be freaking, and give Froome a big "boost"; we will see the return of the alien tomorrow. Froome will win alpe d'huez.


Froome this morning before putting on his makeup:


----------



## sir duke

robdamanii said:


> What you JUST WROTE sounds almost verbatim what was said about Armstrong.
> 
> Fool me once...
> 
> *And I frankly don't care if we have to destroy the sport to fix it. Burn the goddamned house down and rebuild it.*


Then what would you have to whinge about then? All those clean riders winning stuff? And if they _were_ clean how would you know? You proved with your innuendo and trash-talking that you're clueless about Froome.. If you had a credible case would you need the playground insults? I know it gives a few of your Sky-hating buddies a good laugh but shouting your accusations from the rooftop won't lend them an iota more credibility. You got nothing and you know it.


----------



## den bakker

sir duke said:


> Then what would you have to whinge about then? All those clean riders winning stuff? And if they _were_ clean how would you know? You proved with your innuendo and trash-talking that you're clueless about Froome.. If you had a credible case would you need the playground insults? I know it gives a few of your Sky-hating buddies a good laugh but shouting your accusations from the rooftop won't lend them an iota more credibility. You got nothing and you know it.


and at the same time we now have a rider that 11 days ago loosing a minute to now putting in 1m20s on Froome with no questions asked. guess he got better.


----------



## DrSmile

Froome is just really good at studying, pushing, tweaking, and listening. What's he on? He's on his bike, busting his ass six hours a day!


----------



## Local Hero

SFTifoso said:


> I think we saw a clean Froome today. Sky will be freaking, and give Froome a big "boost"; we will see the return of the alien tomorrow. Froome will win alpe d'huez.


No. But he got spit on.


----------



## roddjbrown

It does seem very strange to me that all the focus is on Sky and Froome here. I'm not for one second saying they're clean - I don't know whether they are and the Wiggins Tour especially I am uncomfortable with the performances. 

Weren't many taking Sky getting 2 on the podium as suspicious? I remember reading "even Pharmstrong didn't try and get away with that." Yet here we've got one former doper able to attack over and over to set up his teammate, who himself seems to disappear back to Colombia between races. 

Why the double standards? Why aren't Movistar being spat on, booed, criticised in forums. Were it not for one day of echelons they may well have pulled off a one-two


----------



## Rich Gibson

Rich Gibson said:


> ...
> They're so adamant about drugs and testing *it may be possible they have found something or a process which tests out as normal but gives them the edge. * It will out eventually once someone becomes disaffected, needs money or slips up. ...
> 
> Rich


Ketone kool aid?

http://velorooms.com/index.php?topic=6970.0

Rich


----------



## ibericb

Rich Gibson said:


> Ketone kool aid?
> 
> http://velorooms.com/index.php?topic=6970.0
> 
> Rich


We had a pretty thorough discussion on this a week ago, in this thread. Since then, I looked a bit deeper. Team Sky has publically addressed this, saying they evaluated it and concluded it wasn't for them. Others may be using / trying it. The basic science is there, but if anyone is using it nobody is discussing it.


----------



## BacDoc

Rich Gibson said:


> Ketone kool aid?
> 
> http://velorooms.com/index.php?topic=6970.0
> 
> Rich


Ya, ketones been around for a while and the fat metabolism thing is worth looking into.

Right now the biggie is SARM's. Legal, oral and potential for great gains.

GW-501516 (Cardarine) - 20mgs/ml @ 30ml

Watch the video.


----------



## ibericb

If anyone wants to try the ketone thing , you can get salt version of beta-hydroxybutryate as either a mixable powder, or a liquid concentrate from these guys.


----------



## il sogno

I think that Froome and Sky were doping into the Pyrenees. After everyone started to get suspicious and after the 6.30am visit from Doping Control, they stopped the dope. 

So I think they rode the last week or so of the Tour "pan y agua."


----------



## SFTifoso

roddjbrown said:


> It does seem very strange to me that all the focus is on Sky and Froome here. I'm not for one second saying they're clean - I don't know whether they are and the Wiggins Tour especially I am uncomfortable with the performances.
> 
> Weren't many taking Sky getting 2 on the podium as suspicious? I remember reading "even Pharmstrong didn't try and get away with that." Yet here we've got one former doper able to attack over and over to set up his teammate, who himself seems to disappear back to Colombia between races.
> 
> Why the double standards? Why aren't Movistar being spat on, booed, criticised in forums. Were it not for one day of echelons they may well have pulled off a one-two


At least Nairo didn't all of a sudden miraculously transform himself into a GC contender. He's been something special from the start.

Also why not go after all the dopers during the Armstrong era? They were all doping, but seemingly everyone focuses on the BEST doper at doping. Today that is sky. 

It's not flat out doping like in the old days. But sky doctors have researched drugs which are "technically" still legal under WADA, but most people would think it morally wrong to take such drugs.

Also Sky are the richest team, and have access to special "sleeping" chambers that other teams don't. The main reason people hate sky is because they have the reasources to things other teams don't. It's not they're doping, it's that they're doping on a whole different level than the rest of the peloton, and it's the un-leveled playing field that makes people angry.

IMO the UCI should impose full information disclosure and transparency regulations for all teams. And assign a 3rd party to monitor team activities 24/7. At least during a grand tour, and the weeks leading up to it.

As a side note, why doesn't the UCI allow cyclist to represent Kenya? I think people would be A LOT more accepting of Froome, if he raced under the Kenyan flag, and I'm sure he would love to wear it.


----------



## ibericb

il sogno said:


> I think that Froome and Sky were doping into the Pyrenees. After everyone started to get suspicious and after the 6.30am visit from Doping Control, they stopped the dope.
> 
> So I think they rode the last week or so of the Tour "pan y agua."


Froome had one exceptional stage early in the Tour, then he rode to maintain his lead over the other contenders, as best he and Sky could, until fatigue took its toll in stages 19 and 20. The more suspicious results came from Movistar, Quitana and Valverede, who along with Nibali seemed to look uncommonly stronger in the late Alps stages. 

What any of us thinks doesn't much matter. Bring data, bring facts.


----------



## sir duke

ibericb said:


> Froome had one exceptional stage early in the Tour, then he rode to maintain his lead over the other contenders, as best he and Sky could, until fatigue took its toll in stages 19 and 20. The more suspicious results came from Movistar, Quitana and Valverede, who along with Nibali seemed to look uncommonly stronger in the late Alps stages.
> 
> *What any of us thinks doesn't much matter. Bring data, bring facts.*


But that takes time, effort, and a certain ability to separate the BS from the reality. Most folks round here won't commit beyond a keyboard, internet connection and a ragbag of hunches and prejudices. David Walsh got the data and the facts and it cost his employers a million pounds in damages. If Walsh can't nail Sky or Froome what chance do the amateurs here have?


----------



## ibericb

Here's what Walsh recently to had say about Froome when interviewed by BBC:

_"I've also spent a lot of time looking at the people around Chris Froome, looking at what's going on in Team Sky. We're now three years into the Froome story. At the three-year point into my investigation into Lance Armstrong I had six people in his team who told me he doped.

"I haven't had one person, who works with Sky now or who was sacked by Sky, who has given me anything to go on or investigate. In fairness to Chris Froome my conclusion has to be that I've seen nothing that indicates he dopes and I'm inclined to believe him when he says he doesn't. It doesn't mean I know, but I certainly believe his claims."_​
The very real possibility exists that Walsh hasn't been able to find anything because there isn't anything to find. Maybe, just maybe ...


----------



## robdamanii

ibericb said:


> Valid points indeed.
> 
> Given the recent history of others there certainly is sound reason to be suspicious. *But, at the same time I wonder what kind of person would go through the extreme effort and sacrifice needed to make it to the TdF, and hopefully winning, only to reasonably expect that if they doped at some point it would come out, their success would be erased, and their reputation would be professionally trashed?* Add that, at least in the U.S., they might even face rather expensive civil liabilities after the fact.
> 
> Not only do the doping programs become more sophisticated, but so do monitoring and detection methods. Even with more sophisticated capabilities to game the system, it just seems to me that only a very short-sighted fool would, today, go down that path. It's certainly plausible that there are more such short-sighted members in the UCI pro ranks than I would expect.


See basically every professional cyclist in the last 100 years.

Your problem is you trust them to their word. I don't. Cycnicism and skpticism in this sport ISN'T a bad thing.


----------



## ibericb

Just for grins, to put Froome's performance into perspective vs. Quintana, I went back and looked at the overall time splits by stage to compare the two. Here's what you find:

Stages where Froome gained over Quintana:

1. 01’ 01”
2. 01’ 26”
4. 00’ 17”
9. 00’ 03”
10. 01’ 10”
14. 00’ 01”

Total gains Froome over Quintana = 03’ 53”

Stages where Quintana gained over Froome:

3. 00’ 36”
7. 00’ 10”
19. 00’ 32”
20. 01’ 26” 

Total gains Quintana over Froome 02’ 39”

If you use those you'll come up with a total difference of 01' 14", rather than the posted end result of 01' 12". Why I have no clue (rounding ?). All the numbers come from the TdF site.

Note that Qunitana's gain of 01' 26" over Froome yesterday on Alp d'Huez is better than Froome's gain over Quintana back in stage 10 on Col de Soudet.

The big advantage for Froome and Sky came in the opening TT, and on the next stage where NQ got stuck alone, in the wind.


----------



## robdamanii

ibericb said:


> Froome had one exceptional stage early in the Tour, then he rode to maintain his lead over the other contenders, as best he and Sky could, until fatigue took its toll in stages 19 and 20. The more suspicious results came from Movistar, Quitana and Valverede, who along with Nibali seemed to look uncommonly stronger in the late Alps stages.
> 
> What any of us thinks doesn't much matter. Bring data, bring facts.


Not true that what any of us think doesn't matter. If we stop watching, if we stop riding, if we stop racing, cycling dies as a sport. When you can't be sure the guy on TV is clean, and the guy next to you on Sunday morning is doping up just like the guys on TV, what's the point anymore?

But to your other point: Movistar blows my mind as well: 2 on the podium, one is a 35 year old guy that already sat for 2 years...


----------



## ibericb

robdamanii said:


> Your problem is you trust them to their word.


I never said, or implied that. You're sadly making false assumptions.



> I don't. Cycnicism and skpticism in this sport ISN'T a bad thing.


Nothing wrong with skepticism, or questioning. You've gone way beyond that, complete with assertions of wrongdoing, and you've brought nothing credible to support your belief, other than your disbelief.

Enjoy those beliefs and doubts.


----------



## sir duke

Coolhand said:


> Ah July, the weather is hot, the TdF is on the TV and the takes in the Doping Forum are chippy. Everyone please stick to the point, and not your unflattering opinions of other posters please.


 

If you are OK with a thread title and initial post that just reeks of bile and childishness, then don't be surprised when people don't play nice. If you want to be a moderator, then moderate.


----------



## love4himies

ibericb said:


> Here's what Walsh recently to had say about Froome when interviewed by BBC:
> 
> _"I've also spent a lot of time looking at the people around Chris Froome, looking at what's going on in Team Sky. We're now three years into the Froome story. At the three-year point into my investigation into Lance Armstrong I had six people in his team who told me he doped.
> 
> "I haven't had one person, who works with Sky now or who was sacked by Sky, who has given me anything to go on or investigate. In fairness to Chris Froome my conclusion has to be that I've seen nothing that indicates he dopes and I'm inclined to believe him when he says he doesn't. It doesn't mean I know, but I certainly believe his claims."_​
> The very real possibility exists that Walsh hasn't been able to find anything because there isn't anything to find. Maybe, just maybe ...


Or that people have learned to keep cheating very secret because it's no longer acceptable to do in the peloton. Back in Armstrong's day, it was so prevalent that everybody knew who was doing what. What a perfect cover up story to invite a famous journalist into the fold being so extremely careful not to reveal any illegal activities. Very possible, if you ask me.

I'm not saying Sky is doping or not as like you there hasn't been any "proof", but I do see why the suspicion around team Sky. What they are saying is too close to what Postal said and it's that "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" mindset that people are having. 


Sky is in the position of distrust because of being so secretive. To the public secrets mean suspicious activities. They should have been transparent on their top riders' data. Stating that it's "food" or "better training" just doesn't cut it for the public that knows that all teams have access to nutrition and training research, especially when they suddenly turn a classics guy into a possible GC. How can one team win pretty much all the GTs when there are other teams that have just as good GCs? 

There should be some potential seen from the onset of being in the pro peloton that a rider is a future GC contender. Quintana, he's believable as he showed from the start he's a mountain goat. His background is believable and he's got the body to be a goat. Bardet is another young potential GC who has been good from the onset of his career. I (as I'm sure others) don't believe you magically turn a mediocre pro cyclist into a GC without some help from the pharmacy.


----------



## ibericb

Stop watching, and see how much you matter. Collectively is a different issue. As best I can judge, that hasn't much changed.


----------



## sir duke

love4himies said:


> Or that people have learned to keep cheating very secret because it's no longer acceptable to do in the peloton. Back in Armstrong's day, it was so prevalent that everybody knew who was doing what. What a perfect cover up story to invite a famous journalist into the fold being so extremely careful not to reveal any illegal activities. Very possible, if you ask me.
> 
> I'm not saying Sky is doping or not as like you there hasn't been any "proof", but I do see why the suspicion around team Sky. What they are saying is too close to what Postal said and it's that "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" mindset that people are having.
> 
> 
> Sky is in the position of distrust because of being so secretive. To the public secrets mean suspicious activities. They should have been transparent on their top riders' data. Stating that it's "food" or "better training" just doesn't cut it for the public that knows that all teams have access to nutrition and training research, especially when they suddenly turn a classics guy into a possible GC. How can one team win pretty much all the GTs when there are other teams that have just as good GCs?
> 
> There should be some potential seen from the onset of being in the pro peloton that a rider is a future GC contender. Quintana, he's believable as he showed from the start he's a mountain goat. His background is believable and he's got the body to be a goat. Bardet is another young potential GC who has been good from the onset of his career. I (as I'm sure others) don't believe you magically turn a mediocre pro cyclist into a GC without some help from the pharmacy.


Wasn't Pantani a mountain goat? How about Rasmussen, does he get a pass because he only doped to improve his woeful time trialling ability?Dopers just the same. More than one Colombian mountain goat has been busted for doping. Quintana is no more or less believable than Froome. What if he were a Team Sky mountain goat?


----------



## Fireform

Sky is so secretive? Name a team that has been more forthcoming about their program. 

David Walsh has said that now, after three years reporting on team sky, he hasn't found anyone with the team, past or present, who has said there was doping going on at Sky. After three years with US Postal he had 6 people who told him they had doped with the team or witnessed doping activities. 

Think about that. What kind of advance could a disgruntled ex-Sky member get for a book like that? I don't think we've reached it yet, but there may come a point where we will have to admit there's no there there.


----------



## GlobalGuy

Fireform said:


> Sky is so secretive? Name a team that has been more forthcoming about their program.
> 
> David Walsh has said that now, after three years reporting on team sky, he hasn't found anyone with the team, past or present, who has said there was doping going on at Sky. After three years with US Postal he had 6 people who told him they had doped with the team or witnessed doping activities.


David Walsh? The same David Walsh that is a "journalist" in the UK, the Times IIRC. That David Walsh? Snicker.


----------



## den bakker

GlobalGuy said:


> David Walsh? The same David Walsh that is a "journalist" in the UK, the Times IIRC. That David Walsh? Snicker.


is this going the same way as le monde being a rag?


----------



## Fireform

GlobalGuy said:


> David Walsh? The same David Walsh that is a "journalist" in the UK, the Times IIRC. That David Walsh? Snicker.


The David Walsh who exposed Armstrong's doping first and turned out to be right all along? Yeah, that guy.


----------



## honkinunit

Wait a minute. Are we talking about the same Froome who takes hits off of his inhaler just before a climb, and freely admits he wouldn't be able to ride as well without that drug? 

Why is there any question? He must dope to win.


----------



## Gnarly 928

Froome is a bike racer. All bike racers can be dopers...no matter what level, win any race and nobody can say for sure that you were the best bike racer...they can say for sure that the results of that race are suspect....There are probably Juniors who's parents will pop for dope so Junior can win...I know for sure there are Masters that I've been in races with who doped and plenty who still do...in between Juniors and Masters? that would be everyone else...and anyone with the cash and the Ego can dope. So many dope that racing is kinda silly...it proves nothing anymore..Not just the Pros...Sad, too because racing was really fun when there were no really effective PEDs...Oh well...Froome? He was smart enough to hang back on those last few stages...shut most people up...


----------



## SFTifoso

Fireform said:


> Sky is so secretive? Name a team that has been more forthcoming about their program.
> 
> David Walsh has said that now, after three years reporting on team sky, he hasn't found anyone with the team, past or present, who has said there was doping going on at Sky. After three years with US Postal he had 6 people who told him they had doped with the team or witnessed doping activities.
> 
> Think about that. What kind of advance could a disgruntled ex-Sky member get for a book like that? I don't think we've reached it yet, but there may come a point where we will have to admit there's no there there.


The sky data wasn't hacked, it was leaked by an inside source. What other reason does a sky crew member have to leak data? Conscience getting the best of him/her perhaps? 

Something stinks at sky. They all start of strong build up a lead in GC, and seemingly ALL fall of on the last week? Huh??? Does the UCI do more stringent anti doping testing after a grand tour?

Meanwhile the guys in Movistar, saxo, and Astana are all more or less the same strength as when they started. And they're the ones that have been attacking. The word withdrawal comes to mind.


----------



## sir duke

SFTifoso said:


> Something stinks at sky. They all start of strong build up a lead in GC, and seemingly ALL fall of on the last week? Huh??? Does the UCI do more stringent anti doping testing after a grand tour?
> 
> Meanwhile the guys in Movistar, saxo, and Astana are all more or less the same strength as when they started. And they're the ones that have been attacking. The word withdrawal comes to mind.


The word 'fatigue' comes to mind. Suppose they had had an uninspiring first week, outside the top 3 in the TTT and killed everybody in the mountains in the last week. You and everyone else would be screaming they had doped after the second rest day. Stage ten apart it was a conservative performance from Froome and Sky. If Quintana had had a slightly better first week things might have turned out different. In the end Froome hung on for victory.
Your hunches stink.


----------



## SFTifoso

sir duke said:


> The word 'fatigue' comes to mind. Suppose they had had an uninspiring first week, outside the top 3 in the TTT and killed everybody in the mountains in the last week. You and everyone else would be screaming they had doped after the second rest day. Stage ten apart it was a conservative performance from Froome and Sky. If Quintana had had a slightly better first week things might have turned out different. In the end Froome hung on for victory.
> Your hunches stink.


Just to clarify, are you saying sky is squeaky clean? Just hard work and altitude training, then? No drugs in cycling, especially team sky? Oh and gains from having a pinarello with 68% stiffer chainstays.


----------



## sir duke

SFTifoso said:


> Just to clarify, are you saying sky is squeaky clean? Just hard work and altitude training, then? No drugs in cycling, especially team sky? Oh and gains from having a pinarello with 68% stiffer chainstays.


Yes I'm saying they are squeaky clean. I have as much evidence of this as you have that they are dirty. Your move.


----------



## ibericb

SFTifoso said:


> The sky data wasn't hacked, it was leaked by an inside source. What other reason does a sky crew member have to leak data? Conscience getting the best of him/her perhaps?
> 
> Something stinks at sky. They all start of strong build up a lead in GC, and seemingly ALL fall of on the last week? Huh??? Does the UCI do more stringent anti doping testing after a grand tour?
> 
> Meanwhile the guys in Movistar, saxo, and Astana are all more or less the same strength as when they started. And they're the ones that have been attacking. The word withdrawal comes to mind.


What a marvelous example of conspiracy thinking.


----------



## den bakker

SFTifoso said:


> Just to clarify, are you saying sky is squeaky clean? Just hard work and altitude training, then? No drugs in cycling, especially team sky? Oh and gains from having a pinarello with 68% stiffer chainstays.


It's actually possible to point out a post was nonsense without concluding if sky dopes or not. Seems to be shocking for some though.


----------



## BacDoc

sir duke said:


> Yes I'm saying they are squeaky clean. I have as much evidence of this as you have that they are dirty. Your move.


Well played Sir Duke!

There is no evidence now, and if nothing comes out over time maybe cycling is cleaning up.

Wow, I really can't believe I wrote that last sentence LOL!


----------



## ibericb

sir duke said:


> Yes I'm saying they are squeaky clean. I have as much evidence of this as you have that they are dirty. Your move.


+1.

I'm still waiting for someone to show credible evidence to the contrary. So far, nothing.


----------



## jaggrin

He won, he passed whatever tests were administered before, during and after so unless you have photos of him taking something get over it.


----------



## atpjunkie

I find it how funny how there is/as so much of this directed towards Sky. Sharing the top 5 with him was 2 busted dopers and a guy from a team with a handful of doping busts. Why wasn't pee tossed on Valverde and Contador and/or Nibali?
Sky seems to have become the default Postal / Discovery, the chosen 'bad guys' even though T Kom, Raboban, Once and Liberty Seguros (among others) all had team wide systemic doping programs.
I guess the sport always needs someone to hate and someone to forgive


----------



## sir duke

atpjunkie said:


> I find it how funny how there is/as so much of this directed towards Sky. Sharing the top 5 with him was 2 busted dopers and a guy from a team with a handful of doping busts. Why wasn't pee tossed on Valverde and Contador and/or Nibali?
> Sky seems to have become the default Postal / Discovery, the chosen 'bad guys' even though T Kom, Raboban, Once and Liberty Seguros (among others) all had team wide systemic doping programs.
> I guess the sport always needs someone to hate and someone to forgive


Just as sad is that we have dopers like Jalabert and Rasmussen getting a paycheck from the media to wag their fingers. Anyone calling out for Movistar's data?


----------



## GlobalGuy

From 2000 through 2005 I was always sure that Armstrong and all the top riders doped as did most of the riders in the Tour. 

I am not sure about the current boys. I think there is a reasonable possibility that doping is still prevalent as above just in a different form and with greater discretion. I have no direct evidence. To me history and to a lesser degree circumstantial evidence strongly suggests the likelihood of it.


----------



## SFTifoso

i think it's pretty naive for so many of you to think these guys are clean. If there's a way to cheat without getting caught people are gonna cheat. Especially when your livelihood depends on your performance.

The UCI has been fooled and bought/bribed before. What different now? Why should we trust them?

There's plenty of drugs not on the WADA list that can provide performance advantages. Is it cheating if riders take these drugs???

There's money, pressure from sponsors, pressure to perform, pressure from team owners (tinkoff), the there's a lot of incentives to cheat and very few not to. So what if you get caught? You take a year off and comeback again (contador).


----------



## den bakker

SFTifoso said:


> i think it's pretty naive for so many of you to think these guys are clean.


Do you ever get tired construction strawmen?


----------



## ibericb

More great conspiracy thinking.

Got any actual relevant and credible facts?

Here's one for you to chew on - Chris Froome's DNA was tested last year and revealed non-human DNA. It was suggested he is a descendant of extraterrestrial aliens.


----------



## deviousalex

I heard that Froome actually cloned himself 19 times so that he could be fresh for each stage. Stage 1 and 21 were the only appearances of the original.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

ibericb said:


> More great conspiracy thinking.
> 
> Got any actual relevant and credible facts?
> 
> Here's one for you to chew on - Chris Froome's DNA was tested last year and revealed non-human DNA. It was suggested he is a descendant of extraterrestrial aliens.


Published *Apr. 1*, 2014


----------



## MoonHowl

Team Sky won three of the last four tours with two different riders. I can't possibly understand the attention they are getting. Why isn't the attention on other teams. Why isn't the lanterne rouge being investigated; is smoking too much weed making him slow? It would appear that some are being deliberately obtuse for the sake of argument.

Now to state more of the obvious. The winners will always bring suspicion. People will pull for the underdog. Of course the big budget team beating up on the little guy is going to raise some ire. Drawing an analogy to USA football, Sky is the New England Patriots of cycling, for many fans, you either love them or you hate them.


----------



## asgelle

SFTifoso said:


> There's plenty of drugs not on the WADA list that can provide performance advantages. Is it cheating if riders take these drugs???


Ooh, let me, let me. It's an oldie, but goodie.

If you're not breaking the rules, then you're not breaking the rules. (But note WADA prohibits classes of drugs and methods. Just because a particular drug isn't named explicitly, doesn't mean that it's allowed.)


----------



## ibericb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Published *Apr. 1*, 2014


Finally, somebody gets it.

Kudos to you, Doctor (missed it the first time, eh?).


----------



## BacDoc

den bakker said:


> Do you ever get tired construction strawmen?


Strawmen?

Pretty much everything he posted has happened. No strawman just the usual suspects with the usual MO.


----------



## sir duke

SFTifoso said:


> i think it's pretty naive for so many of you to think these guys are clean. If there's a way to cheat without getting caught people are gonna cheat. Especially when your livelihood depends on your performance.
> 
> The UCI has been fooled and bought/bribed before. What different now? Why should we trust them?
> 
> There's plenty of drugs not on the WADA list that can provide performance advantages. Is it cheating if riders take these drugs???
> 
> There's money, pressure from sponsors, pressure to perform, pressure from team owners (tinkoff), the there's a lot of incentives to cheat and very few not to. So what if you get caught? You take a year off and comeback again (contador).


'Naiive, yada,yada. Everybody doped before, so Sky = dopers.' Maybe if Tinkoff were running Sky or Valverde and Contador were riding for Sky then you _might_ have a case. But they aren't and you don't. It's better if you support an argument with facts, not wishful thinking. 

How are you coming along with evidence?


----------



## spade2you

sir duke said:


> Then what would you have to whinge about then? All those clean riders winning stuff? And if they _were_ clean how would you know? You proved with your innuendo and trash-talking that you're clueless about Froome.. If you had a credible case would you need the playground insults? I know it gives a few of your Sky-hating buddies a good laugh but shouting your accusations from the rooftop won't lend them an iota more credibility. You got nothing and you know it.


You forgot to mention all the butthurt Armstrong fans.


----------



## sir duke

spade2you said:


> You forgot to mention all the butthurt Armstrong fans.


It's comforting to know that you're here to do my work for me, you are never far from my thoughts.


----------



## DrSmile

sir duke said:


> It's comforting to know that you're here to do my work for me, you are never far from my thoughts.


I was just re-reading a 3 year old post where you two seem to be discussing the same exact thing... I applaud both your tenacity, but it reminds me a little of the Middle East peace talks...


----------



## deviousalex

MoonHowl said:


> Why isn't the lanterne rouge being investigated; is smoking too much weed making him slow?


This already happened in the Giro this year. A Trek factory racing rider was fined for attempting to rig the black jersey competition by purposely waiting to finish a stage. And no, I'm not making this up.


----------



## MoonHowl

deviousalex said:


> This already happened in the Giro this year. A Trek factory racing rider was fined for attempting to rig the black jersey competition by purposely waiting to finish a stage. And no, I'm not making this up.


Well crap, I was making that up to be funny. Now I can't even trust the validity of lanterne rouge. I am ruined


----------



## atpjunkie

MoonHowl said:


> Team Sky won three of the last four tours with two different riders. I can't possibly understand the attention they are getting. Why isn't the attention on other teams. Why isn't the lanterne rouge being investigated; is smoking too much weed making him slow? It would appear that some are being deliberately obtuse for the sake of argument.
> 
> Now to state more of the obvious. The winners will always bring suspicion. People will pull for the underdog. Of course the big budget team beating up on the little guy is going to raise some ire. Drawing an analogy to USA football, Sky is the New England Patriots of cycling, for many fans, you either love them or you hate them.


and Tinkoff won the Giro. You don't see the animosity toward Conbuterol


----------



## spade2you

atpjunkie said:


> and Tinkoff won the Giro. You don't see the animosity toward Conbuterol


Only during Chaingate.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

sir duke said:


> Just as sad is that we have dopers like Jalabert and Rasmussen getting a paycheck from the media to wag their fingers. Anyone calling out for Movistar's data?


Last year Movistar published their SRM files for almost every stage
Le Tour de France Stage 9

They also did it for the Vuelta. Not sure why they stopped


----------



## Corsaire

SFTifoso said:


> i think it's pretty naive for so many of you to think these guys are clean. If there's a way to cheat without getting caught people are gonna cheat. Especially when your livelihood depends on your performance.
> 
> The UCI has been fooled and bought/bribed before. What different now? Why should we trust them?
> 
> There's plenty of drugs not on the WADA list that can provide performance advantages. Is it cheating if riders take these drugs???
> 
> There's money, pressure from sponsors, pressure to perform, pressure from team owners (tinkoff), the there's a lot of incentives to cheat and very few not to. So what if you get caught? You take a year off and comeback again (contador).


This is the most coherent and factual answer I’ve read so far in this doping forum. To just naively and nesciently say: “show me poof, show me facts he’s doping” misses the point and the big picture, not to mention starting from a false premise which pretty much boils down to this: “Every rider in (specially my favorite rider, right?) a grand tour is clean unless proven guilty.”
We’re not dealing with random bad and corrupt riders but rather a system that is corrupt to the core. And that system defines and conditions not just the rules, particularly the hidden and unwritten rules of the game but how teams and riders will behave as well. An great example of this at play is the Lance Armstrong saga. If you think this system of corruption ended with Lance’s debacle then you’re just being delusional. 

Another factual premise: It’s scientifically proven that is physically impossible to do a grand tour for three consecutive weeks riding at the high performance level these pro’s do. A rider can’t eat, rest and recover fast enough to keep performing at such levels particularly by the second and third week. To hear the oxymoron: "....he's just getting "stronger" by the third week" is laughable, if that's not a tale-tell then don't know what is! Admittedly also by the very pro riders and the doctors who supports them, Lance and all the others knew it, Lance just was the “perfect storm”, and the riders in the pro peloton today also know it. The Tour organizers know it and everyone who directly profit from such multimillionaire business event. If each and every ride would honestly ride “pan y agua”, we wouldn’t see those performances by the third week, we would see very weary riders affected by the natural law of diminishing returns, no matter how fit or well-trained they can be. But then again, this wouldn’t be a spectacle “worthy” of a grand tour, would it? Fans want to see a “superman”, “super alien” blasting up that mountain climb dropping everybody else to make it worthy, like the UK “Postals”.

Another factual premise: The doping industry will be ahead of the testers, there is more money to be made from doing than from testing. Read this article from 2012, just imagine where the industry is at today. 

“Experts believe up to 100 undetectable performance-enhancing drugs similar to the banned blood booster erythropoietin (EPO) have been designed, German doping specialist Mario Thevis said on Thursday.”

Doping-Undetectable new blood boosters available says expert | Reuters

A good doctor that knows what they are doing when it comes to doping will make sure you don't get caught. Since there are obviously drugs out there that boost performance and are undetectable...and they are staying ahead of the testing game...riders don't get caught unless they make a stupid mistake or lose their clout. That’s why Ferrari was the best and charged big money for his services, the doctor to go to as we all know, he perfected the science of mixing performance, physical prowess with doping. And do you think he is the only one? Think again.

The so called Bio Passport is supposed to detect changes over time in the body chemistry of the riders. If they are taking undetectable substances to boost their levels...their chemistry (blood values) are always the same, hence no change in values and it gives the appearance of not using...when in fact they are.

The most obvious example of this is during the tour when on the "Rare" occasion they have released some hct levels during different points in the race (this was after the EPO test was instated) and the values basically stayed the same from the start to the end...when in fact they should be dropping as the riders get worn out after 3 weeks of racing.

Did that effect their bio-passport? Nope...didn't really even raise a flag...well, maybe a white flag, but not a red one.

Whoever (teams) have the power and money and therefore resources at their disposal to get away with it will always be ahead of the testers and with it the power and clout to get the grand tour multimillionaire business industry in their pockets at least for the longest time, until something happens that ratters them out. Riders in lower ranks, less power, less money will get caught first.

Keep in mind also that the grand tours as business industries have a lot at stake, a lot to lose if they were to really rein in the corrupt system, so they gloss over performances that could raise a red flag, at least as much as they can for as long as they can until something happens that they can no longer hide it, like the Festina affair, etc, etc. 

Add to that the sponsors, they also have a huge stake in this business, they pay the riders’ salaries, they either put out (PEDed) or get replaced.

Conspiracy theories? Really? Nuh! just reality and just the FACTS. Santa Claus and Fairy Tales are just for kids.


----------



## goodboyr

+10000. Well stated and a very thorough and realistic answer.


----------



## ibericb

Generally reasonable points, for suspicion and concern. But none of that rises to a level sufficient to justify accusing any particular rider of doping. The history of proof, along with continuing suspicion and concern is the reason why testing continues, and protocols, such as the biological passport, advance. Turning suspicion and concern into specific accusations, using nothing more than observed performance relative to other competitors without specific measures or credible evidence is chasing a conspiracy theory, that anyone who excels must be doping, plain and simple.

BTW, from what I've seen big name sponsors are increasingly denouncing doping, and some are either pulling their support for cycling or threatening to do so if there are repeated incidents of doping in a sponsored team. If UCI can't deliver a reasonably clean and believable sport, the future of pro cycling competition is doomed.


----------



## love4himies

ibericb said:


> Generally reasonable points, for suspicion and concern. But none of that rises to a level sufficient to justify accusing any particular rider of doping. The history of proof, along with continuing suspicion and concern is the reason why testing continues, and protocols, such as the biological passport, advance. Turning suspicion and concern into specific accusations, using nothing more than observed performance relative to other competitors without specific measures or credible evidence is chasing a conspiracy theory, that anyone who excels must be doping, plain and simple.
> 
> BTW, from what I've seen big name sponsors are increasingly denouncing doping, and some are either pulling their support for cycling or threatening to do so if there are repeated incidents of doping in a sponsored team. If UCI can't deliver a reasonably clean and believable sport, the future of pro cycling competition is doomed.


Good post to sum up this thread.


----------



## SwiftSolo

What the hell is a rational person doing on this forum? Have you never heard of the imperative to formulate an opinion before your mind is contaminated with evidence or the facts? Not having an immediate opinion about the authenticity of the performance of a participant is idiocy. Is it not clear to you that excelling in anything is the work of bass turds and cheats? 
.


ibericb said:


> Generally reasonable points, for suspicion and concern. But none of that rises to a level sufficient to justify accusing any particular rider of doping. The history of proof, along with continuing suspicion and concern is the reason why testing continues, and protocols, such as the biological passport, advance. Turning suspicion and concern into specific accusations, using nothing more than observed performance relative to other competitors without specific measures or credible evidence is chasing a conspiracy theory, that anyone who excels must be doping, plain and simple.
> 
> BTW, from what I've seen big name sponsors are increasingly denouncing doping, and some are either pulling their support for cycling or threatening to do so if there are repeated incidents of doping in a sponsored team. If UCI can't deliver a reasonably clean and believable sport, the future of pro cycling competition is doomed.


----------



## Corsaire

ibericb said:


> Generally reasonable points, for suspicion and concern. But none of that rises to a level sufficient to justify accusing any particular rider of doping. The history of proof, along with continuing suspicion and concern is the reason why testing continues, and protocols, such as the biological passport, advance. Turning suspicion and concern into specific accusations, using nothing more than observed performance relative to other competitors without specific measures or credible evidence is chasing a conspiracy theory, that anyone who excels must be doping, plain and simple.


Reducing a complex reality, of a broader factual context already explained to a simplistic conjecture is just that, a simplistic conjecture.
What you are saying in reality is: "Froome hasn't been caught therefore he's clean." "Show me the proof". The same way was with Lance's world. The way reality works, that is the way pro cycling world works is a total different realm compared to the kabuki facade you're arguing in favor of. Otherwise you wouldn't have seen Froome defend the yellow jersey the way he did in those late stages, the same can be said of Quintana, Contador and Nibali. They need those PEDs to see them through the last week. The real contenders of grand tours can't, I repeat CAN'T afford to ride "pan y agua", both physiologically and economically. PEDs are way ahead of any tests against them, we know that for a fact. Doping is alive and well in the pro peloton, just don't expect Sky to admit it. They have the money and power to get away with it, for now. 



ibericb said:


> BTW, from what I've seen big name sponsors are increasingly denouncing doping, and some are either pulling their support for cycling or threatening to do so if there are repeated incidents of doping in a sponsored team. If UCI can't deliver a reasonably clean and believable sport, the future of pro cycling competition is doomed.


That's the face lift, the kabuki facade UCI, sponsors and organizers have to put on in order keep the multimillionaire business tour industry rolling, to tell otherwise is to admit Santa Claus and Fairy Tales aren't true, and that can't happen in this business. Although, obviously some people still believe it!


----------



## atpjunkie

and from what I have seen the times going up these Cols as compared to during the supposed peak of the doping era they haven't fallen off. Nairo's speed of Huez put him right in the middle of a who's who in doping cyclists


----------



## PBL450

atpjunkie said:


> and from what I have seen the times going up these Cols as compared to during the supposed peak of the doping era they haven't fallen off. Nairo's speed of Huez put him right in the middle of a who's who in doping cyclists


I'm not singling your reply out, just grabbing it as an example... You are correct... In that sense, cycling is dead. You should stop supporting it completely and no longer follow it in any way. There can be no great stage, no great climb, no great ride, no great tour. If there can't be a single great performance the sport is dead, completely dead. And there can't be a single great performance. Every climb is questioned, every acceleration and every points gain. So stop. Go away. The sport is fundamentally broken and corrupt. You made your point. See you on a football forum? Lance did THAT much damage. I have said it many times in these threads, if teams want any level of credibility they should aim for the back of the peloton. Anything else is pure cheating. You may well be right in accusing every successful acceleration as doping, but I'm going to go live in my world and you can go live in your world.


----------



## David Loving

I watch pro cycling just like I watch professional wrestling. They are both phony sports, and cycling was that way before Lance. As long as you do not care about doping, cycling is fun to watch. The old tour riders knew one could not ride the tour without chemical assist.


----------



## SwiftSolo

Corsaire said:


> What you are saying in reality is: "Froome hasn't been caught therefore he's clean." "Show me the proof".
> 
> !


What he is actually saying is that he hasn't formed an opinion and doesn't feel compelled to be part of a lynch mob.

I'm curious. Have you ever felt motivated to wait until a trial is over to formulate an opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of someone who has been arrested for a crime? Or, do you always feel compelled to formulate an opinion before the facts are presented?


----------



## ibericb

Corsaire said:


> What you are saying in reality is: "Froome hasn't been caught therefore he's clean." "Show me the proof".


You must have a reading comprehension problem. I never said or implied that. I won't try to change your mind, because it would be a waste of my time, like trying to teach a pig to sing. The fact is I never said Froome was clean. 



> The real contenders of grand tours can't, I repeat CAN'T afford to ride "pan y agua", both physiologically and economically. PEDs are way ahead of any tests against them, we know that for a fact. Doping is alive and well in the pro peloton, just don't expect Sky to admit it. They have the money and power to get away with it, for now. !





> That's the face lift, the kabuki facade UCI, sponsors and organizers have to put on in order keep the multimillionaire business tour industry rolling, to tell otherwise is to admit Santa Claus and Fairy Tales aren't true, and that can't happen in this business. Although, obviously some people still believe it


Do you have anything resembling credible facts to support your assertions? That's what I'm asking for. If you're going to accuse, please bring facts. So far I've seen nothing from anyone here, you including you. A lot of accusations, but nothing resembling credible evidence.

There's a saying in Texas that seems pertinent- _All hat, and no cattle._


----------



## Corsaire

ibericb said:


> You must have a reading comprehension problem. I never said or implied that. I won't try to change your mind, because it would be a waste of my time, like trying to teach a pig to sing. The fact is I never said Froome was clean.
> Do you have anything resembling credible facts to support your assertions? That's what I'm asking for. If you're going to accuse, please bring facts. So far I've seen nothing from anyone here, you including you. A lot of accusations, but nothing resembling credible evidence.



I could care less about the ad hominem, a sign you lost the argument already. You may not recognize it but your conjecture boils down to just that, translated: “Froome is clean until proven otherwise, show me the proof”, etc. You may fool your millieu, but that’s a fallacious statement if you consider the facts and reality of the sport.

You conveniently choose to ignore the factual bigger context presented to you, dismissing all the facts that involves to ride in the pro peloton. This is akin to
trying to analyze the fish out of the water just because it suits your flawed thinking and reasoning. What you do is like the little child who covers his ears, closing his eyes yelling: “AAAAHHHHH, AHHHHHH!!!” so he won’t listen to the
true facts. All you have is a conjecture, within a totally flawed reasoning based on a reductionist, one dimension way of thinking, a complete fallacy. Suit yourself.

You have the right to your own conjectures and opinions but NOT to your own facts. Period.


----------



## Corsaire

David Loving said:


> I watch pro cycling just like I watch professional wrestling. They are both phony sports, and cycling was that way before Lance. As long as you do not care about doping, cycling is fun to watch. The old tour riders knew one could not ride the tour without chemical assist.


Exactly. That's how I watch and enjoy grand tours, for what they are: Circus Arenas for pure enjoyment. We know they all have to cheat, that's the reality of the sport. Grand tours are about watching which rider best combined fitness prowess, experience and doping and how good he adapted to it, and it's here to stay. Just enjoy it, that's all.


----------



## ibericb

Corsaire said:


> You have the right to your own conjectures and opinions but NOT to your own facts. Period.


So, you still have NO FACTS to substantiate your assertions?

I'm going to follow sir duke's lead in his prior post:



sir duke said:


> Yes I'm saying they are squeaky clean. I have as much evidence of this as you have that they are dirty. Your move.


----------



## PBL450

Corsaire said:


> I could care less about the ad hominem, a sign you lost the argument already. You may not recognize it but your conjecture boils down to just that, translated: “Froome is clean until proven otherwise, show me the proof”, etc. You may fool your millieu, but that’s a fallacious statement if you consider the facts and reality of the sport.
> 
> You conveniently choose to ignore the factual bigger context presented to you, dismissing all the facts that involves to ride in the pro peloton. This is akin to
> trying to analyze the fish out of the water just because it suits your flawed thinking and reasoning. What you do is like the little child who covers his ears, closing his eyes yelling: “AAAAHHHHH, AHHHHHH!!!” so he won’t listen to the
> true facts. All you have is a conjecture, within a totally flawed reasoning based on a reductionist, one dimension way of thinking, a complete fallacy. Suit yourself.
> 
> You have the right to your own conjectures and opinions but NOT to your own facts. Period.


What? This entire post is a contradiction? No one is really arguing that riders are clean. A better case can be made that they are, since no one has been caught in this tour (perhaps, yet). So the only evidence that's current is that riders are clean, albeit that means innocent in this case. They are accused so they are guilty... They are superhuman endurance athletes, so they are guilty... I say so, so they are guilty... Riders have been guilty in the past so they are guilty... 

Riders are getting tested, and passing? Sounds like a reading comprehension problem...


----------



## sir duke

Corsaire said:


> I could care less about the ad hominem, a sign you lost the argument already. You may not recognize it but your conjecture boils down to just that, translated: “Froome is clean until proven otherwise, show me the proof”, etc. You may fool your millieu, but that’s a fallacious statement if you consider the facts and reality of the sport.
> 
> You conveniently choose to ignore the factual bigger context presented to you, dismissing all the facts that involves to ride in the pro peloton. This is akin to
> trying to analyze the fish out of the water just because it suits your flawed thinking and reasoning. What you do is like the little child who covers his ears, closing his eyes yelling: “AAAAHHHHH, AHHHHHH!!!” so he won’t listen to the
> true facts.
> You have the right to your own conjectures and opinions but NOT to your own facts. Period.


If you are so secure in your opinions why would you waste time in a doping forum? Seriously, other than satisfying your own personal vanity what could you possibly hope to contribute when you are telling us they all doped and they are still all doping? Case closed, jog on.
You used the word 'facts' 4 times when giving your opinion above but all I see is a bunch of trite, reheated half-truths, unprovable generalizations and cliché. You remind me of my father stating all female tennis players are lesbians.
Playing the percentages is easy, give me some compelling evidence, a fact would do, that Froome took a banned substance or employed a banned practice to win the Tour and I'll be happy to listen to you and admit I was wrong. 



> All you have is a conjecture, within a totally flawed reasoning based on * a reductionist, one dimension way of thinking*, a complete fallacy. Suit yourself.


You said it....


----------



## SwiftSolo

Let me start by seeing if we can agree on anything.

Would you agree that it is the goal and responsibility of every team manager to hire experts to research and find any and all legal ways to improve his teams performance? In sailboat racing the saying is that 100 bright men get together in an attempt to write bullet proof rules. Immediately after, 10,000 sailors put their minds to work finding legal ways around them.

Do you know for certain that nobody has or will ever find a legal way to enhance an athletes performance beyond today's level? Is there no way now or in the future to find PEDs that are not now banned?

If you think that no further knowledge of legal performance enhancement will ever be found, your opinions and observations (you call them facts) could have some marginally worthy element.

If you agree that human performance studies are in their infancy (like most of us) then, jumping to the conclusion that enhancement can only be achieved through rules violations is obviously inane


Corsaire said:


> I could care less about the ad hominem, a sign you lost the argument already. You may not recognize it but your conjecture boils down to just that, translated: “Froome is clean until proven otherwise, show me the proof”, etc. You may fool your millieu, but that’s a fallacious statement if you consider the facts and reality of the sport.
> 
> You conveniently choose to ignore the factual bigger context presented to you, dismissing all the facts that involves to ride in the pro peloton. This is akin to
> trying to analyze the fish out of the water just because it suits your flawed thinking and reasoning. What you do is like the little child who covers his ears, closing his eyes yelling: “AAAAHHHHH, AHHHHHH!!!” so he won’t listen to the
> true facts. All you have is a conjecture, within a totally flawed reasoning based on a reductionist, one dimension way of thinking, a complete fallacy. Suit yourself.
> 
> You have the right to your own conjectures and opinions but NOT to your own facts. Period.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SwiftSolo said:


> Do you know for certain that nobody has or will ever find a legal way to enhance an athletes performance beyond today's level?


I would suggest reading the WADA code. The list is very broad and includes methods and products that, while undiscovered, would give an advantage to an athlete. 

A product does not have be named to be banned


----------



## PaxRomana

This thread is funny on multiple levels. 

The exact same arguments used to defend Lance are now used to defend Froome: "never tested positive, you have no proof, etc." We saw how worthless those arguments are last decade. Valverde, Beloki, Ulrich, Lance...never tested positive (well, that 1999 TUE issue with Lance.).

Not only that, but now we have people claiming that teams are more anti-doping. Really?

Astana has been busted for doping, what 3 times? They were then kicked out the MPCC. You see them giving a sh!t? No.

Androni has been busted twice again. Any sign they're leaving?

Tinkov has been on Sagan's case all year. You think that's going to make a rider more or less likely to dope, when an owner says he wants to cut his salary because he's not winning everything?

Look, lest some of you think I'm singling out Froome, I'm not. I think he's a fraud, I think Geraint Thomas is a fraud, I think Quintana, Contador, Nibali, and everyone in the Top 30 at least on GC are on a doping regimen. I don't think it is even remotely possible to place in the Top 20 in the Tour without doping. 

No, I don't think anything has changed. Why would it? It's amazing that people think that somehow magically, cycling, which has a history of PED use a mile long, has suddenly become the only sport where a competitor can win the biggest event cleanly.

Come on, people. Cycling is still a beautiful sport, but don't fool yourselves when you're watching the professional version.


----------



## SwiftSolo

So, if I find that a combination of food products/diet enhances performance, it is illegal? Is there any drug whatsoever that is not intended to enhance performance--starting with aspirin? 

The notion that performance can and will never be improved through research and innovation is fantasy. We run faster, jump higher and do things on bicycles that we could not have dreamed of 50 years ago. 

Oh, and I seriously doubt that WADA prohibits "methods and products" that would give an advantage to an athlete. Otherwise everyone would have to ride identical bikes, eat identical diets, use the same training protocol, drink the same amount of water and apply power to the pedals in exactly the same portion of the stroke.

I'm anxiously awaiting seeing the rule that requires the above.


Doctor Falsetti said:


> I would suggest reading the WADA code. The list is very broad and includes methods and products that, while undiscovered, would give an advantage to an athlete.
> 
> A product does not have be named to be banned


----------



## ibericb

SwiftSolo said:


> Let me start by seeing if we can agree on anything.


I doubt you will ever find consensus on the subject. The debate is a largely philosophical issue, rooted in the morality and ethics of acceptability. Just like violence on television, where to draw the line will vary widely by individual.

In professional bicycle racing, or pro sports in general, the real practical issue will hinge on the business model that determines the success (or failure) of the sport as a money making enterprise. Pro cycling only survives as we know it today because of the sponsors who pay the teams directly to promote their own interests. If the sponsors and organizers want winning at all costs, drugs or otherwise, there will be drugs, regardless of what WADA says. The upshot would be end of UCI as we know it, and the beginning of new leagues or sanctioning bodies that forego association with WADA and its policies, testing, etc. If, however, the money comes from sponsors who expect and demand clean riders, and clean teams, then over time that's what we'll get.

Tinkov has been outspoken about bringing an end to the UCI, and leaving it up to the teams and race organizers. From his comments it's quite clear that his views reflect his beliefs on where the money is to be made in professional cycling, and his dislike for the current sponsorship-dependent business model. Maybe he's right. Maybe the future of pro cycling is the WWE model, or the NFL, not the current UCI model. At the end of the day it's a business that survives or dies based on its ability to make money for those who invest in it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SwiftSolo said:


> Oh, and I seriously doubt that WADA prohibits "methods and products" that would give an advantage to an athlete. Otherwise everyone would have to ride identical bikes, eat identical diets, use the same training protocol, drink the same amount of water and apply power to the pedals in exactly the same portion of the stroke.
> 
> I'm anxiously awaiting seeing the rule that requires the above.


You are being simplistic. Nobody is talking about Water, bikes or any of that other babble

Read the code

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/the-code

The prohibited methods section has many examples



> Artificially enhancing the uptake, transport or delivery of oxygen





> Any form of intravascular manipulation of the blood or blood components by physical or chemical means.


Substances not approved for consumption are clearly banned 


> Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited at all times.


The list goes into detail what banned products do and makes it clear that 



> other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s), are prohibited


It is fun to pretend that training and eating right is the same as doping but we both know it isn't


----------



## SwiftSolo

Nothing you have posted refutes my statement. It is the responsibility of team managers and owners to engage in ongoing research to find legal methods and products to enhance performance.

To suggest that there is not or will not be legal improvements in methods and products is to ignore history and reality.


Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are being simplistic. Nobody is talking about Water, bikes or any of that other babble
> 
> Read the code
> 
> https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/the-code
> 
> The prohibited methods section has many examples
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Substances not approved for consumption are clearly banned
> 
> 
> The list goes into detail what banned products do and makes it clear that
> 
> 
> 
> It is fun to pretend that training and eating right is the same as doping but we both know it isn't


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SwiftSolo said:


> Nothing you have posted refutes my statement. It is the responsibility of team managers and owners to engage in ongoing research to find legal methods and products to enhance performance.
> 
> To suggest that there is not or will not be legal improvements in methods and products is to ignore history and reality.


Who is suggesting there will not be legal methods? 

You claimed 



SwiftSolo said:


> Is there no way now or in the future to find PEDs that are not now banned?


PED's are not legal. I pointed out the WADA code does not just ban named drugs but also methods and products that cause specific responses. I showed where the code bans unapproved drugs

Of course there will be new PED's discovered. As I showed you they do not need to be listed by name to be banned.


----------



## atpjunkie

PBL450 said:


> I'm not singling your reply out, just grabbing it as an example... You are correct... In that sense, cycling is dead. You should stop supporting it completely and no longer follow it in any way. There can be no great stage, no great climb, no great ride, no great tour. If there can't be a single great performance the sport is dead, completely dead. And there can't be a single great performance. Every climb is questioned, every acceleration and every points gain. So stop. Go away. The sport is fundamentally broken and corrupt. You made your point. See you on a football forum? Lance did THAT much damage. I have said it many times in these threads, if teams want any level of credibility they should aim for the back of the peloton. Anything else is pure cheating. You may well be right in accusing every successful acceleration as doping, but I'm going to go live in my world and you can go live in your world.


you clearly have no sense of how I feel about the subject / or point on this thread
I watch Pro Football knowing most of those guys are doped
Lance IMHO didn't do anything worse than anyone else was doing except be a giant a hole and crush those who dared expose him.
I have said it many times, knowing these guys are doped doesn't diminish my viewing pleasure, they are still competing tooth and nail. If you accept it is there, it no longer becomes a hindrance. There was great drama and some great stages at this years tour, I don't let 'they're doped' ruin it for me any more than it does football, futbol, basketball, etc....
My point in this thread being, so much antagonism to Froome but not to his competition. Guess the fans have to pick someone to hate.
But they toss urine on Froome but cheer on Contador & Valverde both convicted dopers and Nibali, a guy from a team with a long list of doping busts including the team head. 
That is a disproportionate dispersion of dislike.


----------



## atpjunkie

PaxRomana said:


> This thread is funny on multiple levels.
> 
> No, I don't think anything has changed. Why would it? It's amazing that people think that somehow magically, cycling, which has a history of PED use a mile long, has suddenly become the only sport where a competitor can win the biggest event cleanly.
> 
> Come on, people. Cycling is still a beautiful sport, but don't fool yourselves when you're watching the professional version.


well the speeds haven't changed

one would expect times / speeds to drop if it was now clean as compared to the dirty years

if doping makes the huge difference everyone claims it does and cycling is now clean we should see slower cycling


----------



## PaxRomana

atpjunkie said:


> well the speeds haven't changed
> 
> one would expect times / speeds to drop if it was now clean as compared to the dirty years
> 
> if doping makes the huge difference everyone claims it does and cycling is now clean we should see slower cycling


Of course. That's why I'm saying nothing's changed. Valverde is riding just as well or better now than he did before his doping ban. 

It's not technology that is the main driver of speeds. As though moving from T600 to T800 carbon suddenly means an extra 30 watts. I mean, really. The only reason people buy into that argument is because their favorite rider is winning so they want to find an excuse why it's possible to do it cleanly.


----------



## ibericb

atpjunkie said:


> if doping makes the huge difference everyone claims it does and cycling is now clean we should see slower cycling


That is a very big question itself. Doping is individual, and it may, if done optimally, improves the performance of a user, at least for a limited period of time. The extent to which that's reflected in broad average measure over the course of a multi-stage event remains an unanswered question. Even if you look at the Classics, it's not clear that performance has changed much over the past few decades. And then there are well reasoned reports like this one that maintain there is no evidence for efficacy.


----------



## GlobalGuy

ibericb said:


> That is a very big question itself. Doping is individual, and it may, if done optimally, improves the performance of a user, at least for a limited period of time. The extent to which that's reflected in broad average measure over the course of a multi-stage event remains an unanswered question. Even if you look at the Classics, it's not clear that performance has changed much over the past few decades. And then there are well reasoned reports like this one that maintain there is no evidence for efficacy.


Indeed, even the hated/loved Armstrong, an admitted doper indirectly asserted this while still competing. He was being asked about the allegations of his doping. One of his denial replies pointed out that in a certain time trial segment of the TdF LeMond had up to the point of Armstrong's reply had either the fastest top speed or fastest time/average speed recorded for that particular TT. (I don't recall which or if both. I also think it was a segment that Armstrong won--but again not sure. I only saw the interview once back when Armstrong was competing in the TdF. Regardless the point remains the same.)

Personally, I've always believed that the main benefit of the level and type of doping during the Pantani, Ullrich and Armstrong eras was recovery and maintaining peak performance over the period of the three weeks of the Tour.


----------



## David Loving

ibericb said:


> I doubt you will ever find consensus on the subject. The debate is a largely philosophical issue, rooted in the morality and ethics of acceptability. Just like violence on television, where to draw the line will vary widely by individual.
> 
> In professional bicycle racing, or pro sports in general, the real practical issue will hinge on the business model that determines the success (or failure) of the sport as a money making enterprise. Pro cycling only survives as we know it today because of the sponsors who pay the teams directly to promote their own interests. If the sponsors and organizers want winning at all costs, drugs or otherwise, there will be drugs, regardless of what WADA says. The upshot would be end of UCI as we know it, and the beginning of new leagues or sanctioning bodies that forego association with WADA and its policies, testing, etc. If, however, the money comes from sponsors who expect and demand clean riders, and clean teams, then over time that's what we'll get.
> 
> Tinkov has been outspoken about bringing an end to the UCI, and leaving it up to the teams and race organizers. From his comments it's quite clear that his views reflect his beliefs on where the money is to be made in professional cycling, and his dislike for the current sponsorship-dependent business model. Maybe he's right. Maybe the future of pro cycling is the WWE model, or the NFL, not the current UCI model. At the end of the day it's a business that survives or dies based on its ability to make money for those who invest in it.


I agree that the future of pro cycling, and the present as far as I see it, is the WWE model. That is what we are getting now, and the races are exciting and interesting. Money is made, bikes are sold, fans are happy, sports media is engaged. What is so bad about that? These doping essays remind me of the "student-athlete" issues. Let 'em juice up like Anquitille, Eddy and Lance and have at it.


----------



## asgelle

atpjunkie said:


> well the speeds haven't changed


Darn pesky facts. Keep getting in the way. Alex's Cycle Blog: Alpe d'Huez: TDF Fastest Ascent Times 1982-2015


----------



## ibericb

I believe the issue for road cycle racing, as a viable business enterprise, is limited audience appeal. How many tickets can you sell? How much advertising can you sell? Arena events have the luxury of being able to charge for admission,which is not practical with road cycling. Track? Sure. But how big an audience? Will it land a big network contract based upon expected advertising revenues? I tend to think not.


----------



## David Loving

atpjunkie said:


> you clearly have no sense of how I feel about the subject / or point on this thread
> I watch Pro Football knowing most of those guys are doped
> Lance IMHO didn't do anything worse than anyone else was doing except be a giant a hole and crush those who dared expose him.
> I have said it many times, knowing these guys are doped doesn't diminish my viewing pleasure, they are still competing tooth and nail. If you accept it is there, it no longer becomes a hindrance. There was great drama and some great stages at this years tour, I don't let 'they're doped' ruin it for me any more than it does football, futbol, basketball, etc....
> My point in this thread being, so much antagonism to Froome but not to his competition. Guess the fans have to pick someone to hate.
> But they toss urine on Froome but cheer on Contador & Valverde both convicted dopers and Nibali, a guy from a team with a long list of doping busts including the team head.
> That is a disproportionate dispersion of dislike.


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to atpjunkie again."


----------



## PaxRomana

asgelle said:


> Darn pesky facts. Keep getting in the way. Alex's Cycle Blog: Alpe d'Huez: TDF Fastest Ascent Times 1982-2015


Facts? You pick one single climb to generalize to the entire Tour?

Ok, how about Rohan Dennis riding the fastest ever time trial at this year's tour?

How many pre-EPO era cyclists do you see on the Ventoux records? Zero. Froome has the same time as 2002 Lance. 

What about overall speeds? 2013 was at 40.5, one of the highest of the EPO era. Same as 2008. Only 2005 was faster. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_de_France_records_and_statistics


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

PaxRomana said:


> Facts? You pick one single climb to generalize to the entire Tour?
> 
> Ok, how about Rohan Dennis riding the fastest ever time trial at this year's tour?
> 
> How many pre-EPO era cyclists do you see on the Ventoux records? Zero. Froome has the same time as 2002 Lance.
> 
> What about overall speeds? 2013 was at 40.5, one of the highest of the EPO era. Same as 2008. Only 2005 was faster.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_de_France_records_and_statistics


Froome is certainly riding close to some of the more doped riders in history, but he is almost 5 minutes slower then the record on Alp d'Huez and 4 minutes slower on Ventoux. These are 2 of the most iconic climbs in the sport so picking them out means something

Times are still way off from the past. In 1997 65 riders broke 45 minutes on the Alp. a couple years ago it was 13. This year it was 24. Yes, there is still doping, but to say that the peloton is climbing as fast as it did in the past is flat out wrong


----------



## atpjunkie

asgelle said:


> Darn pesky facts. Keep getting in the way. Alex's Cycle Blog: Alpe d'Huez: TDF Fastest Ascent Times 1982-2015


this year was 8th on the list going back to 82, that's top 3rd

I don't know if you think the chart refutes my assertion or are agreeing. Sarcasm is hard on the intraweb


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Froome is certainly riding close to some of the more doped riders in history, but he is almost 5 minutes slower then the record on Alp d'Huez and 4 minutes slower on Ventoux. These are 2 of the most iconic climbs in the sport so picking them out means something
> 
> Times are still way off from the past. In 1997 65 riders broke 45 minutes on the Alp. a couple years ago it was 13. This year it was 24. Yes, there is still doping, but to say that the peloton is climbing as fast as it did in the past is flat out wrong


The record times on Huez were in the mid to late 90s, and yes, more guys were running 50 plus H Crit. So we could say it started to diminish post Festina. So we could say doping peaked then and has just been getting stealthier ever since


----------



## SwiftSolo

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Who is suggesting there will not be legal methods?
> 
> 
> PED's are not legal..


As I pointed out before, virtually all drugs, legal or not, enhance performance--starting with aspirin. You seem to be assuming that anything below WADA's acceptable levels does not enhance performance. 

Further, it was you who said *"I would suggest reading the WADA code. The list is very broad and includes methods and products that, while undiscovered, would give an advantage to an athlete"*. Training and food are "methods and products". 

Again, in response to my pointing out the responsibility of team managers to enlist specialists to find better diets, training methods, and legal PED's, nothing you have provided refutes that nor does it substantiate that any part of it is illegal. Insisting that drugs known to WADA, but not on their list, do not enhance performance does not make it fact. While WADA may be the authority of the definition of illegal PEDs, they do not prohibit known drugs such as ibuprofen and only set the acceptable blood level of many other elements in the blood.

While I have no opinion regarding the legitimacy of Froome's performance, my post was about the group desire to pretend to be an authority about anyone's performance without a hearing in which all sides present their case. The fact that lynch mobs are sometimes right, doesn't mean that they are not effed up mentally.


----------



## ibericb

If you want to look at overall average speed of the winner, here is a graph that covers the TdF from 1950 through 2015 - 65 years worth.









While the data are noisy,as would be expected with such a broad comparison given the variations in the race structure and conditions over such a long period, the trend of increasing winner's average speed in the post WWII era seems to have extended from the mid to late '70's through ~2005, and has remained around stuck at an average of 40.6+0.6 km/h since.

For more historical comparisons and trends you can look at some of the Classics,which were similarly examined in this thread. For those there appears to have been something of a step change in the late '90's, which is not so evident in the TdF data.

Make of it what you wish.


----------



## PBL450

atpjunkie said:


> you clearly have no sense of how I feel about the subject / or point on this thread
> I watch Pro Football knowing most of those guys are doped
> Lance IMHO didn't do anything worse than anyone else was doing except be a giant a hole and crush those who dared expose him.
> I have said it many times, knowing these guys are doped doesn't diminish my viewing pleasure, they are still competing tooth and nail. If you accept it is there, it no longer becomes a hindrance. There was great drama and some great stages at this years tour, I don't let 'they're doped' ruin it for me any more than it does football, futbol, basketball, etc....
> My point in this thread being, so much antagonism to Froome but not to his competition. Guess the fans have to pick someone to hate.
> But they toss urine on Froome but cheer on Contador & Valverde both convicted dopers and Nibali, a guy from a team with a long list of doping busts including the team head.
> That is a disproportionate dispersion of dislike.


Well said. You were right, I missed your point, and it is is a very, very good one.


----------



## asgelle

PaxRomana said:


> Facts? You pick one single climb to generalize to the entire Tour?


Yes, one single climb; no, not generalizing to the entire tour. It's unfortunate that the most carefully constructed hypothesis falls under the weight of a single counterexample. 

So not being sarcastic. Anyone who wants to claim riders are as fast now as in the wild west doping era has to account for the slow times on Alpe d'Huez this year. It isn't necessary to prove and alternate hypothesis to disprove one that is being proposed.


----------



## atpjunkie

PaxRomana said:


> Of course. That's why I'm saying nothing's changed. Valverde is riding just as well or better now than he did before his doping ban.
> 
> It's not technology that is the main driver of speeds. As though moving from T600 to T800 carbon suddenly means an extra 30 watts. I mean, really. The only reason people buy into that argument is because their favorite rider is winning so they want to find an excuse why it's possible to do it cleanly.


One would think speeds would return to at least the 80s levels, yes?


----------



## atpjunkie

asgelle said:


> Yes, one single climb; no, not generalizing to the entire tour. It's unfortunate that the most carefully constructed hypothesis falls under the weight of a single counterexample.
> 
> So not being sarcastic. Anyone who wants to claim riders are as fast now as in the wild west doping era has to account for the slow times on Alpe d'Huez this year. It isn't necessary to prove and alternate hypothesis to disprove one that is being proposed.


the winning speed was 8th fastest in modern history, and the stage came on the 4th day of a climb heavy Alpine segment of the tour. The time is faster than many of the Lance Era records but doesn't touch the 90s. (faster than 99 and 03) and just behind 2013. So in 33 years 2 of the 10 fastest times have come in the last 3 years. (NOTE: one of those record times -2004, was an ITT with no climbing leading up to it) Two times that fall in the top third are in this modern 'clean era' , that isn't much of a performance drop. Since it would take much time to sort of rank the fatigue level (how hard the tour was leading up to it) it is why I am using things like 'top third'. It is still an upper percentile score, and the average speed for the whole tour is still in the same grouping as the dirtiest of years. It falls into the same % since again, there are other factors (how hilly, how hot, how many times the peloton let the break go) The speed this year as stated was still high yet there were very few sprint stages meaning the sprint teams weren't constantly driving the peloton for wins.


----------



## asgelle

atpjunkie said:


> the winning speed was 8th fastest in modern history, ...


Given the myriad factors that go into winning speed, I can't think of a more useless metric. Just thinking about who pulls the peloton, there's a big difference whether the bulk of the pace setting is being done by six guys from one team or sixty spread over twenty.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SwiftSolo said:


> As I pointed out before, virtually all drugs, legal or not, enhance performance--starting with aspirin. You seem to be assuming that anything below WADA's acceptable levels does not enhance performance.
> 
> Further, it was you who said *"I would suggest reading the WADA code. The list is very broad and includes methods and products that, while undiscovered, would give an advantage to an athlete"*. Training and food are "methods and products".
> 
> Again, in response to my pointing out the responsibility of team managers to enlist specialists to find better diets, training methods, and legal PED's, nothing you have provided refutes that nor does it substantiate that any part of it is illegal. Insisting that drugs known to WADA, but not on their list, do not enhance performance does not make it fact. While WADA may be the authority of the definition of illegal PEDs, they do not prohibit known drugs such as ibuprofen and only set the acceptable blood level of many other elements in the blood.
> 
> While I have no opinion regarding the legitimacy of Froome's performance, my post was about the group desire to pretend to be an authority about anyone's performance without a hearing in which all sides present their case. The fact that lynch mobs are sometimes right, doesn't mean that they are not effed up mentally.


You are welcome to pretend that aspirin and food are the same as transfusions and EPO but don't expect everyone be so simplistic


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> this year was 8th on the list going back to 82, that's top 3rd
> 
> I don't know if you think the chart refutes my assertion or are agreeing. Sarcasm is hard on the intraweb


Huh? 

Quintana's time up Alp d'Huez this year does not even put him in the top 20 all time. Froome's time puts him in 77th place.


----------



## Coolhand

what with the big spike in the eighties on those charts- was that blood doping version 1?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Coolhand said:


> what with the big spike in the eighties on those charts- was that blood doping version 1?


The spike in 1982 is likely due to the route being about 500km shorter then previous years. They also only had 21 stages (1981 had 24) the result was a much larger field through out the races. Most years had around 80 finishers, 1982 had 125. 

This years route had the 1st 10 days that were essentially flat. Many of the mountain stages were short. The Alp d'Huez stage was only 111km, the day before only 138km. In the 90's and 00's it was common for the Tour to finish with 120 riders. 1998 only 98 riders finished. This year 160 riders finished. Having 40 extra riders for the duration of the race is a big help. 

Comparing the speed of the overall race is interesting but comparing the VAM, W/Kg, and times on historic climbs is a more accurate indicator.


----------



## ibericb

Coolhand said:


> what with the big spike in the eighties on those charts- was that blood doping version 1?


Who knows? The first sizable spike above the then average was Merckx in '71. The second was Hinault in '81.

For those that like to speculate there is plenty of ammunition in the data and trends, or lack thereof, to feed about any reasonable postulate one wants to advance.

There's clearly been a shift from the historically "clean" era (was there ever such a thing ?), and the modern period since ~ 1998. The 20 year period of 1960 through '79 had an average winning speed of 35.74 (+1.21) km/h. Since 1998 the average winning speed has been 40.15 (+0.65) km/h.


----------



## ibericb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The spike in 1982 is likely due to the route being about 500km shorter then previous years. They also only had 21 stages (1981 had 24) the result was a much larger field through out the races. Most years had around 80 finishers, 1982 had 125. ...


Except that Hinault's winning average in the longer 1981 race was faster then his winning average in the 1982 race, at least according to the various data I've seen and used.

As far as what to compare, there are so many changes, differences and variables that comparisons across decades aren't really an accurate indicator of anything, other than somebody went faster than someone else, whether on average or up a climb. The real challenge is to explain why, which is largely speculative.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

ibericb said:


> Except that Hinault's winning average in the longer 1981 race was faster then his winning average in the 1982 race, at least according to the various data I've seen and used.
> 
> As far as what to compare, there are so many changes, differences and variables that comparisons across decades aren't really an accurate indicator of anything, other than somebody went faster than someone else, whether on average or up a climb. The real challenge is to explain why, which is largely speculative.


True. He also had 36 more finishers then the year before. 1981 also had 3 TT's, 2 TTT's, and limited climbing. One of the more boring, but faster, Tour's in history


----------



## deviousalex

GlobalGuy said:


> He was being asked about the allegations of his doping. One of his denial replies pointed out that in a certain time trial segment of the TdF LeMond had up to the point of Armstrong's reply had either the fastest top speed or fastest time/average speed recorded for that particular TT.


LeMond did indeed break the TT record that held for a while but it had a slight downhill (1-2%) section and never regained that elevation. That'll add some free speed.


----------



## GlobalGuy

No sarcasm intended and perhaps the following point has been made here or elsewhere before but: 

In some other sports like professional football to just name one there has been serious discussion among commentators and some athletes that they should essentially with certain safety caution precautions allow PEDs. 

I realize that many fans and non-fans of cycling are very passionately against PED use. Nevertheless, IMO as far as the popularity of professional cycling I suspect most fans really deep down don't care if the cyclists dope as long as it's a level playing field.


----------



## asgelle

GlobalGuy said:


> ... I suspect most fans really deep down don't care if the cyclists dope as long as it's a level playing field.


And how do you insure a level playing field? A set of rules, perhaps? Accompanied by some mechanism to insure the rules are not being violated? So other than the details, how is that different from what we have now.


----------



## deviousalex

asgelle said:


> And how do you insure a level playing field? A set of rules, perhaps? Accompanied by some mechanism to insure the rules are not being violated? So other than the details, how is that different from what we have now.


+1. This is the question that all the pro allowed doping people forget to answer. Not to mention what might be a safe amount of EPO for one person may be unsafe for the other. So do you let athlete A dope more than athlete B? In the end you get the same problems as we currently have except the HCT max is now 60 instead of 50.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

deviousalex said:


> +1. This is the question that all the pro allowed doping people forget to answer. Not to mention what might be a safe amount of EPO for one person may be unsafe for the other. So do you let athlete A dope more than athlete B? In the end you get the same problems as we currently have except the HCT max is now 60 instead of 50.


And you get Tour de France winners like Riis.


----------



## PaxRomana

atpjunkie said:


> One would think speeds would return to at least the 80s levels, yes?


But wait, we now have the Pinarello Dogma F190223 or whatever it is, which is 4000% horizontally stiffer and 9343% vertically more compliant. And 3242% more aero. 

Vorsprung durch Technik.

Yay for the "new clean era" of cycling. T1000 carbon means you don't have to dope anymore.


----------



## Local Hero

PaxRomana said:


> But wait, we now have the Pinarello Dogma F190223 or whatever it is, which is 4000% horizontally stiffer and 9343% vertically more compliant. And 3242% more aero.
> 
> Vorsprung durch Technik.
> 
> Yay for the "new clean era" of cycling. T1000 carbon means you don't have to dope anymore.


Of course the new bikes and new training techniques help riders climb faster. I don't know how much overall. 

Surely Froome would ascend slower if he had to mash 42X23 on Hinault's 21+lb beast.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

PaxRomana said:


> But wait, we now have the Pinarello Dogma F190223 or whatever it is, which is 4000% horizontally stiffer and 9343% vertically more compliant. And 3242% more aero.
> 
> Vorsprung durch Technik.
> 
> Yay for the "new clean era" of cycling. T1000 carbon means you don't have to dope anymore.


This years Tour had 

40 more finishers then 1981
had 3 fewer stages then 1981
was 400km shorter then 1981

and was only .6 of a km per hour faster then 1981

This was the Badger's TT bike in 1981









And this was his road bike. 22 pounds. 6 speed. 










.6 kph faster......very marginal gains. 

But Quintana was almost 4 minutes faster then Lemond or Hinualt was on Alp d'Huez


----------



## PaxRomana

I don't see your point, Falsetti. 

If your point is that better equipment and better training regimens would increase performance, then yes, I agree.

But if you're saying that improvements in those areas are the explanation for why guys like Froome, Nibali, Quintana, Contador, etc. are up there with the times of the early to mid 2000s, then we disagree.


----------



## ibericb

PaxRomana said:


> I don't see your point, Falsetti.
> 
> If your point is that better equipment and better training regimens would increase performance, then yes, I agree.
> 
> But if you're saying that improvements in those areas are the explanation for why guys like Froome, Nibali, Quintana, Contador, etc. are up there with the times of the early to mid 2000s, then we disagree.


I believe the point was that Froome's average speed in 2015 was, with all the technical and training improvements that have occurred over the last 34 years, in a shorter race with fewer stages, only marginally faster (0.68 km/h) than Hinault's average speed in 1981. Froome's average speed (39.64 km/h) was 1.7% faster than Hinault's 1981 average speed (38.96 km/h). Further Froome's 2015 winning average speed was at least a full standard deviation below the average of the winning average speeds for 2000 through 2005 - 40.44 +0.77 km/h.

Given that many want to point to recent performances relative to those of past years as a sign of doping, the issue becomes what to use as a point of reference of a clean performance for comparison.

A question: given (1.) the changes that have occurred with bicycle technology (weight reduction, aerodynamics, drivetrains, etc.), (2.) the modern understanding of endurance physiology coupled with training and nutrition, (3.) the race structural changes that have occurred relative to whatever historical period you want to use as a reference (distance, climbs, stages), along with (4.) an awareness of past doping practices and PED use, *what would you expect or accept as an average speed today that would be indicative of a "clean" race performance in the TdF*?


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Huh?
> 
> Quintana's time up Alp d'Huez this year does not even put him in the top 20 all time. Froome's time puts him in 77th place.


based on the chart that another poster presented.


----------



## asgelle

atpjunkie said:


> based on the chart that another poster presented.


That only listed the top 5 from each year.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> based on the chart that another poster presented.


Here is a more comprehensive list. 

Subiendo como una moto: July 2015

Only 3 riders this year cracked the top 100 all time. Speeds have certainly changed. Since 2006 only 4 riders have cracked the top 100 all time. Valverde, Froome, Quintana, and Porte.


----------



## ibericb

asgelle said:


> That only listed the top 5 from each year.


Depending on source and year, you will different rankings, owing in part to different distances from the finish used to time the climb.

Coach Alex posted on his blog the times of the top 5 best for the climb up Alp d'Huez for each year of 1980 through 2011, citing this site as a reference. The first chart is probably the most informative. The reference site uses a distance of 13.8 km for the times reported.

According to Wikipedia, which sites an archived site (no longer functioning) the climb has only been officially timed since 1994, making times for the ascent before then debatable. 

Nonetheless, separately Wikipedia also reports the fastest ascent times going back to Coppi in 1952, and includes results for 2015. According to that representation, which is reportedly based on a distance of 14.454 km, Quintana's climb time this year of 39' 22" this year ranks at 14th, and Pinot's time this year ranks at 33rd in fastest climb times.

Interestingly, although the climb distances are reported to be different, both the Finnish reference used by Coach Alex and Wikipedia report the same times for Pantani in '97, Amrstrong in '04, ... . There are other curious anomalies as well. If you just compare NQ's reported 14.454 km time this year to the Finnish reference, without adjusting for the reported distance difference, it would put NQ tied at 25th with Sastre in 2008.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

ibericb said:


> Depending on source and year, you will different rankings, owing in part to different distances from the finish used to time the climb.
> 
> Coach Alex posted on his blog the times of the top 5 best for the climb up Alp d'Huez for each year of 1980 through 2011, citing this site as a reference. The first chart is probably the most informative. The reference site uses a distance of 13.8 km for the times reported.
> 
> According to Wikipedia, which sites an archived site (no longer functioning) the climb has only been officially timed since 1994, making times for the ascent before then debatable.
> 
> Nonetheless, separately Wikipedia also reports the fastest ascent times going back to Coppi in 1952, and includes results for 2015. According to that representation, which is reportedly based on a distance of 14.454 km, Quintana's climb time this year of 39' 22" this year ranks at 14th, and Pinot's time this year ranks at 33rd in fastest climb times.
> 
> Interestingly, although the climb distances are reported to be different, both the Finnish reference used by Coach Alex and Wikipedia report the same times for Pantani in '97, Amrstrong in '04, ... . There are other curious anomalies as well. If you just compare NQ's reported 14.454 km time this year to the Finnish reference, without adjusting for the reported distance difference, it would put NQ tied at 25th with Sastre in 2008.


All of that is wrong. Pinot does not even crack the top 100. In 1997 alone 71 riders broke 46 minutes. 112 broke 48 minutes

Here is the best list
Subiendo como una moto: July 2015


----------



## ibericb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> All of that is wrong. Pinot does not even crack the top 100. In 1997 alone 71 riders broke 46 minutes. 112 broke 48 minutes
> 
> Here is the best list
> Subiendo como una moto: July 2015


I cited the sources and the reasons for their differences. Debate it with them if you wish. I have no basis to argue or believe that any report is any better or worse than another, and certainly won't defend or dispute any of them.

Question - what leads you to conclude that the source you cited is any better than the others identified?

FYI - if you look at the Wikipedia source cited, it reports a time for Pinot this year of 42' 18" for the 14.454 km climb. Your source reports 41' 16" for Pinot. Where are the 46 and 48 minute references coming from?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

ibericb said:


> I cited the sources and the reasons for their differences. Debate it with them if you wish. I have no basis to argue or believe that any report is any better or worse than another, and certainly won't defend or dispute any of them.
> 
> Question - what leads you to conclude that the source you cited is any better than the others identified?
> 
> FYI - if you look at the Wikipedia source cited, it reports a time for Pinot this year of 42' 18" for the 14.454 km climb. Your source reports 41' 16" for Pinot. Where are the 46 and 48 minute references coming from?


It is pretty simple. The sources you provided clearly do not look past the top few riders every year. They are far from comprehensive. 

Here are the results from 1997. Almost the entire peloton hit the base of the climb together that year
Tour de France 1997

Alp d'Huez is not 14.454. It is 13.8 km. The 14.454 number is from the roundabout and includes .65 km of flat run in to the climb. Anyone who has done the climb knows it starts immediately after you cross the bridge and turn left. 

Note the course that many people time themselves on is slightly more then 13.8km as the sign is on a lamppost slightly beyond where the Tour finish line usually is. 

There may be a few seconds variance on individual times but the facts are support a far different top 100 list then what Wikipedia presents. Not the first time Wikipedia has been wrong


----------



## ibericb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is pretty simple. The sources you provided clearly do not look past the top few riders every year. They are far from comprehensive.
> 
> Here are the results from 1997. Almost the entire peloton hit the base of the climb together that year
> Tour de France 1997
> 
> Alp d'Huez is not 14.454. It is 13.8 km. The 14.454 number is from the roundabout and includes .65 km of flat run in to the climb. Anyone who has done the climb knows it starts immediately after you cross the bridge and turn left.
> 
> Note the course that many people time themselves on is slightly more then 13.8km as the sign is on a lamppost slightly beyond where the Tour finish line usually is.
> 
> There may be a few seconds variance on individual times but the facts are support a far different top 100 list then what Wikipedia presents. Not the first time Wikipedia has been wrong


As best I can tell there is no publicly available official time by which to compare across the years. According to the now archived, no longer available site, the distances timed varied in different years, and official timing didn't begin until 1994. Another source  (interesting also for its contextual analysis of the doping era results) cites the official timed distance as 14.5 km since 1990, and also allows for the 700m deduction at the start of the 14.5 km segment to get to the 13.8 km of actual climbing. What we don't know is what times go with what distance by whose report.

Here's another data collection, and analysis through 2012, by a physicist at the University of Washington (see reference 4 for sources). In analyzing the Alpe d'Huez data the numbers reported were adjusted to 13.8 km.

In spite of the different times and reported distances, none of the lists would put Quintana in the top 10. At best his 2015 climb shows up in 14th, and at worst it's ~23rd-25th. It's really not worth debating - take your pick. The implications are nearly the same, whatever anyone wants to argue between those extremes, one way or the other.

BTW - your 1997 citation was for the total stage, not the climb. There is no way from that data determine climb time or climb time differences among the peloton.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

ibericb said:


> BTW - your 1997 citation was for the total stage, not the climb. There is no way from that data determine climb time or climb time differences among the peloton.


Actually it is very easy, just watch the video. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX3nhA205EQ

The only other climb that day was Col du Grand Bois. The peloton hit the foot of Alp d'Huez intact so it is easy to reasonably calculate each riders time based on how far back they were from Pantani as they all hit the foot of the climb together. 

They have been timing the climb since prior to 1990. The reference to 1990 is when they installed a timing stamp near the bottom of the climb. They could not put it at the foot of the climb as there is little room for riders to stop so they put it near the parking lot by the round about. 

Timing climbs has been popular for years. It really started to pick up steam when the Colombians came over and Lucho Herrera shredded many of the records. French TV shows the entire stage so there has been a sub culture of geeks that obsess over it for decades. 

For the years that count, mid 90's to today, there are good records, video, and stopwatches. While there may be a few seconds off here and there the overall fact remains that the vast majority of riders today are not climbing as fast as they were 10-20 years ago


----------



## peabody

According to Michele Ferrari the power outputs of Froome were really no different then anything we have seen in the past 15yrs.


----------



## den bakker

peabody said:


> According to Michele Ferrari the power outputs of Froome were really no different then anything we have seen in the past 15yrs.


and if there's one person with a stellar track record of telling the truth.....


----------



## peabody

den bakker said:


> and if there's one person with a stellar track record of telling the truth.....


sure, but you can't deny the guys knowledge, whether or not you like him or hate him.


----------



## den bakker

peabody said:


> sure, but you can't deny the guys knowledge, whether or not you like him or hate him.


what use is that if whatever comes out of his mouth is as trustworthy as a wet fart?


----------



## Fireform

peabody said:


> sure, but you can't deny the guys knowledge, whether or not you like him or hate him.


Yeah. And we take his pronouncements at face value. 

Good grief.


----------



## AJL

Interesting stuff @ veloclinic on power output as a doping indicatior: Estimating the Probability of Doping as a Function of Power - veloclinic


----------



## ibericb

AJL said:


> Interesting stuff @ veloclinic on power output as a doping indicatior: Estimating the Probability of Doping as a Function of Power - veloclinic


Interesting idea. The entire analysis, which by the authors own statement is purely "illustrative of the concept", is based upon a number of assumptions, the most glaring of which is that doping can directly increase power output in world class cyclists. At present, the scientific and research community has not confirmed that (see for example, this review). An increase in VO2max is well known, but it's not at all clear that such an increase leads directly to an increase in power output under the conditions of an event such as the TdF, and with world-class cyclists. 

If the basic correlation of doping with power output could be established, and a broad and inclusive distribution of power output could be defined for the the current field of competitors, then indeed the approach illustrated could be a useful "indirect measure of doping probability".


----------



## AJL

ibericb said:


> Interesting idea. The entire analysis, which by the authors own statement is purely "illustrative of the concept", is based upon a number of assumptions, the most glaring of which is that doping can directly increase power output in world class cyclists. At present, the scientific and research community has not confirmed that (see for example, this review). An increase in VO2max is well known, but it's not at all clear that such an increase leads directly to an increase in power output under the conditions of an event such as the TdF, and with world-class cyclists.
> 
> If the basic correlation of doping with power output could be established, and a broad and inclusive distribution of power output could be defined for the the current field of competitors, then indeed the approach illustrated could be a useful "indirect measure of doping probability".


Well, since the effects scientist's are search for are not discoverable (unless there were some massive rule change by Wada and the UCI - which riders and many teams would reject) - then the community is stuck with developing stochastic models to estimate the likelihood of doping by Bio passport data and athlete performance data. Some progress has been made (retroactive bio-passport ex: Athlete Biological Passport For Level Change Detection - veloclinic) more work needs to be done on maximal human performance (which by it's nature, as I mentioned, is a difficult ask).

The jumps in cycling performance in the 90's and 2000's coincides with the widespread use of EPO - while not a scientific test, it is pretty damning as far as circumstantial evidence goes. Hence, we either get transparency from teams and athletes on performance data and physiological tests, or the cloud of suspicion remains. The proper models can be developed and we can have a situation like this: The Imminent Arrival of Reward Side Anti-Doping - veloclinic in place. Dopers may not be caught under that later model, but they have a high probability of not being certified as 'clean' (to something like a 99% probability).

Since nothing like this exists today, I consider the probability that GC contenders are doping as being more likely than not. How much they are benefiting, is something that only shows up in internal testing - not in scientific journals.


----------



## ibericb

AJL said:


> ...
> Since nothing like this exists today, I consider the probability that GC contenders are doping as being more likely than not. How much they are benefiting, is something that only shows up in internal testing - not in scientific journals.


There are clearly measurable improvements in physiological metrics that arise, when tested, for the use of EPO and other PED's (e.g, VO2max, total time to exhaustion, etc.). However, power is, at best debatable and highly questionable. My point was the specific conceptual model that was presented is, in fact, based on an ungrounded hypothesis. That's all. Don't extrapolate that beyond that limit.

I won't argue one way or the other about the probability that anyone in the pro peloton is doping, or not. It is flawed logic to conclude one in the absence of data to the contrary, either way. 

The real question remains - how to establish that any rider is competing free from the benefits of a banned substance? There are both practical challenges to doing that, as well as moral and legal implications. It's an insolvable task with present technologies. An absence of a "dirty" finding doesn't confirm a "clean" rider, it only signals a lack of sufficient evidence for adverse action, which must contend with the normal limits on technology and variance, and the array of social, moral and ethical issues attendant to individual rights and unbiased fair treatment.


----------



## AJL

ibericb said:


> I won't argue one way or the other about the probability that anyone in the pro peloton is doping, or not. It is flawed logic to conclude one in the absence of data to the contrary, either way.


Well, look at this list (just those that were caught or admitted to doping): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling#2010s
If your eyebrows don't raise after reading that list (never mind earlier decades) then I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## ibericb

AJL said:


> Well, look at this list (just those that were caught or admitted to doping): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling#2010s
> If your eyebrows don't raise after reading that list (never mind earlier decades) then I don't know what to tell you.


I've read through all of those so many times, I don't need to again. While past history leads me to suspect, it remains flawed logic to conclude that because others in the past erred, and I don't have any data to confirm "clean" today, that most must be dirty. This is like mutual funds, _"'past performance is not an indicator of future outcomes"._

Here's one to consider- Carlos Sastre, overall GC time winer of the TdF in 2008, 2nd in Climbers classification (1st, Kohl, was later stripped), won stage 17 including Alpe d'Huez. He was never found positive in any testing, nor was he ever implicated in any doping scandal throughout the entirety of his career. So, by association and timing, would you then presume he was also doping? If so, then what?


----------



## Fireform

I don't know one way or another, but a lot of people think Sastre was clean. If so, that was an astonishing achievement.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

ibericb said:


> Here's one to consider- Carlos Sastre, overall GC time winer of the TdF in 2008, 2nd in Climbers classification (1st, Kohl, was later stripped), won stage 17 including Alpe d'Huez. He was never found positive in any testing, nor was he ever implicated in any doping scandal throughout the entirety of his career. So, by association and timing, would you then presume he was also doping? If so, then what?


Carlos Sastre has been the top rider on some of the dirtiest teams in history 

Once 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operación_Puerto_doping_case
CSC
Anti-Doping Denmark report reveals widespread doping under Riis at CSC | Cyclingnews.com
Geox
Geox-TMC: End of the road - Cycling Weekly

Here is the Alp d'Huez result

1 Carlos Sastre (Spa) CSC-Saxo Bank 07.06.58 (34.32 km / h)
2 Samuel Sanchez Gonzalez (Spa) Euskaltel - Euskadi 2.03
3 Andy Schleck (Lux) Team CSC - Saxo Bank 
4 Alejandro Valverde Belmonte (Spa) Caisse d'Epargne 2.13
5 Frank Schleck (Lux) Team CSC - Saxo Bank 
6 Vladimir Efimkin (Rus) AG2R La Mondiale 2.15
7 Cadel Evans (Aus) Silence - Lotto 
8 Denis Menchov (Rus) Rabobank 
Christian Vande Velde 9 (USA) Team Garmin-Chipotle p / b H30 
10 Bernhard Kohl (Aut) Gerolsteiner 
11 Roman Kreuziger (Cze) Liquigas 3.11
12 Tadej Valjavec (Slo) AG2R La Mondiale 3.36

Not many (any) clean riders on that list


----------



## ibericb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Carlos Sastre has been the top rider on some of the dirtiest teams in history


True. Yet he was never found with a positive test, or even implicated in any doping activity or incident. So what are we to believe? Guilt guilt by association, or "clean" until established otherwise by some reasonable, credible evidence? Could he have been the clean guy that did well in an era of rampant doping, or is that just too incredible?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

ibericb said:


> True. Yet he was never found with a positive test, or even implicated in any doping activity or incident. So what are we to believe? Guilt guilt by association, or "clean" until established otherwise by some reasonable, credible evidence? Could he have been the clean guy that did well in an era of rampant doping, or is that just too incredible?


To incredible 

I can't image a guy raised by Manolo Saiz is clean.


----------



## ibericb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I can't image a guy raised by Manolo Saiz is clean.


Got it - guilt by imagination.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

ibericb said:


> Got it - guilt by imagination.


So the top rider on the Saiz, Riis, Gianetti teams was the only guy not on the team program? 

Fantasy


----------



## ibericb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> So the top rider on the Saiz, Riis, Gianetti teams was the only guy not on the team program?
> 
> Fantasy


You previously made your point.


----------



## atpjunkie

ibericb said:


> You previously made your point.


Do you disagree? Do you think a clean rider could somehow climb to the top of 3 separate dope riddled teams? If he was a domestique I could imagine it, but a captain?

Maybe Carlos was smarter and kept it to himself. Again, the busts we now have from that era weren't from testing but from either fellow riders ratting you out or your clinic (a la Puerto) getting popped. Maybe Carlos was just smarter and had little to no one else aware of any actual use.
I'm sure in retrospect that is what LA is wishing he had done


----------



## ibericb

atpjunkie said:


> Do you disagree? Do you think a clean rider could somehow climb to the top of 3 separate dope riddled teams? If he was a domestique I could imagine it, but a captain?
> 
> Maybe Carlos was smarter and kept it to himself. Again, the busts we now have from that era weren't from testing but from either fellow riders ratting you out or your clinic (a la Puerto) getting popped. Maybe Carlos was just smarter and had little to no one else aware of any actual use.
> I'm sure in retrospect that is what LA is wishing he had done


What I think is that in the world of hypotheticals (all imagined) and fantasy, about anything is possible. The points you have suggested are certainly reasonable possibilities. So is it a reasonable possibility that he indeed was clean. I have no clue which is more likely for Sastre, and neither do you or anyone else here. I'm not defending Sastre, or Froome, or anyone else. I never have, and don't intend to. 

In Sastre's case one thing that is quite unusual for the era is that nobody has ever pointed the finger at him for participating in doping. Is that in itself indicative of the fact that he was clean? Nope, no more than the imagined hypothesis of what he could have done are indicative that he indeed doped. 

The point is the very sad reality that even if there were a clean rider who had the ability to win the TdF, few would believe he is clean. We are in a situation of those who win must be doping. Until there is a method to prove that a rider is truly clean, they will all be doubted by a very vocal majority. Not only did Armstrong and the others from that era screw themselves in their time, they spoiled the future for those who would come today, and into the foreseeable future, to compete fairly and cleanly.


----------



## AJL

ibericb said:


> I've read through all of those so many times, I don't need to again. While past history leads me to suspect, it remains flawed logic to conclude that because others in the past erred, and I don't have any data to confirm "clean" today, that most must be dirty. This is like mutual funds, _"'past performance is not an indicator of future outcomes"._


It's an arms race that rides and teams are, for the most part, winning. Past becomes present if nothing is changed - so far things haven't changed enough. Unless things change - waiting for 'data' is a fools errand. It's your choice to do so as you wish - it's just not mine. Given all the riders that have been popped, or confessed or had their cover blown - it's just not plausible for me to take a default 'clean' stance.


----------



## SwiftSolo

Doctor Falsetti said:


> don't expect everyone be so simplistic


Oh, I don't. I think you stand among the few.

Curious, is there anyone who is successful in any field that you don't despise? What is it about those who excel that compels you to spend such a large part of your existence in a rather sorry attempt to diminish winners on conjecture?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SwiftSolo said:


> Oh, I don't. I think you stand among the few.
> 
> Curious, is there anyone who is successful in any field that you don't despise? What is it about those who excel that compels you to spend such a large part of your existence in a rather sorry attempt to diminish winners on conjecture?


Not surprised you choose to make this personal. Just because I question your nonsense does not mean I "Despise excellence" :idea:

Not sure what your point is, perhaps you are assuming too much. Froome seems like a very nice guy, don't despise him. Tony Martin, John Degeklob, Dan Martin, Laurens ten dam, Sagan......and, of course, there is always


----------



## thehook

I always thought Sastre was clean. There was a film I saw (cannot remember the name). But in it there are scenes where Riis says Sastre could be better and do amazing things. But Sastre just "does his own training and is set in his ways"


----------



## atpjunkie

ibericb said:


> What I think is that in the world of hypotheticals (all imagined) and fantasy, about anything is possible. The points you have suggested are certainly reasonable possibilities. So is it a reasonable possibility that he indeed was clean. I have no clue which is more likely for Sastre, and neither do you or anyone else here. I'm not defending Sastre, or Froome, or anyone else. I never have, and don't intend to.
> 
> In Sastre's case one thing that is quite unusual for the era is that nobody has ever pointed the finger at him for participating in doping. Is that in itself indicative of the fact that he was clean? Nope, no more than the imagined hypothesis of what he could have done are indicative that he indeed doped.
> 
> The point is the very sad reality that even if there were a clean rider who had the ability to win the TdF, few would believe he is clean. We are in a situation of those who win must be doping. Until there is a method to prove that a rider is truly clean, they will all be doubted by a very vocal majority. Not only did Armstrong and the others from that era screw themselves in their time, they spoiled the future for those who would come today, and into the foreseeable future, to compete fairly and cleanly.


agreed the milk has been soured, that is the end result. It is obvious after they couldn't really find anyone on Armstrong's podiums who was clean to replace him. The reality seems to be as it all unfolds, that all (or at a minimum, all the major) teams had programs. Riders that rise to the top of teams that had such programs are highly suspect, and any rider who is battling for supremacy against a field of them and competing adds to it. Maybe not, maybe Carlos was the outlier, the one truly gifted rider who still couldn't beat the best dopers but when the field thinned had his shot to win. If I was a betting man I wouldn't lay my money there.


----------



## SwiftSolo

You seem to continue to support the notion that it is not possible for any combination of training, diet, and legal drugs to ever significantly improve performance. You also seem reluctant to acknowledge that teams hire folks to explore that possibility. The fact is that every element of training is focused on enhancing performance--any legal and ethical way possible.

Further, you refuse to acknowledge that there may be a difference between drugs that enhance performance and drugs officially labeled PEDs by WADA.

Finally, it was you who posted this nonsense: "I would suggest reading the WADA code. The list is very broad and includes* methods and products that, while undiscovered, would give an advantage to an athlete*". As I pointed out, all training involves "methods and products" that teams hope provide an advantage to their athlete.

It occurs to me that most of the folks you listed are probable dopers in your mind?


Doctor Falsetti said:


> Not surprised you choose to make this personal. Just because I question your nonsense does not mean I "Despise excellence" :idea:
> 
> Not sure what your point is, perhaps you are assuming too much. Froome seems like a very nice guy, don't despise him. Tony Martin, John Degeklob, Dan Martin, Laurens ten dam, Sagan......and, of course, there is always


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SwiftSolo said:


> You seem to continue to support the notion that it is not possible for any combination of training, diet, and legal drugs to ever significantly improve performance. You also seem reluctant to acknowledge that teams hire folks to explore that possibility. The fact is that every element of training is focused on enhancing performance--any legal and ethical way possible.
> 
> Further, you refuse to acknowledge that there may be a difference between drugs that enhance performance and drugs officially labeled PEDs by WADA.
> 
> Finally, it was you who posted this nonsense: "I would suggest reading the WADA code. The list is very broad and includes* methods and products that, while undiscovered, would give an advantage to an athlete*". As I pointed out, all training involves "methods and products" that teams hope provide an advantage to their athlete.
> 
> It occurs to me that most of the folks you listed are probable dopers in your mind?


Do you have some kind of straw man generator as this post has little to do with what I wrote and makes no sense.

Before you write more take some time to read the portions of the WADA code I provided for you.


----------



## burgrat

thehook said:


> I always thought Sastre was clean. There was a film I saw (cannot remember the name). But in it there are scenes where Riis says Sastre could be better and do amazing things. But Sastre just "does his own training and is set in his ways"


I think the movie was "Overcoming", about the CSC team. Pretty good doc.

Overcoming (2005) - IMDb


----------



## SwiftSolo

First, I can only comment on your inane responses to me so I have no idea what you wrote to others. 

I have made it clear that before jumping to conclusions about guilt or innocence based on performance, rational people explore an array of possibilities. I suggested that one of those possibilities is that some combination of training, diet, and legal drugs may give a team a significant advantage. You refuted that argument by posting *"I would suggest reading the WADA code. The list is very broad and includes methods and products that, while undiscovered, would give an advantage to an athlete".* which we all know is bullsh!t in the context of my premise.

Carry on and don't let the facts interfere with your need to disparage winners.


Doctor Falsetti said:


> Do you have some kind of straw man generator as this post has little to do with what I wrote and makes no sense.
> 
> Before you write more take some time to read the portions of the WADA code I provided for you.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SwiftSolo said:


> First, I can only comment on your inane responses to me so I have no idea what you wrote to others.
> 
> I have made it clear that before jumping to conclusions about guilt or innocence based on performance, rational people explore an array of possibilities. I suggested that one of those possibilities is that some combination of training, diet, and legal drugs may give a team a significant advantage. You refuted that argument by posting *"I would suggest reading the WADA code. The list is very broad and includes methods and products that, while undiscovered, would give an advantage to an athlete".* which we all know is bullsh!t in the context of my premise.
> 
> Carry on and don't let the facts interfere with your need to disparage winners.



It appears you do not even read your own posts



SwiftSolo said:


> Is there no way now or in the future to find PEDs that are not now banned?


PED's are Performance Enhancing Drugs. As I explained to you a PED does not have to be banned by name for it to be banned. I showed you the portion of the WADA code that discusses banned substances, methods, and effects......You responded with some babble about everyone having to drink the same amount of water, hatting excellence, blah, blah. 

EPO is not water, aspirin, or fig bars.


----------



## Local Hero

BBC Sport - Chris Froome to release more performance data after tests

Chris Froome has begun a series of physiological tests from which he will share data because he wants to prove people can "trust" his achievements.

Froome last month vehemently denied allegations of doping as he won the Tour de France for the second time.

Team Sky also took the unprecedented step of making data of the Briton's performances available during the race.

The 30-year-old said: "Plenty more testing and analysis to be done, I will be sharing results later in the year."

Speaking to BBC's sports editor Dan Roan last week, Froome said he wanted to "show people that they can trust these performances".

On Monday, he posted a video of him being tested at the GlaxoSmithKline Human Performance Lab in London.

Froome also said he had been simulating conditions in Rio, the host city of next summer's Olympic Games.


----------



## David Loving

do I believe what he tells me, or trust my lyin' eyes?


----------



## deviousalex

Local Hero said:


> BBC Sport - Chris Froome to release more performance data after tests
> 
> Chris Froome has begun a series of physiological tests from which he will share data because he wants to prove people can "trust" his achievements.


Anyone have any insight to if these tests can actually reveal anything? Putting him up to a power meter if he doped during tour and can output the same number of watts now is meaningless.

What I'm more interested in is whether VO2Max (actual mL/kg/min not power in vo2 zone) can give any indication. From my understanding doping can actually improve this number. Or does doping now actually change this number but instead improve gross mechanical efficiency (GME) to improve watts? Can you infer doping from an unusually high GME?


----------



## ibericb

deviousalex said:


> Anyone have any insight to if these tests can actually reveal anything? Putting him up to a power meter if he doped during tour and can output the same number of watts now is meaningless.
> 
> What I'm more interested in is whether VO2Max (actual mL/kg/min not power in vo2 zone) can give any indication. From my understanding doping can actually improve this number. Or does doping now actually change this number but instead improve gross mechanical efficiency (GME) to improve watts? Can you infer doping from an unusually high GME?


Before we talk about what Froome's data may mean, the real question is whatever results are shared how is it known that Froome was "clean" during the testing? How would he prove that the results, whatever they are, aren't a result of a PED? Said another way, how would you recognized from any lab test (power, TTF, VO2max, power at AnT, power vs blood lactate, etc.) whether Frrome is in a clean state or altered state?


----------



## deviousalex

ibericb said:


> Before we talk about what Froome's data may mean, the real question is whatever results are shared how is it known that Froome was "clean" during the testing? How would he prove that the results, whatever they are, aren't a result of a PED? Said another way, how would you recognized from any lab test (power, TTF, VO2max, power at AnT, power vs blood lactate, etc.) whether Frrome is in a clean state or altered state?


Yeah, that's what I was saying in the first part of my post. Unless there are some factors you can infer doping from. Also, if anything doesn't match he can say "I'm tired from the tour", etc.


----------



## SwiftSolo

Honey, as I pointed out, the definition of "performance enhancing drugs" means one thing to WADA and another to the real world. In addition, we all know and use performance enhancing drugs that are legal--even to WADA (various pain killers, caffeine, endurolites, and on, and on, and on. 

Put on your big boy pants and admit that I made that distinction early and you have chosen to refuse to address that those drugs, combined with diet and training, are "products and methods" that enhance performance and that you knew full well that you were talking our of your ass when you posted *"I would suggest reading the WADA code. The list is very broad and includes methods and products that, while undiscovered, would give an advantage to an athlete"* in the context of my posts.

Go ahead with another attempt at circular logic, but try a little harder next time.


Doctor Falsetti said:


> It appears you do not even read your own posts
> 
> 
> 
> PED's are Performance Enhancing Drugs. As I explained to you a PED does not have to be banned by name for it to be banned. I showed you the portion of the WADA code that discusses banned substances, methods, and effects......You responded with some babble about everyone having to drink the same amount of water, hatting excellence, blah, blah.
> 
> EPO is not water, aspirin, or fig bars.


----------



## stevesbike

ibericb said:


> Before we talk about what Froome's data may mean, the real question is whatever results are shared how is it known that Froome was "clean" during the testing? How would he prove that the results, whatever they are, aren't a result of a PED? Said another way, how would you recognized from any lab test (power, TTF, VO2max, power at AnT, power vs blood lactate, etc.) whether Frrome is in a clean state or altered state?


that's not the point of the testing - obviously, no one can tell whether he was clean during the testing (other than not testing positive at the time for a PED). What he is attempting to show is that the power he produces is physiologically plausible - e.g., what his VO2max, efficiency, etc. is and his power output. This will be a reply to people like Vayer. He will likely have Grappe, who has analysed 3 years of his power data look at the test results and determine that it's consistent with his historical power outputs. Of course, he'll likely have a very high VO2max, an interesting power profile (probably an outlier re anearobic contribution) and then everyone who is committed to thinking he's doping will say the test is fake...


----------



## ibericb

stevesbike said:


> that's not the point of the testing - obviously, no one can tell whether he was clean during the testing (other than not testing positive at the time for a PED). What he is attempting to show is that the power he produces is physiologically plausible - e.g., what his VO2max, efficiency, etc. is and his power output. This will be a reply to people like Vayer. He will likely have Grappe, who has analysed 3 years of his power data look at the test results and determine that it's consistent with his historical power outputs. Of course, he'll likely have a very high VO2max, an interesting power profile (probably an outlier re anearobic contribution) and then everyone who is committed to thinking he's doping will say the test is fake...


I understand well what he's attempting to do. But unless you know he's clean what do the results mean? That's the question I'm raising.


----------



## den bakker

ibericb said:


> I understand well what he's attempting to do. But unless you know he's clean what do the results mean? That's the question I'm raising.


to quote the post you quote: 
"What he is attempting to show is that the power he produces is physiologically plausible - e.g., what his VO2max, efficiency, etc. is and his power output. "


----------



## ibericb

den bakker said:


> to quote the post you quote:
> "What he is attempting to show is that the power he produces is physiologically plausible - e.g., what his VO2max, efficiency, etc. is and his power output. "


Yeah, I got all that.

Suppose he delivers a very reasonable set of results for an endurance athlete, nothing exceptional. What does that tell you? Suppose, instead, that he delivers world record results? Does that tell you anything different?

No matter what the tests show, Froome is caught between a rock and hard place. If his results are over the top, the naysayers will maintain he was doped during the tests and the tests are fake, and if he doesn't they will then say he was during the TdF. Either way, he's pretty much at a loss to quiet those who doubt his authenticity.

Until there is a way to clearly and largely unequivocally establish that a rider is clean - which with present technology is unforeseeable - then anyone who might ride clean and perform exceptionally will be doubted. That's the Lance Armstrong, _et al_ legacy.


----------



## love4himies

ibericb said:


> Yeah, I got all that.
> 
> Suppose he delivers a very reasonable set of results for an endurance athlete, nothing exceptional. What does that tell you? Suppose, instead, that he delivers world record results? Does that tell you anything different?
> 
> No matter what the tests show, Froome is caught between a rock and hard place. If his results are over the top, the naysayers will maintain he was doped during the tests and the tests are fake, and if he doesn't they will then say he was during the TdF. Either way, he's pretty much at a loss to quiet those who doubt his authenticity.
> 
> Until there is a way to clearly and largely unequivocally establish that a rider is clean - which with present technology is unforeseeable - then anyone who might ride clean and perform exceptionally will be doubted. That's the Lance Armstrong, _et al_ legacy.


I agree, until there is absolute proof either way, people who think he dopes will continue to and vice versa.


----------



## AJL

ibericb said:


> Yeah, I got all that.
> 
> Suppose he delivers a very reasonable set of results for an endurance athlete, nothing exceptional. What does that tell you? Suppose, instead, that he delivers world record results? Does that tell you anything different?
> 
> No matter what the tests show, Froome is caught between a rock and hard place. If his results are over the top, the naysayers will maintain he was doped during the tests and the tests are fake, and if he doesn't they will then say he was during the TdF. Either way, he's pretty much at a loss to quiet those who doubt his authenticity.
> 
> Until there is a way to clearly and largely unequivocally establish that a rider is clean - which with present technology is unforeseeable - then anyone who might ride clean and perform exceptionally will be doubted. That's the Lance Armstrong, _et al_ legacy.


The only thing we have that is close to 100% reliable is the biopassport (aside from actual adverse findings in urine/blood tests). And, sadly, in this arms race the riders/doping docs are staying well ahead of authorities charged with detecting doping. A unary physiological test data point isn't sufficient to prove anything (unless the data is simply impossible). It will take many data points over the career of a rider to spot anomalies. It really sucks, because we know that doping is rampant in all sports, but between technological advancements and corruption in sport - it's very hard to catch a specific cheater.

In cycling, I've just decided to assume that most of the top guys are doping. The same applies to just about every other sport. It's become impossible to tell the cheats from those who are talented or gifted or the hardest working.


----------



## David Loving

I have accepted the fact that they all dope. I can't expect them to clean up; it's contra to human nature. The tours are still entertaining and the riders are very skilled and trained to the limit. They may even be scripted like professional wrestling. where the wrestlers are highly skilled, and trained. I enjoy this thread. Lots of expertise here. I'm just going to take 'em as they ride. What a modern world we live in....


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SwiftSolo said:


> Honey, as I pointed out, the definition of "performance enhancing drugs" means one thing to WADA and another to the real world. In addition, we all know and use performance enhancing drugs that are legal--even to WADA (various pain killers, caffeine, endurolites, and on, and on, and on.


You are welcome to pretend endurolites are a PED and equate them to EPO but don't expect anyone to buy into your nonsense.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

stevesbike said:


> He will likely have Grappe, who has analysed 3 years of his power data look at the test results and determine that it's consistent with his historical power outputs. Of course, he'll likely have a very high VO2max, an interesting power profile (probably an outlier re anearobic contribution) and then everyone who is committed to thinking he's doping will say the test is fake...


Prior to the Vuelta in 2011 Froome showed limited potential. Despite 5 seasons as a full time bike racer, including multiple Grand Tours, he was about to be cut by Sky and did not have other offers. He then suddenly dominated the Vuelta. 

Grappe was given SRM files from the Vuelta 2011 onward. He received none from the 5 years that Froome sucked, only from after he suddenly found a massive increase in Watts. 

Testing him today means little. I would be more interested in seeing his what he was doing for 5 years when he was getting dropped then from the last 4 years


----------



## ibericb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> ....
> Testing him today means little. I would be more interested in seeing his what he was doing for 5 years when he was getting dropped then from the last 4 years


Testing then or now means little, other than it tells you how the physiology is running. The doubters of Froome, or anyone else for that matter, question why it runs as it does. His "transparency" is an exercise in futility. But it does provide for some good publicity, both for Froome and Sky.


----------



## Jackhammer

*Pretend?*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are welcome to pretend endurolites are a PED and equate them to EPO but don't expect anyone to buy into your nonsense.


Ginger root can increase your watts at threshold by at least 5%.

L-Tyrosine? Damn that stuff is rocket fuel...


----------



## deviousalex

Jackhammer said:


> Ginger root can increase your watts at threshold by at least 5%.


Got anything to back that up?


----------



## ibericb

Jackhammer said:


> Ginger root can increase your watts at threshold by at least 5%.


_"Among nine studies examining ginger as an ergogenic aid, *no discernable effects on body composition, metabolic rate, oxygen consumption, isometric force generation, or perceived exertion were observed.* Limited data suggest ginger may accelerate recovery of maximal strength after eccentric resistance exercise and reduce the inflammatory response to cardiorespiratory exercise"_

"Ginger (Zingiber officinale) as an analgesic and ergogenic aid in sport: a systemic review.", Wilson, PB; _J. Strength Cond. Res_, 2015, in press.




> L-Tyrosine? Damn that stuff is rocket fuel...


_"Tyrosine is a precursor for the catecholamine hormones and neurotransmitters, specifically epinephrine, norepinephrine, and dopamine. Some have suggested that inadequate production of these hormones or transmitters could compromise optimal physical performance. Thus, as a precursor for the formation of these hormones and neurotransmitters, tyrosine has been suggested to be ergogenic. However, in a well-designed placebo-controlled, crossover study, Sutton and others found that *tyrosine supplementation (150 milligrams/kilogram body weight) consumed 30 minutes prior to taking a series of physical performance tests significantly increased plasma tyrosine levels, but had no significant ergogenic effects on aerobic endurance, anaerobic power, or muscle strength*."_

Williams, M; _J Int Soc Sports Nutr_, 2005; 2(2): 63-67


Cnclusion: more of the usual BS


----------



## Jackhammer

deviousalex said:


> Got anything to back that up?





ibericb said:


> _"Among nine studies examining ginger as an ergogenic aid, *no discernable effects on body composition, metabolic rate, oxygen consumption, isometric force generation, or perceived exertion were observed.* Limited data suggest ginger may accelerate recovery of maximal strength after eccentric resistance exercise and reduce the inflammatory response to cardiorespiratory exercise"_
> 
> "Ginger (Zingiber officinale) as an analgesic and ergogenic aid in sport: a systemic review.", Wilson, PB; _J. Strength Cond. Res_, 2015, in press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Tyrosine is a precursor for the catecholamine hormones and neurotransmitters, specifically epinephrine, norepinephrine, and dopamine. Some have suggested that inadequate production of these hormones or transmitters could compromise optimal physical performance. Thus, as a precursor for the formation of these hormones and neurotransmitters, tyrosine has been suggested to be ergogenic. However, in a well-designed placebo-controlled, crossover study, Sutton and others found that *tyrosine supplementation (150 milligrams/kilogram body weight) consumed 30 minutes prior to taking a series of physical performance tests significantly increased plasma tyrosine levels, but had no significant ergogenic effects on aerobic endurance, anaerobic power, or muscle strength*."_
> 
> Williams, M; _J Int Soc Sports Nutr_, 2005; 2(2): 63-67
> 
> 
> Cnclusion: more of the usual BS


Endurolytes - Electrolyte Replacement Supplement | Hammer Nutrition


----------



## ibericb

Jackhammer said:


> Endurolytes - Electrolyte Replacement Supplement | Hammer Nutrition


So, in other words, no - you have nothing credible to support your previous assertion.

Let me guess - salesman?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Jackhammer said:


> Endurolytes - Electrolyte Replacement Supplement | Hammer Nutrition


But, but, but, Swiftsolo said Endurolytes are a PED


----------



## deviousalex

Jackhammer said:


> Endurolytes - Electrolyte Replacement Supplement | Hammer Nutrition


Boy have I got some deep carbon wheels to sell you!


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> But, but, but, Swiftsolo said Endurolytes are a PED


Have you read the reviews? People are shaving minutes off their marathons AND not get any more muscle cramps.


----------



## ibericb

love4himies said:


> Have you read the reviews? People are shaving minutes off their marathons AND not get any more muscle cramps.


Actually, that may be true if they were doing nothing about electrolyte replacement prior (the linked endurolyte supplement is primarily a typical endurance electrolyte formulation). I prefer other modes, but there's nothing wrong with electrolyte replacement for endurance athletics. That, however, has absolutely nothing to do with the previous unsubstantiated claims about ginger root boosting power output and tyrosine being "rocket fuel". Those are truly laughable.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> Have you read the reviews? People are shaving minutes off their marathons AND not get any more muscle cramps.


Where is WADA? Why don't they crack down on such blatant cheating?


----------



## deviousalex

love4himies said:


> Have you read the reviews? People are shaving minutes off their marathons AND not get any more muscle cramps.


My friend got on some of these and shaved 5 minutes off a 4:50 marathon!


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Where is WADA? Why don't they crack down on such blatant cheating?


It's because it appears to be mostly used by athletics and, well, you know how well their doping controls are going.


----------



## Jackhammer

deviousalex said:


> Boy have I got some deep carbon wheels to sell you!


Combined with my motors, they will probably give me more than 100 watts!


----------



## Local Hero

OK, so ginger root doesn't help. I hadn't heard that before but good to know. 

Beets have marginal benefits, right? I mean, I eat them a few times a week. 

What else works? 

(asking seriously here)


----------



## deviousalex

Local Hero said:


> What else works?


EPO, it's as safe as orange juice.


----------



## ibericb

Local Hero said:


> OK, so ginger root doesn't help. I hadn't heard that before but good to know.
> 
> Beets have marginal benefits, right? I mean, I eat them a few times a week.
> 
> What else works?
> 
> (asking seriously here)


The beets (actually it has been the juice) is used as a source of dietary nitrates. The benefit is apparently short lived but real in untrained athletes. The jury is still out on well trained athletes. A reasonable summary here.

What works depends on what effect you want - strength, endurance, ... Here's a pretty decent summary of various ergogenic aids, and here is another.

Mostly what works is better genes -- get different parents.


----------

