# What will satisfy the doubters?



## Skinner222 (Aug 31, 2012)

Why are people doubting Froome? Was it his winning margin? Was it his performance in the TT or on Ventoux? Why "must" he be cheating? I understand why people are skeptical these days, but what will satisfy the doubters?

Back in the 70's the likes of Merckx and Hinault soundly thrashed their competition, winning the TDF by 10, 15 minutes or more. Are these results now in question? Does nobody believe that perhaps they were just "that" much better than the competition? I certainly do. Every sport has the cream of the crop that are simply better than everyone else. Jordan, Gretzky, Lendl. They all had talent way beyond their competition, and that's what made them special to watch. The doping era brought all that crashing down for cycling fans, but when does it stop? Why not enjoy Froome's win for what it is? 

I guess the only way people would be satisfied is if the winning margin after 21 days and thousands of kilometres was a few seconds. Then everyone would be pretty much equal and nobody could possibly be cheating. I'm being sarcastic of course, but why is it so unacceptable that Froome won the way he did? 

I choose to be optimistic, that we've left the doping era behind and that athletes will give incredible performances that see them rise above the rest. That's what keeps me watching. There will always be cheaters in any sport, but I believe they are in the minority. Especially in today's peloton. All this doubting and finger pointing is getting old.

K


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

It's the history of doping in cycling that _proves _Froome's guilt. To satisfy the doubters we must go back in time and change history.


----------



## MattSoutherden (Jun 24, 2009)

What will satisfy them? Nothing.

It's like trying to discuss the existence of some made up deity. However much you counter an irrational or illogical premise with a reasoned or scientific answer, they retort with a new, wilder, premise which they believe at the time you will have no way to explain. The more you nibble away at their original nonsense, the further they push to the fringes. Some will also try to include faux scientific babble to shore up their argument. Include enough complicated sounding mathematics and somehow that gives your stance grounding and substance.

Let me get this straight. I am not saying that discrediting any of these nonsensical arguments is proof that Froome is clean. However they are certainly not any kind of 'proof' that he is doping.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

And why can't you just post this in one of the several "Froome" threads?
Your answers are in them threads.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

"Back in the 70's the likes of Merckx and Hinault soundly thrashed their competition, winning the TDF by 10, 15 minutes or more. Are these results now in question?"

um, yes. you know Merckx was a doper right?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I'm sorry you guys don't believe in miracles.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

spade2you said:


> I'm sorry you guys don't believe in miracles.


Amazing that after the last ten years there are still people gullible enough to believe. It is like idiots who lose their life savings in a Ponzi scheme then immediately fall for the next conman who comes along promising to double their money in a month.


----------



## regnaD kciN (Mar 2, 2013)

At any rate, it's refreshing to see that Pharmstrong isn't the only one here with a pack of rabid, diehard defenders…I guess.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Skinner222 said:


> Every sport has the cream of the crop that are simply better than everyone else. Jordan, Gretzky, Lendl. They all had talent way beyond their competition, and that's what made them special to watch.
> 
> 
> 
> K


Jordan, check. Gretsky, check. Lendl, wtf? Lendl was a power-hitting charmless robot who couldn't play on grass. Ever see him get destroyed by Jimmy Connors at the U.S. Open final? Superfit, good on the hardcourts. Never won Wimbledon.

Oh, yeah, Froome. Well, he's ugly for starters, rides funny. Is a Brit, no a Kenyan, no a Brit, well he isn't American. He's paid by that scumbag Murdoch, Sky are way too rich. He took an illegal feed, a sure sign of a stop at nothing attitude. He came from nowhere and has a made-up tropical disease. He was on Wiggins's team, and Wiggins is a boring cheat. He took an illegal ride on a team car once or twice. Sky hired former cheats. He said he was clean, an obvious lie. He's a pro cyclist, a sure sign that he's a cheat. I think that's plenty to be going on with.


----------



## Slartibartfast (Jul 22, 2007)

Skinner, I WISH the peloton were entirely clean. Same with major league baseball, pro football, and all the rest. But I BELIEVE that many if not most standout performances are tainted. I believe nearly 100% of pro football players (NFL) are using PEDs, that PEDs are part of the fabric of the game and have been for decades, same as cycling.

Yet I still enjoy watching most pro sports. In fact, when I can reliably believe all of them are doping it doesn't bother me much. It's when we get a Tour like this year's where Cadel and Teejay are pan y agua (IMO), Conti is microdosing (IMO), and others either didn't get the message or are on a new type of program (IMO), that the sport becomes confusing and incongruous.

What will satisfy me that Froome and others performing at outlandish levels are clean? Totally open books. Total transparency. I would love for him to be clean.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

Slartibartfast said:


> What will satisfy me that Froome and others performing at outlandish levels are clean? Totally open books. Total transparency. I would love for him to be clean.


This and the Ometra needs to go.. Riders need to be able to speak out and not fear 'spitting in the soup' and being shunned by peers... and not think that the fans are stupid and believe their lies and BS... And the UCI needs to be overalled with new leadership. No more Fat Pat!


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but for me there are several things that need to take place.

1. McQuaid must go. The UCI needs a thorough housecleaning.

2. The UCI must get out of the testing/result management.

3. Old dopers in management and the doping doctors need to be expelled from the sport.

4. Omerta must go. And while at it, dopers need to get real with their excuses and B.S. stories. O'grady's "confession" this week would insult a 4 year old.

5. Complete transparency. You know, like Johan Brailsford promised at the beginning.

That would be a start. Instead of constantly telling us that "cycling has moved on"; show us that it has moved on.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Watts/kg that averages less than or equal to predicted and declines over the course of three weeks would help a lot, but since current testing still can't detect intelligent administration of micro-dosed EPO taken by IV (and never will in retrospective testing either unless samples are taken at 1am) - or autologous donation - so why should anyone assume Froome or anyone else [Quintana, etc] is clean? This is pro sports and to the extent the field is cleaner the rewards for doping are greater. Humans aren't designed to ignore that type of opportunity for long.


----------



## Skinner222 (Aug 31, 2012)

aclinjury said:


> And why can't you just post this in one of the several "Froome" threads?
> Your answers are in them threads.


I know I referenced Froome, but that was just because he was the latest target, so to speak. I wasn't trying to defend Froome at all (I'm not a Froome fan). I was looking at the big picture.


----------



## Skinner222 (Aug 31, 2012)

sir duke said:


> Jordan, check. Gretsky, check. Lendl, wtf? Lendl was a power-hitting charmless robot who couldn't play on grass. Ever see him get destroyed by Jimmy Connors at the U.S. Open final? Superfit, good on the hardcourts. Never won Wimbledon.


Okay, you got me on Lendl. Just showing my age I guess. ;-)


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

trailrunner68 said:


> Amazing that after the last ten years there are still people gullible enough to believe. It is like idiots who lose their life savings in a Ponzi scheme then immediately fall for the next conman who comes along promising to double their money in a month.


UK Sky is amazing like that. They've perfected the play book and created better dopers that are less likely to rat everyone out. Nope, no doping here......


----------



## MattSoutherden (Jun 24, 2009)

Yeah. It's not just gene doping that Sky are on. They're also doping the riders with mind-altering drugs so they don't have any idea what's happening to them. That way, there'll be no tearful confessions in 20 years time.


----------



## miraclejoe (Jul 27, 2013)

MattSoutherden said:


> Yeah. It's not just gene doping that Sky are on. They're also doping the riders with mind-altering drugs so they don't have any idea what's happening to them. That way, there'll be no tearful confessions in 20 years time.


Both your contributions to this thread are hysterical, because there actually is no precedent set for guys cheating their way to the podium all the while being incredulous at the thought that they were less than clean? you were either asleep the last ten years or you just bought your first sky jersey and started watching the tour last year. based on the last 10-15 years, statistically speaking, the chances of froome being clean are not good and not by a close margin. regardless of how much people want to bury their head in the sand, cycling doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt right now. maybe in a few years i'll watch and not be stunned as some relative newcomer rockets his way up ventoux, whilst never getting out of the saddle. one day, maybe. until then i'll refrain from leaving milk and cookies out for santa every dec. 24th. suggest you do the same.


----------



## miraclejoe (Jul 27, 2013)

trailrunner68 said:


> Amazing that after the last ten years there are still people gullible enough to believe. It is like idiots who lose their life savings in a Ponzi scheme then immediately fall for the next conman who comes along promising to double their money in a month.


i'm sorry you guys don't believe in a domestique smashing the peloton and past tour winners to bits. i'm sorry you guys don't believe in an obscure average cyclist suddenly at the ripe age of twenty six joining the ranks of the time-trialing and climbing elite. whats next? no easter bunny? you make me sad.


----------



## miraclejoe (Jul 27, 2013)

Skinner222 said:


> Why are people doubting Froome? Was it his winning margin? Was it his performance in the TT or on Ventoux? Why "must" he be cheating? I understand why people are skeptical these days, but what will satisfy the doubters?
> 
> Back in the 70's the likes of Merckx and Hinault soundly thrashed their competition, winning the TDF by 10, 15 minutes or more. Are these results now in question? Does nobody believe that perhaps they were just "that" much better than the competition? I certainly do. Every sport has the cream of the crop that are simply better than everyone else. Jordan, Gretzky, Lendl. They all had talent way beyond their competition, and that's what made them special to watch. The doping era brought all that crashing down for cycling fans, but when does it stop? Why not enjoy Froome's win for what it is?
> 
> ...


you realize that had porte not magically bonked that one day, that sky could have had a second consecutive year of a 1-2 finish? rewind back 2 years. if i said to you that the next few years, the tour would be dominated by guys with the names, froome, wiggins and porte, you would laugh in my face. i recall rogers last year being quite impressive as well, this year, not so much. sky has an impressive record of transforming cyclists with just _marginal gains_. oh, i forgot, _high cadence_ up the alpe and ventoux as well. why didn't i think of that?


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

* by their name (PED era)
Lance still has 7 in my mind, although Lemond is my favorite rider.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT (Dec 21, 2011)

Skinner222 said:


> Why are people doubting Froome? Was it his winning margin? Was it his performance in the TT or on Ventoux? Why "must" he be cheating? I understand why people are skeptical these days, but what will satisfy the doubters?
> 
> Back in the 70's the likes of Merckx and Hinault soundly thrashed their competition, winning the TDF by 10, 15 minutes or more. Are these results now in question? Does nobody believe that perhaps they were just "that" much better than the competition? I certainly do. Every sport has the cream of the crop that are simply better than everyone else. Jordan, Gretzky, Lendl. They all had talent way beyond their competition, and that's what made them special to watch. The doping era brought all that crashing down for cycling fans, but when does it stop? Why not enjoy Froome's win for what it is?
> 
> ...



Nothing will satisfy the obsessives, they have to talk about doping since they aren't actual fans of the sport so are unable to contribute to reasonable discussions about normal things such as:

- Which rider will win the TdF?
- Who can carry their form through to the WCs?
- Where is X-rider going next season? 
- Who has the worst haircut - Kittel or Koen de Kort? 
- Who is stronger, 2012 Wiggins, or 2013 Froome? 

etc.

They run out of useful things to say so default to doping accusations.


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

One indirect way that could discourage doping is if the UCI got its scientifically illiterate head out of the sand and relaxed its constraints on what defines a bicycle's design. The only stipulations that a bicycle in professional racing should have is that it has two wheels and is powered solely by the rider. Let manufacturers start making sub-15-pound bikes. Let riders install windscreens for the time trials. Let these people take advantage of the laws of physics such that they're not tempted to dope.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

SauronHimself said:


> One indirect way that could discourage doping is if the UCI got its scientifically illiterate head out of the sand and relaxed its constraints on what defines a bicycle's design. The only stipulations that a bicycle in professional racing should have is that it has two wheels and is powered solely by the rider. Let manufacturers start making sub-15-pound bikes. Let riders install windscreens for the time trials. Let these people take advantage of the laws of physics such that they're not tempted to dope.


bents have been around for a long time. they have plenty of races too. 
to think then people would not dope is a bit on the naive side.


----------



## velopismo (Jan 28, 2007)

Skinner222 said:


> Why are people doubting Froome? Was it his winning margin? Was it his performance in the TT or on Ventoux? Why "must" he be cheating? I understand why people are skeptical these days, but what will satisfy the doubters?
> 
> Back in the 70's the likes of Merckx and Hinault soundly thrashed their competition, winning the TDF by 10, 15 minutes or more. Are these results now in question? Does nobody believe that perhaps they were just "that" much better than the competition? I certainly do. Every sport has the cream of the crop that are simply better than everyone else. Jordan, Gretzky, Lendl. They all had talent way beyond their competition, and that's what made them special to watch. The doping era brought all that crashing down for cycling fans, but when does it stop? Why not enjoy Froome's win for what it is?
> 
> ...


Riders will ALWAYS have a strong incentive to cheat. This is the only solution that stop riders from doping by using things we can't even dream about. Just ask the riders once a year if they are doping. Simple as that. 
Deception Is Futile When Big Brother's Lie Detector Turns Its Eyes on You | Threat Level | Wired.com
Assuming it works of course. Looks very promising so far.


----------



## turbogrover (Jan 1, 2006)

The Tedinator said:


> Well, I can't speak for everyone, but for me there are several things that need to take place.
> 1. McQuaid must go. The UCI needs a thorough housecleaning.
> 2. The UCI must get out of the testing/result management.
> 3. Old dopers in management and the doping doctors need to be expelled from the sport.
> ...


+1
and a confession from the current crop of cheaters, would satisfy me.


----------



## eyebob (Feb 3, 2004)

*so if sky truly has a new and improved doping scheme, why would anyone leave?*



turbogrover said:


> +1
> and a confession from the current crop of cheaters, would satisfy me.


Like Rogers? Was he not wanted or did he get a better offer? But why leave assuming he would not have access to the good dope? Seems counterintuitive...unless he's just about the money in which case he would know that his performances would suffer without the good stuff.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

turbogrover said:


> +1
> and a confession from the current crop of cheaters, would satisfy me.


"I am sorry but I gave into temptation once ten years ago. I stopped after two weeks and all my big wins were done clean. I feel so much better for getting this off my chest."


----------



## r1lee (Jul 22, 2012)

Only one way to satisfy the doubters. A positive test.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

For me ... as others have said, complete transparency.


Real time power numbers during the race posted on the screen as they TT, climb, sprint, etc. It's not that hard to put a wireless transmitter on today's powermeters. Show their max, 5 min, 20 min and 1 hour power averages as the race goes along (if it's under an hour, their average power for the race ... or final climb of the day, etc.) ... and this has to be done by a neutral party.


Seeing realistic numbers over the course of three weeks. I personally don't believe that a top rider (or any rider for that matter) can put out the same power after three hard weeks of racing as they did the first week.


Get rid of all former riders, regardless of position they hold now, that have "ANY" ties to doping, teams that were doping, doctors that were doping riders, etc. The reality is you need to basically get rid of all riders and team personnel from 2010 and earlier and that likely won't even come close to getting rid of them all.


Set up anonymous lines for riders to turn in teammates, other riders, team directors, etc. for doping or cheating of any sort ... sending the information past the UCI to a neutral source or news outlet is about the only real possibility of having anything happen from it, and when people become numb to it, even the news outlets won't be interested in it any longer.


Better and more strategic PED testing ... such as looking for the methods used for doping as much as the doping it's self. Track marks, plastic in the blood (pertaining to blood bag plastic), etc. 


Zero tolerance policy ... get caught ... you don't race any longer.


Even with all that ... you still won't get ride of PED's in cycling, but it will become minimized.

Once genetic doping comes into full force (I do believe it's already hear at a basic or 2nd generation level) ... it won't matter what tests are done, the riders will be immune to testing. Get them started early before they get on a bio-passport and no issues will ever pop up.


----------



## champamoore (Jul 30, 2012)

Talking about showing your age! Lendl was still my favorite from his era of tennis, even if he was no Ilie Nastase (who _really_ played some damned entertaining tennis!). ;]


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

Froome passing Quintana on Ventoux as if Froomie was just on a Sunday ride in Hyde Park does not inspire confidence in Froome, Sky or cycling in general.

It will take a lot to appease the doubters - and some of course will never buy into anyone claiming cycling is clean or cleaner - and it will take a long time for this to have any effect.

I can still enjoy cycling, but a little bit of scepticism is a healthy trait - especially in a sport with the track-record of pro-cycling.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

champamoore said:


> Talking about showing your age! Lendl was still my favorite from his era of tennis, even if he was no Ilie Nastase (who _really_ played some damned entertaining tennis!). ;]


NOBODY was Ilie Nastase (except Ilie Nastase). 

Lendl was the cold, scientific end result of stamina over skill, conditioning over talent, predictability over inspiration. In an era when we had McEnroe, Connors, Wilander, Becker, Edberg and that great joker Henri Leconte you really preffered Lendl?? He was about as much fun as watching Wiggins climb. (Cycling reference added for the sake of relevance.)


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

Wookiebiker said:


> For me ... as others have said, complete transparency.
> 
> 
> Real time power numbers during the race posted on the screen as they TT, climb, sprint, etc. It's not that hard to put a wireless transmitter on today's powermeters. Show their max, 5 min, 20 min and 1 hour power averages as the race goes along (if it's under an hour, their average power for the race ... or final climb of the day, etc.) ... and this has to be done by a neutral party.
> ...


You could also have professional athletes sign agreements that they will have their assets frozen if they're ever caught doping. Watch them all start walking on egg shells.

In addition to genetic doping, it's plausible that physical augmentations will become mainstream. You could start seeing cyclists having their legs enhanced artificially or having them replaced altogether and made to look normal on the outside. Though it sounds outlandish at first, bear in mind that professional athletes have always been going to extremes to cheat. This is just the next logical step in performance enhancement.


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

Sorry but it's a human trait to cheat. If the rules are not 100% effective(and that is quite near impossible to achieve), cheaters will find the loopholes or a way around the rule and cheat to win. Period. Look at any sport. Look at business. Look at banking. Look at everything we do as a species. There are just too many of us willing to tromp all over everyone else to get 'ahead' by whatever means we can get away with. 

Froome? Chances are almost 100%, given the statistics of pro cycling results, that he doped. Didn't everyone who ever shared the 7 podiums with Armstrong cheat? Don't all the Wall Street crowd bend the rules and buy favorable results in court and Congress to make a bunch of money? Human nature.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

SauronHimself said:


> it's plausible that physical augmentations will become mainstream. You could start seeing cyclists having their legs enhanced artificially


and why not? 

Very often baseball pitchers throw harder after the Tommy John surgery than they did beforehand. Tommy John surgery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## mikerp (Jul 24, 2011)

Gnarly 928 said:


> Sorry but it's a human trait to cheat.


I'd say it's cultural, some cultures won't consider it others have adopted the "if you are cheating your aren't trying hard enough" approach.


----------



## Atty (Jun 24, 2012)

SauronHimself said:


> or having them replaced altogether and made to look normal on the outside. Though it sounds outlandish at first,


You couldn't make this stuff up....well you could obviously.

I'm glad you think this is only outlandish "at first" as well.

It's the funniest thing I've read in ages. Thank you for brightening my day.


----------

