# Anyone think Froome is clean?



## DIRT BOY

Lmfao! Sky? Yeah right! Getting to be a joke now and wonder why Wiggins basically is quitting.


----------



## Local Hero

In the doping subforum we speculate freely.


----------



## Retro Grouch

I haven't seen dominant climbing like that since the days of Armstrong and Pantani.


----------



## skinewmexico

Looked like he did last year.


----------



## Local Hero

Retro Grouch said:


> I haven't seen dominant climbing like that since the days of Armstrong and Pantani.


Wait a second. Are you saying that both Armstrong and Pantani dominated? That doesn't make sense. 

How much energy did Quintana expend when Froome was sitting on? Both Quintana and Froome went hard off the front. Only Quintana did it on the first mountain and Froome on the second. I think that if Quintana had sat in on the first climb and attacked on the second he could have won the stage.


----------



## The Tedinator

Ammattilaispyöräilijöiden nousutietoja (aika, km/h, VAM, W, W/kg etc.) - Sivu 12

He beat Armstrong's 2003 and 2005 times by 10 and 24 seconds respectively. Not normal.


----------



## spade2you

Too bad Greg LeMond isn't "interested" in Froome.


----------



## Wookiebiker

The real question is: Does anybody think "Team Sky" is clean?

They look just like the blue Postal train from years past. They have the top two riders in the Tour, almost their entire team is there to set pace at the bottom of the climb and there are more teammates left at the upper part of the climb than other teams.

It's the Lance years all over again ... they just changed riders mid stream ... nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## stevesbike

it came earlier in the Tour this year than in the years for Armstrong. As a short climb on the first day in the mountains, it's plausible. Fast but plausible. There's still a lot of racing left in this Tour - Sky will have to do a lot of work to defend the lead. Will be interesting to see how Froome is going in the last week. 



The Tedinator said:


> Ammattilaispyöräilijöiden nousutietoja (aika, km/h, VAM, W, W/kg etc.) - Sivu 12
> 
> He beat Armstrong's 2003 and 2005 times by 10 and 24 seconds respectively. Not normal.


----------



## The Tedinator

stevesbike said:


> it came earlier in the Tour this year than in the years for Armstrong. As a short climb on the first day in the mountains, it's plausible. Fast but plausible. There's still a lot of racing left in this Tour - Sky will have to do a lot of work to defend the lead. Will be interesting to see how Froome is going in the last week.


Plausible? Look at that list again. I went down to Sastre at 38th before I even found a guy who could maybe, arguably, be "clean". He was within 15 seconds of Armstrong's best time up Ax-3-Domaines, and IIRC, 2001 didn't just come off of the Paiheres like this year.


----------



## DIRT BOY

Wookiebiker said:


> The real question is: Does anybody think "Team Sky" is clean?
> 
> They look just like the blue Postal train from years past. They have the top two riders in the Tour, almost their entire team is there to set pace at the bottom of the climb and there are more teammates left at the upper part of the climb than other teams.
> 
> It's the Lance years all over again ... they just changed riders mid stream ... nothing more, nothing less.


I could not agree more. Sky is owned by Ruport Murdoch, correct? Think he is paying Sky's bill for some unknown detectable new substance?


----------



## DonMI6

I can see it now...


----------



## stevesbike

I was basing the 'plausible' comment on the power modeling estimates that have come out (veetoo, veloclinic, Tucker, etc.), as I think that's more revealing than comparing times across Tours. The estimates of a 1715 VAM result in about 6.3 watts/kg, which given the shortness of the climb is 'plausible.' There's also been some VO2max numbers flying around that are plausible, but again, a fast performance. 



The Tedinator said:


> Plausible? Look at that list again. I went down to Sastre at 38th before I even found a guy who could maybe, arguably, be "clean". He was within 15 seconds of Armstrong's best time up Ax-3-Domaines, and IIRC, 2001 didn't just come off of the Paiheres like this year.


----------



## Salsa_Lover

He has been eating Spanish beef


----------



## AdamM

Agree with most on Froome, but I thought Porte's performance too was the real laugher. Rides hard tempo on the front as a domestique for a good portion of the final climb, then after Froome goes basically rides Froome's speed ahead of everyone else. Maybe Porte should have attacked Froome?


----------



## thechriswebb

AdamM said:


> Agree with most on Froome, but I thought Porte's performance too was the real laugher. Rides hard tempo on the front as a domestique for a good portion of the final climb, then after Froome goes basically rides Froome's speed ahead of everyone else. Maybe Porte should have attacked Froome?


Porte's ride was hard to believe. It was Porte who set the pace that left the other pre-Tour favorites in a stream of carnage up the mountainside. I expected the usual tactic of the lead climbing lieutenant setting a fast pace to whittle down the group until his team leader attacks and then falling back completely exhausted from burying himself for his captain. Rather, after Froome got up the road, Porte glided up the mountain almost appearing to have a smile on his face, while continuing to bury people like Cadel Evans, Alberto Contador, Andy Schleck, Alejandro Valverde, and Joaquim Rodriguez. It was incredible (and weird).


----------



## RTSO2112

How's about this for possibly plausible/probable speculation:

It's rigged...the whole thing.

Let's take just a piece of Stage 8 for example:

"They" let Quintana go on the first hill (hehehe)...a "new" guy...from Columbia, that can climb bc he is/was a "borne" climber from high mountains in Columbia. All the while, being "told" to sit back on the second as if he was "winded" from the first climb....yeah, right.

Meanwhile, all the real GC contenders play no lo contendre on the first hill...to let the ringer (Quintana) do his job. 

Then, on the second hill, everybody (but Sky) pretends to suffer like Quintana while Sky reaches for, well, the sky...with relative ease. 

The oxygen stats and timing are within "plausible" limits, bc everybody else is sandbagging. 

Hmmmm....something smells fishy...they throw in "attacks" (distractions, if you will) from a previous year's winner, then Gesink, and one from Voekler...all who crack, of course....to make it look good.

The mountains stages to come will play out in similar fashion...spreading some of the wealth around while staying under the (public's) radar...watch and see.

Froome will win, Porte will not podium...can't make it too obvious....he will probably bail or make top ten...to make it not too obvious.

Hmmmm...3rd place in Paris...that has not been decided.....yet. 

It's the new cheating w/o "doping" of sorts!!!

Totally plausible.


----------



## dnice

DonMI6 said:


> I can see it now...


highly quotable. love it!


----------



## David Loving

Pro cycling is so corrupt there's no telling what happened. Froome is either juiced or the game is rigged. I think he's doped to the gills.


----------



## Wookiebiker

RTSO2112 said:


> How's about this for possibly plausible/probable speculation:
> 
> It's rigged...the whole thing.
> 
> Let's take just a piece of Stage 8 for example:
> 
> "They" let Quintana go on the first hill (hehehe)...a "new" guy...from Columbia, that can climb bc he is/was a "borne" climber from high mountains in Columbia. All the while, being "told" to sit back on the second as if he was "winded" from the first climb....yeah, right.
> 
> Meanwhile, all the real GC contenders play no lo contendre on the first hill...to let the ringer (Quintana) do his job.
> 
> Then, on the second hill, everybody (but Sky) pretends to suffer like Quintana while Sky reaches for, well, the sky...with relative ease.
> 
> The oxygen stats and timing are within "plausible" limits, bc everybody else is sandbagging.
> 
> Hmmmm....something smells fishy...they throw in "attacks" (distractions, if you will) from a previous year's winner, then Gesink, and one from Voekler...all who crack, of course....to make it look good.
> 
> The mountains stages to come will play out in similar fashion...spreading some of the wealth around while staying under the (public's) radar...watch and see.
> 
> Froome will win, Porte will not podium...can't make it too obvious....he will probably bail or make top ten...to make it not too obvious.
> 
> Hmmmm...3rd place in Paris...that has not been decided.....yet.
> 
> It's the new cheating w/o "doping" of sorts!!!
> 
> Totally plausible.


Given the VAM numbers from the climb that Froome and Porte put up ... The only "Rigging" going on is the drugs they are using the others don't have access to.

The others didn't "let" Froome ride away from them ... He posted the 3rd fastest time ever in the history of the Tour up that climb and his VAM numbers (around 1800 m/h) put him in the Armstrong/Pantani level of climbing ability.


----------



## RTSO2112

Wookiebiker said:


> Given the VAM numbers from the climb that Froome and Porte put up ... The only "Rigging" going on is the drugs they are using the others don't have access to.
> 
> The others didn't "let" Froome ride away from them ... He posted the 3rd fastest time ever in the history of the Tour up that climb and his VAM numbers (around 1800 m/h) put him in the Armstrong/Pantani level of climbing ability.


Hence my use of doping...in quotation marks!


----------



## Wookiebiker

RTSO2112 said:


> Hence my use of doping...in quotation marks!


The problem is that it's obvious they are doping with the numbers they are putting out ... Froome had to go hard on that climb, and made it look easy doing it ... so it's not like he was taking it easy while the others let him go.

If it was "Rigged" they all would have completed the climb at a slower rate ... This would not only allow Froome and Porte to do what they did, but give the impression of a "Clean" tour and Team Sky. If you rig something you make it look plausible, not what they did today.


----------



## RTSO2112

Wookiebiker said:


> The problem is that it's obvious they are doping with the numbers they are putting out ... Froome had to go hard on that climb, and made it look easy doing it ... so it's not like he was taking it easy while the others let him go.
> 
> If it was "Rigged" they all would have completed the climb at a slower rate ... This would not only allow Froome and Porte to do what they did, but give the impression of a "Clean" tour and Team Sky. If you rig something you make it look plausible, not what they did today.


There is always more than one way to skin a cat! Yours is but one.


----------



## Len J

Everyone else but Fromme & Porte rode as if they were clean. Their power numbers were credible. 

But Fromme rides away like its a Sunday group ride and Porte, after singlehandedley blowing every other contender off the back riding tempo on the last climb, recovers in a minute o so and then finishes the climb at the same speed as Fromme. Yea, that's believable. 

Len

Ps if the fix was in, they would want a lot more drama to keep the entertainment factor high and the audience riveted........based on today, there are going to be many that write the tour off and stop watching. If it were a fix, It's a stupid one.


----------



## RTSO2112

Len J said:


> Everyone else but Fromme & Porte rode as if they were clean. Their power numbers were credible.
> 
> But Fromme rides away like its a Sunday group ride and Porte, after singlehandedley blowing every other contender off the back riding tempo on the last climb, recovers in a minute o so and then finishes the climb at the same speed as Fromme. Yea, that's believable.
> 
> Len
> 
> Ps if the fix was in, they would want a lot more drama to keep the entertainment factor high and the audience riveted........based on today, there are going to be many that write the tour off and stop watching. If it were a fix, It's a stupid one.


Do you go to some movies knowing that what you are seeing isn't all real...but, you still go anyway, of course. Millions upon millions of us do...it's called escapism. Pro cycling...movies...not much difference. Heck, pro cycling is way more "scripted" than it used to be...for good reason, too.


----------



## pedalruns

Len J said:


> But Fromme rides away like its a Sunday group ride and Porte, after singlehandedley blowing every other contender off the back riding tempo on the last climb, recovers in a minute o so and then finishes the climb at the same speed as Fromme. Yea, that's believable.
> 
> Len


SKY is sickening... Wow, just like Postal used to be.. On the first climb I thought it was cool to finally see a true climber ride away but then the Sky show started and it is OBVIOUS.. I hope team Sky understands they are a JOKE!! What a joke.


----------



## Len J

RTSO2112 said:


> Do you go to some movies knowing that what you are seeing isn't all real...but, you still go anyway, of course. Millions upon millions of us do...it's called escapism. Pro cycling...movies...not much difference. Heck, pro cycling is way more "scripted" than it used to be...for good reason, too.


I get its entertainment.....but no good scriptwriter has the hero dominate so thoroughly 1/3 of the way thru the story. 

Like I said, if its a fix, it's a stupid one. 

Len


----------



## Wookiebiker

RTSO2112 said:


> Do you go to some movies knowing that what you are seeing isn't all real...but, you still go anyway, of course. Millions upon millions of us do...it's called escapism. Pro cycling...movies...not much difference. Heck, pro cycling is way more "scripted" than it used to be...for good reason, too.


The problem with your "Theory" is that it requires complacency by all the riders, teams and sponsors riding in the Tour. The simple fact is that the Sponsors alone throws your "Theory" out the window because they are in it to make money, not allow SKY to make all the money.

The WWE is fake and everybody knows it, even the sponsors ... cycling, aside from the doping, is still a viable sport working to try and repair damage from times gone by ... today's performance doesn't help that.

I can guarantee the "Powers that be" are not happy with today's result, didn't "Set it up" and if anything would have preferred Froome to "Cool his jets" with his performance today since he threw a major wrench in the beliveability of a clean sport ... which is what they want more than anything.

The only "Rigging" going on at this point is taking place in your head as your "Theory" is so convoluted and would take such a "Huge" conspiracy that it couldn't ever hope to remain secret ... it would slip by tomorrow due to the number of people involved because somebody (i.e. a domestique) would make "Huge" amounts of money compared to what they do now by being the "Whistle Blower".


----------



## RTSO2112

Chill...we're all just "speculating" here...which requires some of us to inject a dose of harmless "exaggeration" or "jest" into our posts...except for a few of us here...who post as clean as the fresh-fallen snow. Jeez, some of my fellow bikers have little to know sence of humour! Too much sun, automobile exhaust, and road grime will do that to you!


----------



## [email protected]

If wiggins was made a knight after last year Froomestrong is going to have to put up for sainthood for these miracle rides.

It's insulting to us the fans that he would throw down a ride like that and then declare it was proof of clean cycling... although i suppose it is somewhat true... basically what they're showing is that everyone outside of sky is doping less than them.

What's sad is if they don't get caught this year I think next year is going to be a real dopefest, instead of the rest of the peloton standing up and saying this is ridiculous we're just going to see the start of a new arms race.


----------



## vandalbob

"Froomestrong"....good one. I'm highly sceptical that Froome and Sky are clean. What is the new thing they are on?


----------



## RTSO2112

vandalbob said:


> "Froomestrong"....good one. I'm highly sceptical that Froome and Sky are clean. *What is the new thing they are on?*


A bike 5-6 hours a day...what are you on?

I should trademark that before somebody else does...and makes a mint.


----------



## Wookiebiker

RTSO2112 said:


> Chill...we're all just "speculating" here...which requires some of us to inject a dose of harmless "exaggeration" or "jest" into our posts...except for a few of us here...who post as clean as the fresh-fallen snow. Jeez, some of my fellow bikers have little to know sence of humour! Too much sun, automobile exhaust, and road grime will do that to you!


Sometimes humor and sarcasm doesn't translate very well on the internet ... something, to this day, people still don't understand even though it's been an issue since the 90's.

The problem with your posting is you were "Defending" a post that you state was supposed to be in Humor ... thus, why wouldn't we believe you thought it to be true? If it's humor, you just laugh at it and call it good, not defend it later on and when it's called ... tell people they don't have a "Sense" of humor and have had too much sun, exhaust and road grime to cover their tracks.

Funny ... but, something tells me, either you actually think what you wrote was true or you have no concept of actual humor ... not sure which is that case at this time.


----------



## RTSO2112

Wookiebiker said:


> Sometimes humor and sarcasm doesn't translate very well on the internet ... something, to this day, people still don't understand even though it's been an issue since the 90's.
> 
> The problem with your posting is you were "Defending" a post that you state was supposed to be in Humor ... thus, why wouldn't we believe you thought it to be true? If it's humor, you just laugh at it and call it good, not defend it later on and when it's called ... tell people they don't have a "Sense" of humor and have had too much sun, exhaust and road grime to cover their tracks.
> 
> Funny ... but, something tells me, either you actually think what you wrote was true or you have no concept of actual humor ... not sure which is that case at this time.


It's an *internet forum...relax....you are way over-thinking it! 

Btw, you even missed my doping within doping humour..I gotta try "harder" next time!

*Sometimes...I forget...the internet....is serious business.


----------



## shermes

RTSO2112 said:


> It's an internet forum...relax....you are way over-thinking it!
> 
> Btw, you even missed my doping within doping humour..I gotta try "harder" next time!


I think I missed your "humour" as well.


----------



## RTSO2112

shermes said:


> I think I missed your "humour" as well.


I'm British...from way back! As you know, there are different types of humour...some are more subtle, sarcastic, witty, or satirical than others. Fortunately for some, mine is neither of these!


----------



## JoelS

3rd fastest ever, behind Armstrong and Laiseka in 2001. W/Kg of 6.5. Clean? Very, Very suspicious.


----------



## The Tedinator

vandalbob said:


> "Froomestrong"....good one. I'm highly sceptical that Froome and Sky are clean. What is the new thing they are on?


That is the question. Unless ASO and the UCI are in cahoots to protect SKY, then I doubt it is oxygen vector doping(although I would have no problem if that is true. They did it for Liestrong). AICAR? GW(and an extremely long number)? Or the dreaded genetic doping?


----------



## jorgy

Do you believe in miracles?

Yea, neither do I.


----------



## thechriswebb

RTSO2112 said:


> A bike 5-6 hours a day...what are you on?


Some people just don't believe in miracles.


----------



## thechriswebb

jorgy said:


> Do you believe in miracles?
> 
> Yea, neither do I.


Ah, you typed that while I was submitting mine.


----------



## davidka

" said Froome. “Any of the results now are definitely a lot more credible. The question should be asked about people who were winning races maybe five, 10 years ago, when we know doping was a lot more prevalent.”

Sure thing Chris, we'll ask them. It'll be 3-5 more minutes before they finish...


----------



## burgrat

I'm reserving judgement for now. This Tour still has a long way to go and not over yet. IF Froome is clean, I think we'll see a weakness somewhere along the line. Contador is obviously not at his peak. Maybe he will be better in the coming weeks. If think the other GC guys will have to join forces to exploit a weakness. 
I hate to see this place if/when Froome wins a couple more stages, people will go apesh*t.


----------



## SFTifoso

It's the same old deal, except now they're probably getting acting lesson so they don't blow up to the media the way Armstrong did.


----------



## davidka

burgrat said:


> I'm reserving judgement for now. This Tour still has a long way to go and not over yet. IF Froome is clean, I think we'll see a weakness somewhere along the line. Contador is obviously not at his peak. Maybe he will be better in the coming weeks. If think the other GC guys will have to join forces to exploit a weakness.
> I hate to see this place if/when Froome wins a couple more stages, people will go apesh*t.


Brailsford: "Chris, give up 40 seconds each day after you gain 2 minutes.."

They were fresh today and they got stomped. Contador should be better, he had a hard time riding with guys who usually aren't anywhere near him. Though It's not like they can choose to be "better" tomorrow..


----------



## DonMI6

davidka said:


> Brailsford: "Chris, give up 40 seconds each day after you gain 2 minutes.."They can't go apes*it, they were fresh today and they got stomped. It's not like they can choose to be "better" tomorrow..


Yep, & if say Contador was to get a couple minutes back tomorrow, we will be deluged with 'beef' jokes. I'm afraid that if anyone catches up now, they will look suspicious! It feels almost like the race is done & we haven't even had the first rest day.


----------



## Slartibartfast

davidka said:


> " said Froome. “Any of the results now are definitely a lot more credible. The question should be asked about people who were winning races maybe five, 10 years ago, when we know doping was a lot more prevalent.”
> 
> Sure thing Chris, we'll ask them. It'll be 3-5 more minutes before they finish...



:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Local Hero

burgrat said:


> Contador is obviously not at his peak.


Agreed. He was paced all the way to the top by a teammate.


----------



## Bluenote

DonMI6 said:


> I can see it now...


Dude. You suck at photoshop. His head is sooo big on Armstrong's body. Funny pic, tough.


----------



## Bluenote

jorgy said:


> Do you believe in miracles?
> 
> Yea, neither do I.


+1....


----------



## Bluenote

So will Wiggins be Team Sky's Floyd Landis?


----------



## bballr4567

burgrat said:


> I'm reserving judgement for now. This Tour still has a long way to go and not over yet. IF Froome is clean, I think we'll see a weakness somewhere along the line. Contador is obviously not at his peak. Maybe he will be better in the coming weeks. If think the other GC guys will have to join forces to exploit a weakness.
> I hate to see this place if/when Froome wins a couple more stages, people will go apesh*t.


Contador wasnt in form at the Dauphine either. He was 4:27 off of Froome and was blasted in the ITT. I have no idea why people think he would be perfectly ready to attack him in the TdF this year. 


Personally, I think that Froome and Porte just pushed enough to drop enough guys up the Col du Pailheres that they knew if they pushed into the red on Ax they would break anyone and it worked. Should they of waited until stage 18 to drop the hammer and let the rest of the GC contenders hang around? No way. Destroy the mentality that they can catch them at the first chance and let them hang on. Cannondale did it the day before to get Sagan 60 points in the green jersey and Sky did it today.


----------



## spookyload

bballr4567 said:


> Contador wasnt in form at the Dauphine either. He was 4:27 off of Froome and was blasted in the ITT. *I have no idea why people think he would be perfectly ready to attack him in the TdF this year.
> *


Maybe because he has won the race three times quite convincingly and knows how to prepare. He comes from a historical background to succeed in the race and isn't a former domestique who is unstoppable like Porte and Froom seem to have become in a year or two.


----------



## spookyload

Bluenote said:


> So will Wiggins be Team Sky's Floyd Landis?


Can someone be un-knighted? Would he be the fomer Sir Bradley?


----------



## DIRT BOY

DonMI6 said:


> Yep, & if say Contador was to get a couple minutes back tomorrow, we will be deluged with 'beef' jokes. I'm afraid that if anyone catches up now, they will look suspicious! It feels almost like the race is done & we haven't even had the first rest day.


Your so right. With a lead like Froome's only a HUGE doper can catch him now. UNless he crashes out. This Tour is OVER folks.


----------



## Marc

DIRT BOY said:


> Your so right. With a lead like Froome's only a HUGE doper can catch him now. UNless he crashes out. This Tour is OVER folks.


Is that sarcasm? If not, you should turn on Le Tour this morning


----------



## JoelS

Marc said:


> Is that sarcasm? If not, you should turn on Le Tour this morning


The cynic in me says that Brailsford is playing coy and asked his riders to back off due to the swirling controversy.


----------



## spade2you

spookyload said:


> Can someone be un-knighted? Would he be the fomer Sir Bradley?


It's a good thing we didn't do the US equiv of knighting Lance.


----------



## den bakker

spookyload said:


> Maybe because he has won the race three times quite convincingly and knows how to prepare. He comes from a historical background to succeed in the race and isn't a former domestique who is unstoppable like Porte and Froom seem to have become in a year or two.


it was probably a bit harder to prepare this year when he is off the steak and dr Pepe(r) for dinner.


----------



## RTSO2112

JoelS said:


> The cynic in me says that Brailsford is playing coy and asked his riders to back off due to the swirling controversy.


Nah, Porte really cracked today....


----------



## new2rd

Not a Sky fan, but today showed some non-doping effects for the rest of team Sky. Looks like they buried themselves yesterday to give Froome the lead. Froome put some effort in yesterday, but he was also fresh and took advantage of the situation. Good play by Sky to destroy the peleton yesterday giving Froome just one day to defend himself before a rest day and TT.


----------



## DIRT BOY

Marc said:


> Is that sarcasm? If not, you should turn on Le Tour this morning


So far 1 hr into it and I don't see anything yet, lol


----------



## JChasse

vandalbob said:


> "Froomestrong"....good one. I'm highly sceptical that Froome and Sky are clean. What is the new thing they are on?


A proper dose of this will set you back ~$400k, but Sky's got deep pockets.

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


----------



## stevesbike

Tour is far from over. There are 2 weeks left and the last is the deciding week. Contador will get better (for whatever reasons) and Sky already left Froome isolated today. One way to view yesterday was as an over-anxious Froome burning too many matches on the team. The margins aren't that big. 




DIRT BOY said:


> Your so right. With a lead like Froome's only a HUGE doper can catch him now. UNless he crashes out. This Tour is OVER folks.


----------



## burgrat

stevesbike said:


> Tour is far from over. There are 2 weeks left and the last is the deciding week. Contador will get better (for whatever reasons) and Sky already left Froome isolated today. One way to view yesterday was as an over-anxious Froome burning too many matches on the team. The margins aren't that big.


I agree. The time gaps are not so big yet. I think that the peloton is _cleaner_ than in the past and that lends itself to people having not-so-stellar days occasionally. It makes the racing so much more exciting, imo. I would be very surprised if Froome can hold off everyone over the next few weeks. Someone will probably be able to take some time out of him in the mountains, but I do think he will win the Tour overall. I also think Contador is not at his best (and he may not get there), but if he was you certainly would have seen at least him trying to attack. 
Hopefully Froome does not destroy everyone in the time trial. I love that he had to answer attacks from Quintana all by himself. Multiply that in the future stages and things will get more exciting. I'm definitely looking forward to it.


----------



## lspangle

I think the Tour isn't over yet! Anything can happen -- it's the Tour after all. (Glad for that!)

Also think that Froome is a doper. Thought it last year, too. Agree with all the comparisons between Sky and Postal...don't know about Wiggo, he actually seemed to struggle at times last year. Wonder what the "real" reason is that he's not here this year...

Just don't get it, with all of the scrutiny these guys will be under, what exactly are they on? And how do they think they won't get caught eventually? Guess it's true that as long as there are sporting events, there will be cheaters. Makes me sad.


----------



## stevesbike

The climb yesterday wasn't that different from the first climb last year. Quoting from Tucker (Science of Sport) last year:

"in terms of what that means for Wiggins and co at the front of the stage, it predicts about 6.4 to 6.5 W/kg. Over 16 minutes, that's not at all unreasonable."

Froome probably did 6.3-6.4 watts/kg yesterday (and benefited from Porte, who paid for it today) with a final climb of about 23 minutes. Not that different from last year. And not at fast as Contador's 2009 Verbier climb. 



lspangle said:


> I think the Tour isn't over yet! Anything can happen -- it's the Tour after all. (Glad for that!)
> 
> Also think that Froome is a doper. Thought it last year, too. Agree with all the comparisons between Sky and Postal...don't know about Wiggo, he actually seemed to struggle at times last year. Wonder what the "real" reason is that he's not here this year...
> 
> Just don't get it, with all of the scrutiny these guys will be under, what exactly are they on? And how do they think they won't get caught eventually? Guess it's true that as long as there are sporting events, there will be cheaters. Makes me sad.


----------



## Wookiebiker

Well, it's not exactly like Froome looked like he needed the help today. Movistar did everything they could to break him and failed miserably. Froome just countered every attack, dragging the rest of the broken peloton up the climb with him.

Froome will put time on all the other contenders at the TT, then just sit back and follow everybody ... in reality, he doesn't need much of a team at this point in the mountains since the other teams are now fighting for 2nd place and he can just follow them for the rest of the tour ... or just take off and leave them should he feel the need (i.e. they continue to attack, he can ride like he did yesterday and nobody in the peloton can stay with him).


----------



## BummBull

I think the Tour is over. Who is actually going to challenge Froome? Contador? He's got no pop in the climbs, and he's not going to magically get better on the third week. Valverde? He's been hyped to be the next big star for quite some time, and he never actually got there, and from watching him, I don't see how he's going to be attack Froome. Maybe Quintana? He showed that he can climb like a goat, and possibly on stage 18 and 20, he can get some time, but he's got a lot of ground to make up. Froome has to crack like how Landis did in one of the stages the year he won for anyone else to have a chance.


----------



## davidka

JoelS said:


> The cynic in me says that Brailsford is playing coy and asked his riders to back off due to the swirling controversy.


I joked to myself that this would happen but I cannot see Porte voluntarily giving up 15 minutes, by team orders or otherwise. It makes no tactical sense.



BummBull said:


> Valverde? He's been hyped to be the next big star for quite some time, and he never actually got there...


Reality check: Valverde- Numerous 1-week race wins, a Vuelta and several classics. He is as big a star as any rider in the peloton today and he got there a long time ago.


----------



## cyclesport45

spade2you said:


> Too bad Greg LeMond isn't "interested" in Froome.


Froome hasn't won yet. And Froome hasn't threatened Lemond yet (as far as we know. . . ).


----------



## BummBull

davidka said:


> I joked to myself that this would happen but I cannot see Porte voluntarily giving up 15 minutes, by team orders or otherwise. It makes no tactical sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Reality check: Valverde- Numerous 1-week race wins, a Vuelta and several classics. He is as big a star as any rider in the peloton today and he got there a long time ago.


Right, but we're talking about the Tour. I love watching all of the races, but Tour is still the biggest race. I've heard that with revenue that the race makes, Tour is bigger than all of the other races combined. You can criticize me and say that I'm an American and only care about the Tour and you're hardcore cycling fan, and there's more to racing than the Tour. Which is true, but Tour is the Super Bowl of cycling, and he has never performed well as much as he's been hyped up to be. Little off topic, but he's like Damiano Cunego(2004 Giro D'Italia winner) where every year, people say to watch out for him, as he's the next star, but he never lived up to his hype and hasn't done anything since his 2004 Giro win.
Valverde's results in the Tour:
2005: withdrew
2006: withdrew
2007: 6th
2008: 9th
2012: 20th


----------



## JoelS

RTSO2112 said:


> Nah, Porte really cracked today....


He sure didn't look it. Looked like he was at a club ride and taking it easy today.


----------



## JoelS

davidka said:


> I joked to myself that this would happen but I cannot see Porte voluntarily giving up 15 minutes, by team orders or otherwise. It makes no tactical sense.
> <snip>


From the Team's perspective, Porte is there to help Froome. If giving up a mess of time to deflect the doping accusations does that, then that's what he's going to do.


----------



## stevesbike

He started the day 2nd overall - he wasn't taking it easy by choice. Said it was the worst day he's had on a bike all season. 



JoelS said:


> He sure didn't look it. Looked like he was at a club ride and taking it easy today.


----------



## JoelS

stevesbike said:


> He started the day 2nd overall - he wasn't taking it easy by choice. Said it was the worst day he's had on a bike all season.


Yeah, and Froome says he's clean, and for years Armstrong said the same.


----------



## Bluenote

At least we have this thread. 

Seriously, the press is not touching this with a ten foot pole.

Maybe Sky is doping, maybe they are just amazing with their warm downs. But at least we are debating about it. Pointing out performances that seem extra terrestrial. 

I wonder if Dr. Falsetti will get the inside scoop on Sky, like he did Armstrong. Are they clean, or not?


----------



## Local Hero

I'll go ahead and disagree with the dopers forum echo chamber: I will think that Froome is clean until he tests positive.


----------



## WaynefromOrlando

RTSO2112 said:


> Nah, Porte really cracked today....


I disagree, please notice the way the other riders were sweating, riding with their jerseys zipped open and how they were pedaling. Contrast that with Froome, riding with his jersey zipped all the way up, not sweating and riding like he was on some MUT with a bunch of newbs.


----------



## pedalruns

WaynefromOrlando said:


> I disagree, please notice the way the other riders were sweating, riding with their jerseys zipped open and how they were pedaling. Contrast that with Froome, riding with his jersey zipped all the way up, not sweating and riding like he was on some MUT with a bunch of newbs.


So do you think Porte was faking? Did Sky feel that they looked too good on the previous stage so they had to dial it back except Froome?? And Froome easily looked to cover all the attacks. 

When Froome was interviewed before the stage he said something like when he finished he didn't know he had done that well, he was quite surprised.. 

Paul Sherwin made a comment that 'social media' was questioning the performance of Sky and that now that the whole team had cracked that it now proved they were indeed clean... 

I think the pressure on these teams might indeed come from 'social media' since the 'real media' probably will never ask the hard questions. (with just a few exceptions)


----------



## Slartibartfast

WaynefromOrlando said:


> I disagree, please notice the way the other riders were sweating, riding with their jerseys zipped open and how they were pedaling. Contrast that with Froome, riding with his jersey zipped all the way up, not sweating and riding like he was on some MUT with a bunch of newbs.


You meant Porte. And I agree, it was weird. I even pointed it out to my wife. The explanation could be that he did crack, then just sat up. I think this was Brailsford's explanation. No sense wasting his legs.


----------



## JoelS

I heard that Porte got back to within a minute and was told to sit up and save his energy. The cynic in me says that the orders came to deflect the doping controversy.


----------



## stevesbike

he was told that because he wasn't closing the gap and then movistar attacked to put more distance in him. Kiryienka missed the time cut - pretty drastic if the goal was to provide cover. 

The idea that Sky faked it is ridiculous. If they were that worried about PR, they never would have used the strategy they did on stage 8. They knew what the media reaction was going to be and they didn't care. They are there to win the Tour, not win hearts. They've made that clear by the way they race, their decisions about power data, etc. If Porte could have stayed in contention he would have because his high placing is a great strategic asset and it gives them an option if Froome cracked. Movistar has 3 riders in the top 10, which gives them tons of ways to attack Sky. And no rider would give up a podium spot just to provide cover for the team. 



JoelS said:


> I heard that Porte got back to within a minute and was told to sit up and save his energy. The cynic in me says that the orders came to deflect the doping controversy.


----------



## thechriswebb

Slartibartfast said:


> The explanation could be that he did crack, then just sat up. I think this was Brailsford's explanation. No sense wasting his legs.


I think this is the most plausible explanation. It is exactly what Tejay did yesterday; he coming into this Tour he said that his primary objective was to help Cadel and was not targeting the white jersey. He felt himself starting to crack, didn't see the sense in killing himself to try and keep a high GC position, and sat up and lost 12 minutes. Save the energy for another day to try and help Cadel get a decent GC finish.


----------



## Local Hero

If you think Porte was playing possum you need to take off your tinfoil hat. 

Froome rode the latter half of the stage isolated in a group of 32. If Froome's opposition had organized against him and forced him to respond to repeated attacks from GC contenders he may have lost the yellow jersey.

I'm thinking back to the Veulta when Rodriguez was isolated and and nobody would help him chase Contador.


----------



## bballr4567

spookyload said:


> Maybe because he has won the race three times quite convincingly and knows how to prepare. He comes from a historical background to succeed in the race and isn't a former domestique who is unstoppable like Porte and Froom seem to have become in a year or two.


Sorry for the late reply but didn't want any spoilers today. 

Contador has won the GC before but don't act like it was done amid the cleanest of tours. My goodness his whole team was chucked.


----------



## Eretz




----------



## B05

me thinks Porte was asked to fall back yesterday because they've been on the microscope since the 1-2 finish.


----------



## bballr4567

B05 said:


> me thinks Porte was asked to fall back yesterday because they've been on the microscope since the 1-2 finish.


Really? Porte was hurting from doing all the work yesterday. He was asked to pull back on the second to last climb because he closed the gap to around a minute but the last mile the lead group just punched it and he lost about 45 seconds to them. He then summited around 3 minutes back. No need to keep burning your matches when you cant catch up.


----------



## stevesbike

methinks there are a lot of people here who don't understand bike racing...



B05 said:


> me thinks Porte was asked to fall back yesterday because they've been on the microscope since the 1-2 finish.


----------



## Local Hero

Brailsford: "OK Sky, the plan today is for Porte to fall back!"

Froome: "Wait a second. So I'm going to ride isolated in a group of 30+ including Contador (and his teammate), that Columbian climber Quintana who killed it yesterday and three top ten GC guys from Movistar?!"

Brailsford: "It's not just bloggers. The Clinic and Twitter are after us too!" 

Froome: "So I have to fend off all those attacks by myself?"

Brailsford: "Yes. Porte was too good yesterday and the bloggers are going cray-cray. Nobody will 'buy' it unless Porte plays possum."

Froome: "What if I get a puncture in the final 25K, who will help me catch back on?!"

Brailsford: "THE BLOGGERS!!"

Froome: ...


----------



## r1lee

JoelS said:


> Yeah, and Froome says he's clean, and for years Armstrong said the same.


so what do you expect them to say, i'm wearing yellow cause I'm doping?


----------



## Slartibartfast

Local Hero said:


> Brailsford: "OK Sky, the plan today is for Porte to fall back!"
> 
> Froome: "Wait a second. So I'm going to ride isolated in a group of 30+ including Contador (and his teammate), that Columbian climber Quintana who killed it yesterday and three top ten GC guys from Movistar?!"
> 
> Brailsford: "It's not just bloggers. The Clinic and Twitter are after us too!"
> 
> Froome: "So I have to fend off all those attacks by myself?"
> 
> Brailsford: "Yes. Porte was too good yesterday and the bloggers are going cray-cray. Nobody will 'buy' it unless Porte plays possum."
> 
> Froome: "What if I get a puncture in the final 25K, who will help me catch back on?!"
> 
> Brailsford: "THE BLOGGERS!!"
> 
> Froome: ...


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Good one! 

I bet Kiryenka really hated the whole time limit idea, and I doubt Kennaugh was wild about going into the ditch, but THEY PULLED IT OFF! Have to hand it to Sky, they have a system, and they used it...


----------



## Local Hero

JoelS said:


> Yeah, and Froome says he's clean, and for years Armstrong said the same.


What do we expect a clean rider to say? What is the appropriate response to these accusations?

I like Cancellara's response to the motorized bike accusations: "That's stupid." 

But once someone is accused it seems that nothing they say will help.


----------



## zigmeister

What I really like is how the next day, not to raise serious suspicion, they tell all the helpers to fall out of the main group and just take big losses in time, claim it was due to the insane amount of work they did the day before, and they are just paying the price the next day on recovery.

Meanwhile, Froome covers every move/attack with ease wit no team mates. Basically uses Movistar as his train to pace him all day up the climbs.

Yeah, ridiculous.

I bet magically Porte and the other helpers will be at amazingly top form with 1 day rest and just set a blazing pace again and really up the time gap from Froome to the rest of the peloton.


----------



## easyridernyc

caught the mountain stage saturday morning before i headed out

fromme looked awfully clean for a guy pumping as hard as he had to have been to place out. wasnt even breathing hard for chris sakes


----------



## asciibaron

davidka said:


> " said Froome. “Any of the results now are definitely a lot more credible. The question should be asked about people who were winning races maybe five, 10 years ago, when we know doping was a lot more prevalent.”
> 
> Sure thing Chris, we'll ask them. It'll be 3-5 more minutes before they finish...


i spit water out of my mouth, thanks.


----------



## bballr4567

Guilty until proven innocent in the cycling world. 


Not like we didnt see this years TdF coming from lasts year performance.


----------



## Local Hero

zigmeister said:


> What I really like is how the next day, not to raise serious suspicion, they tell all the helpers to fall out of the main group and just take big losses in time, claim it was due to the insane amount of work they did the day before, and they are just paying the price the next day on recovery.
> 
> Meanwhile, Froome covers every move/attack with ease wit no team mates. Basically uses Movistar as his train to pace him all day up the climbs.
> 
> Yeah, ridiculous.
> 
> I bet magically Porte and the other helpers will be at amazingly top form with 1 day rest and just set a blazing pace again and really up the time gap from Froome to the rest of the peloton.


I wonder if we watched the same stage. I saw Froome having to close down gaps and chase Movistar a number of times. I watched Movistar attack Froome and keep the tempo high so that Porte's group could not reconnect. 

In your opinion, was it part of the Sky plan for Kennaugh to crash off a cliff? And I agree that it would be both magical and highly suspicious for Kiryienka to return and help Froome at this point.


----------



## r1lee

It simply amazes me that we keep on picking out one rider above all else.

The fact that these guys average 50km+/hr a day over 3 weeks of riding covering 3000+ km's doesn't make anyone go hmmmmm.. But a guy who does it 1min faster then anybody else does? Lol


----------



## misterwaterfallin

r1lee said:


> It simply amazes me that we keep on picking out one rider above all else.
> 
> The fact that these guys average 50km+/hr a day over 3 weeks of riding covering 3000+ km's doesn't make anyone go hmmmmm.. But a guy who does it 1min faster then anybody else does? Lol


I don't think anyone is accusing the guys who finished 30 minutes behind on yesterdays stage of something fishy. People who put out numbers like Ted King are at least fathomable. The aliens, they're in a different league.


----------



## davidka

BummBull said:


> Tour is the Super Bowl of cycling, and he has never performed well as much as he's been hyped up to be. Little off topic, but he's like Damiano Cunego(2004 Giro D'Italia winner) where every year, people say to watch out for him, as he's the next star, but he never lived up to his hype and hasn't done anything since his 2004 Giro win.
> Valverde's results in the Tour:
> 2005: withdrew
> 2006: withdrew
> 2007: 6th
> 2008: 9th
> 2012: 20th


I don't ever recall Valverde being held up to the standard of TdF "sure thing", neither was Cunego (who has done a great deal more than "nothing" since his Giro win) but just so I have it straight - Not a tour winner = not a star?



JoelS said:


> From the Team's perspective, Porte is there to help Froome. If giving up a mess of time to deflect the doping accusations does that, then that's what he's going to do.


That is an order that would never be given. There's 2 weeks to go, if Froome falls down, Sky's Tour is over. As others have mentioned, if they were worried about doping accusations, they'd have ridden differently.


----------



## Bluenote

r1lee said:


> so what do you expect them to say, i'm wearing yellow cause I'm doping?


If he said that, maybe it'd convince people he's clean!


----------



## JoelS

davidka said:


> I don't ever recall Valverde being held up to the standard of TdF "sure thing", neither was Cunego (who has done a great deal more than "nothing" since his Giro win) but just so I have it straight - Not a tour winner = not a star?
> 
> 
> 
> That is an order that would never be given. There's 2 weeks to go, if Froome falls down, Sky's Tour is over. As others have mentioned, if they were worried about doping accusations, they'd have ridden differently.


You're free to believe that "this time is different" of course. We've been down that road before, many times. Cycling has earned a massive amount of cynicism. And in the case of Froome, I don't buy it. Additionally, his history from pre-Sky doesn't show he has this kind of talent or ability.


----------



## nOOky

This is the type of stuff that discourages clean riders and makes even the most anti-doping riders feel that they need to dope to even have a chance. Not only do you not get rewarded for riding clean, you get beat down. There's only so many times you can beat your head against the wall before you give up or give in.


----------



## Local Hero

Brian Holm said he thought Sky was racing — and winning — clean.

“If you ask me straight, I wouldn’t lie. I think Froome is clean. I really think so, and I think [Bradley] Wiggins was clean when he won last year,” he added. “If it’s not true it would break my heart. I can understand Chris Froome being a little annoyed at being asked the question, but we need to be open-minded and try not to let it get to us when these things happen.”


----------



## FTR

And Froomestrong is now not only better than the worlds best climbers but only 11 seconds slower than the World TT Champion.

Amazing!!


----------



## Local Hero

At least he's not winning the bunch sprints.


----------



## Ventruck

smfh I bet the urine thrown at Cav was Froome's contaminated sample.

cheating fraud


----------



## Bluenote

FTR said:


> And Froomestrong is now not only better than the worlds best climbers but only 11 seconds slower than the World TT Champion.
> 
> Amazing!!


+1....


----------



## DrSmile

FTR said:


> And Froomestrong is now not only better than the worlds best climbers but only 11 seconds slower than the World TT Champion.
> 
> Amazing!!


+2. Martin collapses on the ground after his effort while Froome casually sashays to the podium to kiss the girls 5 minutes after riding.


----------



## Eretz

I love science. I make a living using it.


----------



## regnaD kciN

FTR said:


> And Froomestrong is now not only better than the worlds best climbers but only 11 seconds slower than the World TT Champion.
> 
> Amazing!!


I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry that you can't dream big. I'm sorry that you don't believe in miracles.


----------



## roddjbrown

FTR said:


> And Froomestrong is now not only better than the worlds best climbers but only 11 seconds slower than the World TT Champion.
> 
> Amazing!!


Well...I believe he's dirty but...

Second in Vuelta 2011 ITT behind Martin

Third in Vuelta 2012 ITT behind Contador and kessiakoff

Came second in ITT of the 2012 tour behind Wiggins

He finished with bronze in the olympic time trial behind Martin and Wiggins. 

I mean the ITT of this tour is hardly some sort of standalone result for him


----------



## den bakker

roddjbrown said:


> Well...I believe he's dirty but...
> 
> Second in Vuelta 2011 ITT behind Martin
> 
> Third in Vuelta 2012 ITT behind Contador and kessiakoff
> 
> Came second in ITT of the 2012 tour behind Wiggins
> 
> He finished with bronze in the olympic time trial behind Martin and Wiggins.
> 
> I mean the ITT of this tour is hardly some sort of standalone result for him


pretty much. beaten by the olympic winner on a longer tt by 23 seconds is not much difference than yesterdays result. Climbing pretty much on part with last year. It's basically just a rehash of the "debate" last year.


----------



## grandprix

Of course he was doping in 2011 when Sky 2-3'd the Vuelta. In 2012 as well, and likely could have beaten Wiggins if the team had allowed him to ride away.

Certainly TT is a skill apart from whatever additional fuel he puts in his motor, and Froome is very good.


----------



## AdamM

Wondering, can anyone remember a ProTour rider showing such dramatic improvement in less than three years? Going from a guy with early career Conti type results who was pack fodder to the best climber in the world? Now as a flyweight just a few ticks off beating the strongest rouleur in the TDF in a power TT? Amazing as they say. What's next the Ronde and Paris-Roubaix?


----------



## r1lee

Local Hero said:


> At least he's not winning the bunch sprints.


Sagan wins bunch sprints, classics, week long tours. Only thing he doesn't do at a very high calibre is climb, but can climb very well. A well rounded dangerous rider. Dope?

Personally I think they are all on it, but i don't bother thinking about it when i watch it. I enjoy the entertainment.


----------



## bballr4567

DrSmile said:


> +2. Martin collapses on the ground after his effort while Froome casually sashays to the podium to kiss the girls 5 minutes after riding.


Well, Martin is covered in roadrash from his ass crack to his head so I can only imagine what that actually felt like. In fact, he even said that he would of been faster had he not been hurting so bad.


----------



## Notvintage

Salsa_Lover said:


> He has been eating Spanish beef


Wasn't aware he swung that way. haha


----------



## eyebob

Agreed, he's a great climber and a great TT guy? Sounds really, really, really familiar.


----------



## 55x11

Well. Contador wasn't much of a household name until 2006 when he won stages at TdS and Romandie, and in 2007 he won the Tour (as well as white jersey), and in 2008 won Giro and Vuelta. Armstrong certainly made a huge comeback and transformation from classics rider to grand tour contender in 1999. Ullrich came out of nowhere to place second in 1996 Tour and win it in 1997. 

Of course all of these examples have something else in common, so perhaps i am only proving your case.


----------



## Marc

55x11 said:


> Well. Contador wasn't much of a household name until 2006 when he won stages at TdS and Romandie, and in 2007 he won the Tour (as well as white jersey), and in 2008 won Giro and Vuelta. Armstrong certainly made a huge comeback and transformation from classics rider to grand tour contender in 1999. Ullrich came out of nowhere to place second in 1996 Tour and win it in 1997.
> 
> Of course all of these examples have something else in common, so perhaps i am only proving your case.


Lloyd Flandis?


----------



## CabDoctor

BummBull said:


> Right, but we're talking about the Tour. I love watching all of the races, but Tour is still the biggest race. I've heard that with revenue that the race makes, Tour is bigger than all of the other races combined. You can criticize me and say that I'm an American and only care about the Tour and you're hardcore cycling fan, and there's more to racing than the Tour. Which is true, but Tour is the Super Bowl of cycling, and he has never performed well as much as he's been hyped up to be. Little off topic, but he's like Damiano Cunego(2004 Giro D'Italia winner) where every year, people say to watch out for him, as he's the next star, but he never lived up to his hype and hasn't done anything since his 2004 Giro win.
> Valverde's results in the Tour:
> 2005: withdrew
> 2006: withdrew
> 2007: 6th
> 2008: 9th
> 2012: 20th



Here's the thing with Cunego, he's strongly hinted at his doping for the 2004 giro. He's also said straight up said that he doesn't "train" like he did for the 2004 giro. And there was another interview(in italian) where he mentions how the 2004 victory left him empty inside.

So basically the kid is clean and doing what he can. Which is a lot!


----------



## SFTifoso

This guy is cleaner than Froome.


----------



## JaeP

RTSO2112 said:


> How's about this for possibly plausible/probable speculation:
> 
> It's rigged...the whole thing.
> 
> Froome will win, Porte will not podium...can't make it too obvious....he will probably bail or make top ten...to make it not too obvious.
> 
> Hmmmm...3rd place in Paris...that has not been decided.....yet.
> 
> It's the new cheating w/o "doping" of sorts!!!
> 
> Totally plausible.


You sir, are correct. Rep for you.


----------



## regnaD kciN

I've posted this in a couple of places but, if you haven't seen it, it offers an interesting analysis of some of the evidence. 

http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/biking/Analysing-Froomes-Performance.html


----------



## Bluenote

regnaD kciN said:


> I've posted this in a couple of places but, if you haven't seen it, it offers an interesting analysis of some of the evidence.
> 
> Can we Trust the Peloton? | Biking Fitness Plans and Advice | OutsideOnline.com


Great link. +1.


----------



## love4himies

regnaD kciN said:


> I've posted this in a couple of places but, if you haven't seen it, it offers an interesting analysis of some of the evidence.
> 
> Can we Trust the Peloton? | Biking Fitness Plans and Advice | OutsideOnline.com


Great article, thanks for posting that.


----------



## RTSO2112

_The day before the climb up AX3, *Team Sky Director David Brailsford told VeloNews*, "At some point in time, clean performances will surpass the doped performances in the past." After the stage Froome stated that he is "100 percent" clean and that there's "absolutely no way I'd be able to get these results if the sport hadn't changed."_

Expected this^^^^. 

Said to get out in front of the suspicion train...that was inevitably coming...instead of after...will it work....didn't for Lance and others....we'll see....I just hope we see it sooner than later.

Clean is a subjective and relative term. In Sky's world, "clean" probably means using PEM (performance enhancing "methods") that aren't illegal, yet...key word, "yet"...

Notice I used PEM instead of PED. And, by "methods", I'm not talking your garden variety smoothie or protein shake or PB&J!!!


----------



## roddjbrown

RTSO2112 said:


> _The day before the climb up AX3, *Team Sky Director David Brailsford told VeloNews*, "At some point in time, clean performances will surpass the doped performances in the past." After the stage Froome stated that he is "100 percent" clean and that there's "absolutely no way I'd be able to get these results if the sport hadn't changed."_
> 
> Expected this^^^^.
> 
> Said to get out in front of the suspicion train...that was inevitably coming...instead of after...will it work....didn't for Lance and others....we'll see....I just hope we see it sooner than later.
> 
> Clean is a subjective and relative term. In Sky's world, "clean" probably means using PEM (performance enhancing "methods") that aren't illegal, yet...key word, "yet"...
> 
> Notice I used PEM instead of PED. And, by "methods", I'm not talking your garden variety smoothie or protein shake or PB&J!!!


I suspect they are within tolerable limits but still doping. I don't know enough to speak about it with a great deal of authority but given their meeting with the UCI about blood values 2 years ago I reckon they are ensuring their riders are on the limits but never exceeding them.

I'm not for one second suggesting they're the only ones, but I personally think their bigger budgets enables them to just do it better than other teams and that is what drives their domination (and obviously, osymetric chain rings as well).


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

love4himies said:


> Great article, thanks for posting that.


I didn't like it at all.. try this one:

The Science of Sport: Tour rest day: Pondering the unanswerables with physiological implications

I found the outsideonline to be a bit unsatisfactory.. 

To me it read like this: "Froome is definitely doping because of this fantastic scientific analysis that has been done! (oh and btw p.s. there are loads of limitations to this analysis that we'll mention in a short paragraph right at the end that 90% of people won't even read)"


----------



## Bluenote

ALIHISGREAT said:


> I didn't like it at all.. try this one:
> 
> The Science of Sport: Tour rest day: Pondering the unanswerables with physiological implications
> 
> I found the outsideonline to be a bit unsatisfactory..
> 
> To me it read like this: "Froome is definitely doping because of this fantastic scientific analysis that has been done! (oh and btw p.s. there are loads of limitations to this analysis that we'll mention in a short paragraph right at the end that 90% of people won't even read)"


I think it's pretty obvious that any scientific analysis of Froome's performance not based on actual measurements, has to make assumptions. If the assumptions are off, the results are off.


----------



## Local Hero

RTSO2112 said:


> Clean is a subjective and relative term. In Sky's world, "clean" probably means using PEM (performance enhancing "methods") that aren't illegal, yet...key word, "yet"...
> 
> Notice I used PEM instead of PED. And, by "methods", I'm not talking your garden variety smoothie or protein shake or PB&J!!!


Like what, 20minute warm downs and beet juice?


----------



## RTSO2112

Local Hero said:


> Like what, 20minute warm downs and beet juice?


You must be Sky's "runner"!


----------



## Slartibartfast

Bluenote said:


> I think it's pretty obvious that any scientific analysis of Froome's performance not based on actual measurements, has to make assumptions. If the assumptions are off, the results are off.


Exactly. I really hope Sir Chris is clean, because if he is, the equation is changed: miraculous performances can be believed. But this "science of speculation" is inexact, and in absence of actual power data from the peloton, I have to apply the eyeball test, just like in every other sport.

When I apply the eyeball test, his performance is "not normal." "Normal" is close to what the rest of the contenders are doing. Today's race notwithstanding, none of the other GC contenders are close to Froomie.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

Slartibartfast said:


> Exactly. I really hope Sir Chris is clean, because if he is, the equation is changed: miraculous performances can be believed. But this "science of speculation" is inexact, and in absence of actual power data from the peloton, I have to apply the eyeball test, just like in every other sport.
> 
> When I apply the eyeball test, his performance is "not normal." "Normal" is close to what the rest of the contenders are doing. Today's race notwithstanding, none of the other GC contenders are close to Froomie.


I'm sorry but this is laughable!

So you must be a doper if you beat Larens Ten Dam & Bauke Mollema by a minute up Ax-3 Domaines?!

Contador, Evans, Valverde etc. obviously had a bad day, or are off form... and you're mistaking that for evidence of doping from Chris Froome.

Not to mention the fact that Quintana would have been right up there with Froome had Movistar not burned him out too early in their efforts to weaken the Sky train (which only failed because he can't descend!)


----------



## cda 455

The Tedinator said:


> Ammattilaispyöräilijöiden nousutietoja (aika, km/h, VAM, W, W/kg etc.) - Sivu 12
> 
> He beat Armstrong's 2003 and 2005 times by 10 and 24 seconds respectively. Not normal.


Thanks for the link.


That tells me all I need to know about froome and my suspicion with Sky. 

It's only a matter of time before they're caught or uncovered.


----------



## cda 455

AdamM said:


> Wondering, can anyone remember a ProTour rider showing such dramatic improvement in less than three years? Going from a guy with early career Conti type results who was pack fodder to the best climber in the world? Now as a flyweight just a few ticks off beating the strongest rouleur in the TDF in a power TT? Amazing as they say. What's next the Ronde and Paris-Roubaix?



Does the name Lance Armstrong ring a bell?


----------



## Bluenote

ALIHISGREAT said:


> I'm sorry but this is laughable!
> 
> So you must be a doper if you beat Larens Ten Dam & Bauke Mollema by a minute up Ax-3 Domaines?!
> 
> Contador, Evans, Valverde etc. obviously had a bad day, or are off form... and you're mistaking that for evidence of doping from Chris Froome.
> 
> Not to mention the fact that Quintana would have been right up there with Froome had Movistar not burned him out too early in their efforts to weaken the Sky train (which only failed because he can't descend!)


The aggregate of the evidence doesn't look good.

Was basically pack fodder for his early career
Over a few years transforms into a GC Contender. 
Beats everyone, handily, on a difficult climb.
His time on said climb were up there with Armstrong and the usual suspects of doping. 
Repeats the results on the TT. 

So Contador, etc... _all_ had bad days on the climb?
Did they also _all_ have bad days on the TT?
And clean riders now can beat the times of the very doped Armstrong? 

None of this is definitive proof of doping. But it's fair for fans to want to look at the context (Froome's time vs. Armstrong's, Fromme's estimated watts, etc...) and make up their own minds.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

Bluenote said:


> The aggregate of the evidence doesn't look good.
> 
> Was basically pack fodder for his early career
> Over a few years transforms into a GC Contender.
> Beats everyone, handily, on a difficult climb.
> His time on said climb were up there with Armstrong and the usual suspects of doping.
> Repeats the results on the TT.
> 
> So Contador, etc... _all_ had bad days on the climb?
> Did they also _all_ have bad days on the TT?
> And clean riders now can beat the times of the very doped Armstrong?
> 
> None of this is definitive proof of doping. But it's fair for fans to want to look at the context (Froome's time vs. Armstrong's, Fromme's estimated watts, etc...) and make up their own minds.


The data for Ax-3 Domaines is useless...

estimated times from _different_ races, _different_ stages, at _different_ points in the race etc. mean *NOTHING*. How do we know what intensity Lance was riding at when he did that time etc.? How many team mates did Lance have to support him compared to Froome? etc. etc. etc. 

You can't conclude anything from looking at two numbers that rely on so many different variables - and as such calculating power figures using those two numbers is also likely to have a huge error. 

Also there are explanations for Froome's lack of early career form. Such as coming for a disadvantaged background and lacking the quality of training and racing pre-2008.

Basically he lacked the tactical and technical abilities of his rivals who had received higher quality European training and race experience. 

This write up gives a good account of his career path, with some interesting quotes from various individuals, including Vaughters: Froome's Thoughts: Chris Froome & Doping


----------



## Local Hero

Right, the Ax-3 Domaines speculation does nothing to *prove* that Froome is dirty. There are just too many variables and fudge points. 

On the other hand, nothing proves that he's clean either. Froome may very well be dirty. Simply put, Ax-3 Domaines is inconclusive.


----------



## den bakker

RTSO2112 said:


> _The day before the climb up AX3, *Team Sky Director David Brailsford told VeloNews*, "At some point in time, clean performances will surpass the doped performances in the past." After the stage Froome stated that he is "100 percent" clean and that there's "absolutely no way I'd be able to get these results if the sport hadn't changed."_
> 
> Expected this^^^^.
> 
> Said to get out in front of the suspicion train...that was inevitably coming...instead of after...will it work....didn't for Lance and others....we'll see....I just hope we see it sooner than later.
> 
> Clean is a subjective and relative term. In Sky's world, "clean" probably means using PEM (performance enhancing "methods") that aren't illegal, yet...key word, "yet"...
> 
> Notice I used PEM instead of PED. And, by "methods", I'm not talking your garden variety smoothie or protein shake or PB&J!!!


how is it doping if it's not illegal?


----------



## RTSO2112

den bakker said:


> how is it doping if it's not illegal?


Exactly!


----------



## den bakker

RTSO2112 said:


> Exactly!


then why mix it up with LA that was doping?


----------



## Local Hero

What are the legal _performance enhancing methods_ of which you speak?


----------



## RTSO2112

Local Hero said:


> What are the legal _performance enhancing methods_ of which you speak?


1. Extra large doses of Vitamin D. 
2. Extra 'fresh' baguette sandwiches. 
3. 5-hour energy drinks...never know what's exactly not illegal inside those! 
4. Lastly, and most enhancingly...inhaling the left-over air exhaled by numerous doped-up riders (including Lance) that still lingers on all the roads from previous TdFs!
*inhaling NEVER leaves the tell-tale signs of micro-dosing needle marks.


----------



## RTSO2112

den bakker said:


> then why mix it up with LA that was doping?


Your guys' SOH if seriously lacking. I'm starting to wonder what YOU guys are "on"...I hope it is - like me - a bike for 6 hours a day!!!


----------



## den bakker

RTSO2112 said:


> Your guys' SOH if seriously lacking. I'm starting to wonder what YOU guys are "on"...I hope it is - like me - a bike for 6 hours a day!!!


Can we compress your posts to "derp" then?


----------



## RTSO2112

den bakker said:


> Can we compress your posts to "derp" then?


As long as mine are in line after yours....fair dinkum?


----------



## harris551

*Froome not clean?*

In the past, Froome suffered from Bilharia, a parasite that destroyed Red blood cells. He got it treated in July 2011, and in his next event, Vuelta 2011, he came 2nd. That is why he has improved drastically. Treating Bilharia had the same effect as using EPO because of the sudden difference in number of red blood cells


----------



## harris551

JoelS said:


> You're free to believe that "this time is different" of course. We've been down that road before, many times. Cycling has earned a massive amount of cynicism. And in the case of Froome, I don't buy it. Additionally, his history from pre-Sky doesn't show he has this kind of talent or ability.


In the past, Froome suffered from Bilharia, a parasite that destroyed Red blood cells. He got it treated in July 2011, and in his next event, Vuelta 2011, he came 2nd. That is why he has improved drastically. Treating Bilharia had the same effect as using EPO because of the sudden difference in number of red blood cells, so it appears that he has doped his way to the top, but he hasn't.


----------



## harris551

AdamM said:


> Wondering, can anyone remember a ProTour rider showing such dramatic improvement in less than three years? Going from a guy with early career Conti type results who was pack fodder to the best climber in the world? Now as a flyweight just a few ticks off beating the strongest rouleur in the TDF in a power TT? Amazing as they say. What's next the Ronde and Paris-Roubaix?


In the past, Froome suffered from Bilharia, a parasite that destroyed Red blood cells. He got it treated in July 2011, and in his next event, Vuelta 2011, he came 2nd. That is why he has improved drastically. Treating Bilharia had the same effect as using EPO because of the sudden difference in number of red blood cells


----------



## RTSO2112

harris551 said:


> In the past, Froome suffered from Bilharia, a parasite that destroyed Red blood cells. He got it treated in July 2011, and in his next event, Vuelta 2011, he came 2nd. That is why he has improved drastically. Treating Bilharia had the same effect as using EPO because of the sudden difference in number of red blood cells


I put this "manufactured" story right up there with Spanish Beef and Vanishing Chimera/Twin. At least Froome's is more believable...


----------



## tom_h

*Outlier ...*

Some friends & I were having a long (email) discussion about Froome, last couple days. My thoughts:

- If Froome _is _doping, we may not know about it for 5-10 yrs. 
New PED compounds might not be detectable for some years, and analytically it's very difficult to find anything, if you don't know in advance roughly what you're looking for.

- I believe it's plausible Froome could simply be a "mutant" outlier that only comes along every 1 or 2 generations. 

As illustrative example I cite:

- All-time, fastest, mile run times by USA high school boys, 
http://www.cs.uml.edu/~phoffman/nats/milers1.htm
538 runners listed.
99.3% of them are between 4:00 and 4:13. The Mile/1500m is pretty much an all-out vO2max effort. Unless you've run competitively before, you may not appreciate what an impressive achievement this is.

Yet, even among this elite group, 2 stand out: 

Jim Ryun 3:55 (1965)
Alan Webb 3:53 (2001)

5-7 seconds ahead of all the other elites, is staggering. Ryun's record stood for 36 years. No other contemporary high schooler even comes close to Webb's record.

To suggest that high schoolers, especially Ryun in 1960s Kansas, were doping, is ludicrous.

Genetic "mutants" do come along every 25-50 years. 

In summary, I think it's plausible Froome could be clean ... but we probably won't know for 5-10 yrs.


----------



## den bakker

tom_h said:


> To suggest that high schoolers, especially Ryun in 1960s Kansas, were doping, is ludicrous.


if you say so. 
of course we know of at least one doping case in cycling going back to the age of 16. 
impressive that almost half the top 10 times were done in the 60s (in a 4 year period). decade of the mutants.


----------



## BummBull

harris551 said:


> In the past, Froome suffered from Bilharia, a parasite that destroyed Red blood cells. He got it treated in July 2011, and in his next event, Vuelta 2011, he came 2nd. That is why he has improved drastically. Treating Bilharia had the same effect as using EPO because of the sudden difference in number of red blood cells


This guy is so dirty. Bilharzia is being used as a convenient excuse.


----------



## T K

spade2you said:


> It's a good thing we didn't do the US equiv of knighting Lance.


Oh but we did. Have you forgotten about his prestigious MTV peoples choice award?


----------



## tom_h

den bakker said:


> if you say so.
> of course we know of at least one doping case in cycling going back to the age of 16.
> impressive that almost half the top 10 times were done in the 60s (in a 4 year period). decade of the mutants.


Yeah, kids would actually go outdoors (_gasp!) _to play, exercise, ride bikes, etc, back then ( I also grew up in 60s).

Judging by what I see in So Calif today, many if not most kids today are fat, soft, and play too many videogames on the couch.


In that high school top-10, I'm seeing:
1960s - 4
1970s - 1
1990s - 1 
2000s - 4
Webpage only goes up to 2004, don't know what's happened since then.

This 2012 article,
A Historical Case For Aerobic Development - Competitor.com , 
gives plausible reasons for the high school resurgence in the 2000s.

Basically, a return to emphasis on developing a deep aerobic base over a period of many months and years.
ie, the training methods of highly succesful 1960s New Zealand running coach, Arthur Lydiard.


----------



## den bakker

tom_h said:


> Yeah, kids would actually go outdoors (_gasp!) _to play, exercise, ride bikes, etc, back then ( I also grew up in 60s).
> 
> Judging by what I see in So Calif today, many if not most kids today are fat, soft, and play too many videogames on the couch.
> 
> 
> In that high school top-10, I'm seeing:
> 1960s - 4
> 1970s - 1
> 1990s - 1
> 2000s - 4
> Webpage only goes up to 2004, don't know what's happened since then.
> 
> This 2012 article,
> A Historical Case For Aerobic Development - Competitor.com ,
> gives plausible reasons for the high school resurgence in the 2000s.
> 
> Basically, a return to emphasis on developing a deep aerobic base over a period of many months and years.
> ie, the training methods of highly succesful 1960s New Zealand running coach, Arthur Lydiard.


now it's training and not genetic mutants?
and it is noticed you ignored doping cases in the high school age bracket. which was "ludicrous" (although blood transfusions in the 60s would have been fine as far as doping goes).


----------



## tom_h

den bakker said:


> now it's training and not genetic mutants?
> and it is noticed you ignored doping cases in the high school age bracket. which was "ludicrous" (although blood transfusions in the 60s would have been fine as far as doping goes).


I don't follow that and profess ignorance. Can you provide examples or references? Not trying to be belligerent, just curious about it.

re "mutants" and "training" -- you need both. Someone genetically lucky & gifted still has to train.


----------



## Slartibartfast

ALIHISGREAT said:


> I'm sorry but this is laughable!
> 
> So you must be a doper if you beat Larens Ten Dam & Bauke Mollema by a minute up Ax-3 Domaines?!
> 
> Contador, Evans, Valverde etc. obviously had a bad day, or are off form... and you're mistaking that for evidence of doping from Chris Froome.
> 
> Not to mention the fact that Quintana would have been right up there with Froome had Movistar not burned him out too early in their efforts to weaken the Sky train (which only failed because he can't descend!)


Well, I'm glad to have given you a laugh. I get a good chuckle myself when people claim standout performances in cycling are clean. The "eyeball" method is certainly not infallible, but it's worked pretty reliably since I learned what to look for, over and over, in the past 2 decades.

Blowing away Bauke Mollema and Laurens Ten Dam may turn out to be pretty impressive when we discover the reason for their sudden emergence.


----------



## den bakker

tom_h said:


> I don't follow that and profess ignorance. Can you provide examples or references? Not trying to be belligerent, just curious about it.
> 
> re "mutants" and "training" -- you need both. Someone genetically lucky & gifted still has to train.


Geneviève Jeanson
?Doping begins in school-level sport? - IOL Lifestyle | IOL.co.za

So?doping in cycling has kind of a history. | DrugMonkey
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/sports/28doping.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## David Loving

The Norton Edgar story is priceless! Thanks, Eretz


----------



## Oldermileeater

With everything that has happened - especially in recent years, I really don't know what to think, who to believe or trust anymore. I love cycling, but I have been backing away more and more from following competitive cycling. The doping and surprises of who is / was doping has become boring.

I'd be willing to bet with so much speculation these days, those who see my cycling performance will say I am doping because I am a 52 year old. I'm supposed to be over-the-hill, but I in fact DO ride 6+ hours a day in the hilly Piedmont averaging 17 - 18 MPH. In my opinion, not an impressive average speed - in spite of this being a very hilly area, and I am doing this day in and day out. But to some - even this is 'unbelievable' without some sort of doping because I am so OLD. I am going for my first 20k mile annual total ever (even at this decrepid age). I really don't know if I am 'exeptional', I don't know who may think 'that old dude has to be doping to do that'. Frankly, I could care less who thinks or believes what about me. All I can say is I can't afford to dope even if I wanted to.

My point? When impressive stats are seen from just about anyone, there will be speculation about doping. I still try to keep an open mind about anyone who is riding the numbers of those who have doped. Maybe there are some who are really exeptional without doping. But ALL sports has become marred with illegal P.E.D's., and because of things 'cropping up' later, I just don't know who to completely trust.

Not to shift away from the Tour De France, but what about the RAAM (Race Across America) which as far as I am concerned is even tougher than the T.D.F. from the standpoint of the time it is done (the record is now less than 8 days). What about those riders who crank out 350+ miles each day for 8 - 9 days? Are they clean?

Everywhere one turns, there is room to 'speculate'.


----------



## OnTheRivet

Oldermileeater said:


> Not to shift away from the Tour De France, but what about the RAAM (Race Across America) which as far as I am concerned is even tougher than the T.D.F. from the standpoint of the time it is done (the record is now less than 8 days). What about those riders who crank out 350+ miles each day for 8 - 9 days? Are they clean?.


You're joking tight? RAAM hacks would get dropped in a Cat3 race. The only thing they are good at is not sleeping. That event is SO not about cycling fitness it shouldn't even be called a bicycle race.


----------



## Oldermileeater

OnTheRivet said:


> You're joking tight? RAAM hacks would get dropped in a Cat3 race. The only thing they are good at is not sleeping. That event is SO not about cycling fitness it shouldn't even be called a bicycle race.



ROFL, you want to get into a debate with me about this? No, I am not joking (right). Yeah, MAYBE SOME 'RAAM hacks' would be 'dropped' in a cat 3 race. But that's probably because so many who run in cat 3's are DOPING (this is a speculative thread, is it not?). I can be nasty and judgemental.

As for what is and is not about 'cycling fitness', as far as I am concerned, ANYONE doping is NOT about cycling fitness irregardless of the race, and there seems to be enough doping to go around, thereby FAKING natural fitness. So again I ask: Who is really clean in any given race?

As for the RAAM: I have a clue of what that is. I have crossed the country a few times on a road bicycle (un-supported) in a relatively slow 3 weeks each way. There are sectins that will make you or break you - simple as that. Anyone who says the RAAM is not about 'cycling fitness' probably has no experience at long distance / long duration / endurance riding. Let's see those who claim crossing this country in less than 10 days has no place in 'cycling fitness' try it themselves. Do you honestly believe riding the RAAM with a couple of hours sleep each night for a week covering 3,000 miles does not require a certain level of fitness????

I am no more impressed with the Tour De France (less than 3,000 miles in 3 weeks) than the RAAM (3,000 miles in 8 days) - sorry.

For the record: I have ridden parts of the Alps (France is just one location). I am NOT ignorant of the level of riding there.

Let's be for real about what is true cycling fitness. Just because one may not be a fan of the RAAM is no reason to take away from it.


----------



## RTSO2112

OnTheRivet said:


> You're joking tight? RAAM hacks would get dropped in a Cat3 race. The only thing they are good at is not sleeping. That event is SO not about cycling fitness it shouldn't even be called a bicycle race.


That's like saying Hash House harriers is not about......the drinking...for shame!

I don't agree with your "not about cycling fitness"...of which there are different kinds.....no, RRAM is not the same TYPE of fitness as a GT...it is fitness, still...just different...you MUST be joking.


----------



## Oldermileeater

ANYWAY........

Sorry for my outbursts. I in fact was serious about my dayly 6 plus hour outings. I'll blame it on too much road grime and motor vehicle exhaust - but that won't keep me off the bike. This is also probably not a good thread for me.

I only brought up the RAAM as another analogy - something else to speculate on doping - to show it's not just the TDF.

All this speculation, things cropping up years later, doping to beat other dopers - etc. has just irritated me and turned me off to paying much attention to competition. Doping is here to stay no matter who tries to clean up any sport. So again I say, I really don't know who to trust or believe in anymore.

Bottom line is (I reiterate) ANYONE doping is not about cycling fitness.


----------



## Bluenote

ALIHISGREAT said:


> The data for Ax-3 Domaines is useless...
> 
> estimated times from _different_ races, _different_ stages, at _different_ points in the race etc. mean *NOTHING*. How do we know what intensity Lance was riding at when he did that time etc.? How many team mates did Lance have to support him compared to Froome? etc. etc. etc.
> 
> You can't conclude anything from looking at two numbers that rely on so many different variables - and as such calculating power figures using those two numbers is also likely to have a huge error.
> 
> Also there are explanations for Froome's lack of early career form. Such as coming for a disadvantaged background and lacking the quality of training and racing pre-2008.
> 
> Basically he lacked the tactical and technical abilities of his rivals who had received higher quality European training and race experience.
> 
> This write up gives a good account of his career path, with some interesting quotes from various individuals, including Vaughters: Froome's Thoughts: Chris Froome & Doping


Well. The more data is compared, the less likely there is to be some random anomaly. 

Or to put it another way, Froome's time up AX3 puts him up there with the whose who of doping. The times compared were for the climb, not the stage. 

To believe your explanation of the matter we would have to believe-

All the dopers rode on much longer, harder stages they day they did the climb
All dopers were holding something back when they did the climb
All dopers didn't have good team support, when they did the climb

The probability that everyone else in history had some type of bad luck on AX3, while everything went Froome's way, seems small. 

None of this is definitive, but it doesn't look good.


----------



## Local Hero

If Quintana had sat in and attacked on the final climb I'm sure he would have matched Froome.


----------



## Local Hero

I'm sure that there are dopers doing RAAM. One of the reasons why pro cyclists take testosterone is because extensive training makes your T levels drop way below normal. Research into the history of doping reveals that some of the most successful doping doctors focused on maintaining normal levels and blood values, not boosting them into the stratosphere. 

Many endurance athletes (runners, triathletes, cyclists) have moved to a quality regimen. The old school of thought was high miles, all the time. But there are diminished returns above a certain limit. And one of the main symptoms/causes of over-training is hormonal imbalance. 

I have no idea how a man over 40 can ride 6 hours a day and maintain normal testosterone levels. I have no idea how the RAAM racers do it. I'm sure some crash for weeks after the race. And some of them are on testosterone, legally prescribed by their doctors. On a personal note, I try to the majority of my rides under three and a half hours. Of course, longer rides have their benefits and should be done sparingly. 

Back to the assertion that RAAM is more difficult than the TdF. 

"LOL" is the correct response. I'm sure that the top 20 TdF finishers could easily win RAAM.


----------



## SFTifoso

Tomorrow Froome will pass Quintana 500 meters before the finishing line. rrr:


----------



## RTSO2112

SFTifoso said:


> Tomorrow Froome will pass Quintana 500 meters before the finishing line. rrr:


Lets just say, Sky will not be making "too obvious" either way they ride today.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

RTSO2112 said:


> Lets just say, Sky will not be making "too obvious" either way they ride today.



So now we're counting unremarkable performances as evidence of doping as well?

Makes sense...


----------



## RTSO2112

ALIHISGREAT said:


> So now we're counting unremarkable performances as evidence of doping as well?
> 
> Makes sense...


Lance is still innocent...I heard it the first time. Can we move on, now...


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> If Quintana had sat in and attacked on the final climb I'm sure he would have matched Froome.


And his time would have been up there with the whose who of dopers. Not definitive.


----------



## 88 rex

Local Hero said:


> "LOL" is the correct response. I'm sure that the top 20 TdF finishers could easily win RAAM.



I respectfully disagree. I don't think there is anyone in the top 20 that can win RAAM, let alone easily. 

Likewise, none of the RAAM competitors are going to place top 20 in the TDF. 

Whole different breed of folks.


----------



## Bluenote

88 rex said:


> I respectfully disagree. I don't think there is anyone in the top 20 that can win RAAM, let alone easily.
> 
> Likewise, none of the RAAM competitors are going to place top 20 in the TDF.
> 
> Whole different breed of folks.


Jacques Boyer finished 12th in the TDF and win RAAM. Too bad he turned out to be a perv. 

Jacques Boyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Wookiebiker

Umm ... Froom clean? ... LOL


He just sprinted away from Contador (full on sprint) half way up Ventoux after riding behind Porte who set a pace so hard it dropped all the best climbers in the world. He's riding like it's nothing at this point.

To team SKY ... you might want to re-think your "Clean" rider strategy when your team is doped to the gills :mad2:


----------



## Salsa_Lover

Froomstrong on what the commentators are calling a "surrealistic" attack. something never seen before on the Ventoux, a seated high cadence attack.


----------



## jecjec81

Team Doped!


----------



## cda 455

Wookiebiker said:


> Umm ... Froom clean? ... LOL
> 
> 
> He just sprinted away from Contador (full on sprint) half way up Ventoux after riding behind Porte who set a pace so hard it dropped all the best climbers in the world. He's riding like it's nothing at this point.
> 
> To team SKY ... you might want to re-think your "Clean" rider strategy when your team is doped to the gills :mad2:





Salsa_Lover said:


> Froomstrong on what the commentators are calling a "surrealistic" attack. something never seen before on the Ventoux, a seated high cadence attack.



It's stage 12 of the 2000 TDF!!1!


----------



## AJL

Wookiebiker said:


> Umm ... Froom clean? ... LOL
> 
> 
> He just sprinted away from Contador (full on sprint) half way up Ventoux after riding behind Porte who set a pace so hard it dropped all the best climbers in the world. He's riding like it's nothing at this point.
> 
> To team SKY ... you might want to re-think your "Clean" rider strategy when your team is doped to the gills :mad2:


Dammit Wookie, I haven't finished the race yet (DVR). I know well enough to avoid Pro-Cycling during the race, but Doping? Come on, no freaking spoilers on race day!!


----------



## Wookiebiker

Well ... I didn't say who won, just that the "Attack" was "Alien" in nature


----------



## Salsa_Lover

kind of amazing, seeing Froome to drop with ease all the best climbers in the world and be almost as good as the TT world champion.

If he is real, then it is a true once in history phenomenon


----------



## cda 455

Wookiebiker said:


> Well ... I didn't say who won, just that the "Attack" was "Alien" in nature


Did you lose streaming too?


Like three seconds before crossing the finish line. 

And yes; This finish is looking so much like the Armstrong/U.S. Postal days. Indeed.


----------



## RTSO2112

cda 455 said:


> It's stage 12 of the 2000 TDF!!1!


Exactly what I was thinking. 

Not a question of if they will get caught, but when.

Did anyone hear Phil refer to Froome as "Ritchie Froome" near the summit...Freudian Slip much.


----------



## zero85ZEN

Ridiculous.

Froomstrong indeed!

Wonder what the new undetectable O2 vector doping method is...I'm sure we'll learn all about it in the upcoming years.


----------



## spade2you

Local Hero said:


> Right, the Ax-3 Domaines speculation does nothing to *prove* that Froome is dirty. There are just too many variables and fudge points.
> 
> On the other hand, nothing proves that he's clean either. Froome may very well be dirty. Simply put, Ax-3 Domaines is inconclusive.


...and today?


----------



## 88 rex

If only Armstrong had held on to the lie just a little longer he could have used Froome as en example of another clean rider put up extraordinary numbers.


----------



## grandprix

zero85ZEN said:


> Ridiculous.
> 
> Froomstrong indeed!
> 
> Wonder what the new undetectable O2 vector doping method is...I'm sure we'll learn all about it in the upcoming years.


I think it might not be O2, but it will be interesting when it comes out regardless.

What other team is all of this 'once every 20 years mutant' talk referring to? I'm trying to think of even another individual cyclist who hasn't been shown to have doped who performed this way. Obviously difficult given the past decade but before that...LeMond maybe? Merckx obviously, his doping was quite tame but he rode away from everyone else on multiple occasions.


----------



## Salsa_Lover

cda 455 said:


> It's stage 12 of the 2000 TDF!!1!



Armstrong had at least to stand on the pedals then....


----------



## burgrat

To me Froome looks so much like Michael Rasmussen on the bike. We all know how that turned out. I want to believe the racing is clean, but based on cycling's history, I would be a fool to do so.

Btw, if any of you guys don't want to hear spoilers, stay the hell off of the internet, let alone a cycling forum. That's just dumb.


----------



## cda 455

Salsa_Lover said:


> Armstrong had at least to stand on the pedals then....


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Oh; It would've been so much more funnier had it not been so true :thumbsup: !


----------



## cda 455

88 rex said:


> If only Armstrong had held on to the lie just a little longer he could have used Froome as en example of another clean rider put up extraordinary numbers.


I would modify your point.


Only to say that Armstrong holding on to his lie would have kept the Cinderella story going for the Red Coats just a little bit longer.

But your sarcastic point is awesome none-the-less  !


----------



## wabasso

Salsa_Lover said:


> kind of amazing, seeing Froome to drop with ease all the best climbers in the world and be almost as good as the TT world champion.
> 
> If he is real, then it is a true once in history phenomenon


He isn't.


----------



## spade2you

At least Froome is a nice guy, otherwise we'd be all outraged n' stuff.


----------



## bballr4567

What about Quintana? If Froome came out of nowhere then what about a 23 y/o that decimated a field?


----------



## pedalruns

bballr4567 said:


> What about Quintana? If Froome came out of nowhere then what about a 23 y/o that decimated a field?


He is a pure climber... did you notice his TT time?? He has not come out of nowwhere, he has already made his name in climbing and he is only 23, this is his FIRST TDF.... The question is what was Froome doing at 23??? 

Also look at Contador, we now know that he was doped back in those days...and look at how well he TT'd and how well he climbed back then.. He was/is a great climber but the extra help from the pharmacy made him Extraterrestrial back then... Very similiar to Froome performance of this years tour imo. This year Contador is still very good, but not extra good like before..


----------



## KenS

cda 455 said:


> Did you lose streaming too?
> 
> 
> Like three seconds before crossing the finish line.
> 
> And yes; This finish is looking so much like the Armstrong/U.S. Postal days. Indeed.


Lost streaming at that point also. One would think that the streaming technology would improve from year to year but I haven't seen evidence of that over the last 2 or 3 tours.

And it did look like an Armstrong/Postal finish.


----------



## cda 455

Disclaimer: Fictitious scenario  .


Remember in the movie Good Fellas where Robert De Niro's character is pissed off when his fellow criminals walk into a bar all dressed up and looking fancy from the money they got in a crime? He was mad because he specifically told them to lay low and not spend any money for awhile until the heat was off. So it wouldn't look obvious that they just got a ton of money.

Take that scene and apply it to Sky team. I can see Brailsford and/or the Directeur sportif for the TDF screaming at Froome and Porte when they entered the team bus after the podium ceremony. 

*Directeur sportif:* "Are you F'ing nuts, Froome?!! I told you to win the stage and keep it close, not destroy the field like you did today!! Do you realize how suspicious you look now?!! They're going to really have a field day comparing us to the U.S. Postal team! I told you that you could show the world your dominants at the upcoming time trial. But noooooooooooooooooooooo! You had to go and do what you did today!!"

"Porte! You bloody basturd! Do you know how suspicious you look blowing away all the top climbers pacing Froome up Mt. Ventoux?!! What were you two thinking?!!"


I can see something like that happening behind closed doors :lol: !




*BTW; Trivia question:*
Was there ever a rider, who wore the number 'one' while not winning the previous TDF, go on to win the TDF?


----------



## bballr4567

Well, funny you say that. At 24, Chris was racing for Barloworld in the Giro. He finished 34th in the ITT. He has always had good results in the ITT. This was his 2nd year in procycling. Also, in stage 5 of the same tour, he finished in 28th in the hardest mountain stage. Every year he has improved to the point where last year he was obviously one of the best climbers in the field. That took him 5 years to reach the summit of the field. 

At 23, Quintana finished 54th on the stage 11 ITT. He has been a pro for three years (if you count his first year with the development team). He finished second on the hardest climb of the TdF in his first TdF after being a pro for effectively two years? This is quite literally his first full grand tour and he is blasting the whole field on climbs? 


Sorry, if Froome is questionable because it took him 6 years of professional cycling to be on the verge of winning the TdF then what about Quintana? 



Also, Contador is fading. He has been riding professionally for 10 years and is on the downswing of his career for sure.


----------



## 88 rex

bballr4567 said:


> Well, funny you say that. At 24, Chris was racing for Barloworld in the Giro. He finished 34th in the ITT. He has always had good results in the ITT. This was his 2nd year in procycling. Also, in stage 5 of the same tour, he finished in 28th in the hardest mountain stage. Every year he has improved to the point where last year he was obviously one of the best climbers in the field. That took him 5 years to reach the summit of the field.
> 
> At 23, Quintana finished 54th on the stage 11 ITT. He has been a pro for three years (if you count his first year with the development team). He finished second on the hardest climb of the TdF in his first TdF after being a pro for effectively two years? This is quite literally his first full grand tour and he is blasting the whole field on climbs?
> 
> 
> Sorry, if Froome is questionable because it took him 6 years of professional cycling to be on the verge of winning the TdF then what about Quintana?
> 
> 
> 
> Also, Contador is fading. He has been riding professionally for 10 years and is on the downswing of his career for sure.


If Quintana dominates the TT in a few years then I'll agree with you. There is nothing suspicious about a midget South American climber out climbing the field. He may well be dirty, but it's not super extraordinary. Can we agree Froome is on something?


----------



## J24

bballr4567 said:


> Well, funny you say that. At 24, Chris was racing for Barloworld.


Bit deceptive aren't you, since you should have told the rest of the story about how Barloworld cancelled their sponsorship after the team, which Froome was part of, got caught doping in the 2008 TDF


----------



## pedalruns

And.. Froome turned professional in 2007 with the South African Team Konica Minolta, and was introduced to Team Barloworld by Robbie Hunter, joining them for the 2008 season, and was named in their team[20] for the Tour de France, in which he finished eighty-fourth overall and eleventh among the young riders' category.

And his first year with Sky.. Froome rode the 2010 Giro d'Italia, but was disqualified for holding on to a motorbike on stage 19.[24] During his first season with Sky, his best result was at the Tour du Haut Var, where he finished ninth in the overall standings


----------



## bballr4567

J24 said:


> Bit deceptive aren't you, since you should have told the rest of the story about how Barloworld cancelled their sponsorship after the team, which Froome was part of, got caught doping in the 2008 TDF


Team or one rider? One could say that Barloworld cancelled their sponsorship because the team preformed horrible in the 2008 TDF. Well, before you come back and say well the team had to know, it was one rider, Moises Duenas that was caught with EPO. In 2008. How in the hell would a team ok the use of EPO after all the crap that happened from 06 and 07? Yea, I dont think they would. 



So, as I said, it took Froome 6 years to elevate to the top of the field yet someone else who has been riding for two years is completely ok? 

The doping forum is full of crap like this. Its ok because he is tiny. Its ok because blah blah blah. 

Froome has always been a good ITT. He has always been a very good climber. Quintana has done NOTHING before this tour and he is dominating the field but its not suspicious because he is a small rider.


----------



## pedalruns

bballr4567 said:


> Team or one rider? One could say that Barloworld cancelled their sponsorship because the team preformed horrible in the 2008 TDF. Well, before you come back and say well the team had to know, it was one rider, Moises Duenas that was caught with EPO. In 2008. How in the hell would a team ok the use of EPO after all the crap that happened from 06 and 07? Yea, I dont think they would.
> 
> 
> 
> So, as I said, it took Froome 6 years to elevate to the top of the field yet someone else who has been riding for two years is completely ok?
> 
> The doping forum is full of crap like this. Its ok because he is tiny. Its ok because blah blah blah.
> 
> Froome has always been a good ITT. He has always been a very good climber. Quintana has done NOTHING before this tour and he is dominating the field but its not suspicious because he is a small rider.


He's done nothing?? I think you are the one not painting the picture correctly.. And he is not dominating the field on the whole race only on the climbs.

Here is the list of the nothing you talk about?

In 2010, Quintana won the Tour de l'Avenir proving to be one of the great prospects for the future of Colombian cycling.

In 2012, he won the overall lead in the Vuelta a Murcia. After, he took a prestigious victory at the Critérium du Dauphiné, when he sparked a counter-attack after a select group of riders including leader Bradley Wiggins reached the last escapee of the day. He held on to his solo lead in the descent leading to Morzine.[5] After winning that stage, he later ended up winning the Rot du Sud that year.

In 2013, Quintana won stage 3 of the Volta a Catalunya after he won the queen stage of the Tour of the Basque Country by sprinting to victory after the final climb in Eibar–Arrate, two seconds before a group of six fellow overall contenders.


----------



## J24

So Barloworld cancelled because the team was crap, this from Reuters report

Barloworld today announced that after serious consideration, and in accordance with their policy towards doping, that they will be withdrawing their cycling sponsorship following the Tour de France 2008," the company said in a statement overnight.


----------



## bballr4567

He won a race full of prospects. Lots of riders do that and amount to nothing. 

The Vuelta a Murcia is a short stage race. In 2012 it was TWO stages. 

This is his second grand tour and he is outclimbing riders that he shouldnt. That is my only point. Yet, because he is tiny and has one a handful of stages its perfectly ok. In his first grand tour he finished 36th! He wasnt even in the top ten of the KoM in the Vuelta A Espana yet he is 2nd at the TdF a year later? How is that not suspicious and doesnt raise an eyebrow? 

Here are the mountain stage finishes for Quintana for the Espana. 

Stage 8: 52nd
Stage 14: 33rd
Stage 15: 14th
Stage 16: 6th
Stage 20: 48th

Contrast that with this years TdF so far:

Stage 8: 9th
Stage 9: 19th
Stage 15: 2nd

So, again, if Froome is the suspicious one then how can Quintana be left out because "he is a pure climber".



J24 said:


> So Barloworld cancelled because the team was crap, this from Reuters report
> 
> Barloworld today announced that after serious consideration, and in accordance with their policy towards doping, that they will be withdrawing their cycling sponsorship following the Tour de France 2008," the company said in a statement overnight.


Have you found where more than one rider has tested positive for EPO? Like I said, the UCI knew what to look for with EPO and why in the hell would teams use it knowing they would get caught. This was 2008 and not 2001.


----------



## 88 rex

bballr4567 said:


> Stage 8: 52nd
> Stage 14: 33rd
> Stage 15: 14th
> Stage 16: 6th
> Stage 20: 48th
> 
> Contrast that with this years TdF so far:
> 
> Stage 8: 9th
> Stage 9: 19th
> Stage 15: 2nd
> 
> So, again, if Froome is the suspicious one then how can Quintana be left out because "he is a pure climber".


Quintana's results look consistant too me. His 2nd place is his best result and he went all cards in. The "he is small" is consistant with what you would expect to see out of a climber. His TT is horrible. He is not the strongest. He's just little, and weighs nothing, and thus needs less power to get up the slopes. When Quintana isn't climbing he's just pack fodder. Between climbing stages he can "relax."


----------



## robdamanii

bballr4567 said:


> So, again, if Froome is the suspicious one then how can Quintana be left out because "he is a pure climber".


Because he's a PURE CLIMBER. That's what they do: climb mountains. Columbians are well known for this and little else.

Froome saw an amazing rise to untouchability after joining Sky. Like Porte. Like Wiggins. Like Michael Rogers (where is he now?) 

The whole team is beyond dirty.


----------



## zosocane

The way Froome rode Ventoux today, he would have beaten the 2000 doped-up versions of Armstrong and Pantani going up Ventoux. No question in my mind. Today was absolute and total destruction of the TdF field, first by Porte, and then by Froome who handily dropped Contador with, what was it, 5 km to go?

By the way, interesting to see Andy Schleck get dropped relatively early, he barely got 40th today. Wonder what excuse he has for today?


----------



## bballr4567

2012 Espana average mountain stage finishing position: 30.6.

2013 TdF average mountain stage finishing position: 10. 


His ITT is not horrible either. He finished 54th out of a pack of 182. That is in the top 3rd. You want horrible? Look at Rolland. He is a climber right? He finished 91st. 

Just for S&Gs, Froome finished 33rd in the 2008 TdF ITT on stage 4. On the stage 20th ITT he finished 16th.


----------



## 88 rex

bballr4567 said:


> 2012 Espana average mountain stage finishing position: 30.6.
> 
> 2013 TdF average mountain stage finishing position: 10.
> 
> 
> His ITT is not horrible either. He finished 54th out of a pack of 182. That is in the top 3rd. You want horrible? Look at Rolland. He is a climber right? He finished 91st.
> 
> Just for S&Gs, Froome finished 33rd in the 2008 TdF ITT on stage 4. On the stage 20th ITT he finished 16th.


What exactly is your point? That Quintana is dirty too?


----------



## Ventruck

mother ****ing Froome is doped to the mother ****ing gills. It's disgusting. At least make the win look more believable. Robbing AC of his 4th TdF victory.

Chris Froome: your 2013 Tour de France champion, ASTERISK.


----------



## bballr4567

88 rex said:


> What exactly is your point? That Quintana is dirty too?


As I have already said a few times, there are posters say that Froome just came out of no where and that its impossible to be a domestique one year and be in contention the next year. Yet, we have Quintana who is following the same path as Froome and is getting applauded for his efforts.

Would you still describe Quitana's ITT results as horrible when compared to a "pure climber" like Rolland and the fact that he is a small guy?


----------



## spade2you

Ventruck said:


> mother ****ing Froome is doped to the mother ****ing gills. It's disgusting. At least make the win look more believable. Robbing AC of his 4th TdF victory.
> 
> Chris Froome: your 2013 Tour de France champion, ASTERISK.


Yet, I doubt anyone will go after him or Sky unless they do something extremely stupid.


----------



## grandprix

bballr4567 said:


> So, again, if Froome is the suspicious one then how can Quintana be left out because "he is a pure climber".


Is this some version of a level playing field argument? Because Quintana is almost certainly doping, as are most all of the top GC riders and support riders on the top teams. The handful of teams that can bankroll a cutting edge doping program have several riders placed near the top of GC, which is exactly as it always has been when those teams seek out talented riders who also respond exceptionally well to PEDs.

There is far too much money and fame at stake and there have been no real institutional changes since 00s when we know for certain the big teams were doping. There is no reason to simply drop the programs and risk the competition keeping theirs around. Individual riders are still motivated because their choice can come down to doping to secure at least a support position on a GC team, or not doping and always worrying whether you'll have a job next season. In a well managed program no one gets caught until after they've hit the end of their career anyway, or they get a meaningless retroactive suspension that requires making revisions to their palmares that they wouldn't have had in the first place had they not doped.

So consider doping as just another of the many inputs that differentiate one rider from another, and enjoy the race.


----------



## 88 rex

bballr4567 said:


> Would you still describe Quitana's ITT results as horrible when compared to a "pure climber" like Rolland and the fact that he is a small guy?


Yes. They both are horrible. And I would expect Quitana to put more effort into the TT than Rolland since he is/was fighting for a white jersey. Rolland has nothing to gain.


----------



## cda 455

bballr4567 said:


> As I have already said a few times, there are posters say that Froome just came out of no where and that its impossible to be a domestique one year and be in contention the next year. Yet, we have Quintana who is following the same path as Froome and is getting applauded for his efforts.
> 
> Would you still describe Quitana's ITT results as horrible when compared to a "pure climber" like Rolland and the fact that he is a small guy?


You bring up valid points regarding Quintana.

But this thread is about whether Froome is riding clean or not. You keep making points in your case about Quintana, but this thread is about Froome.


Because of the Armstrong era and fallout, the ride today by Froome looked ridiculously suspicious. Almost stupidly 'obvious'. If this stage were to have happened anytime before Oct. 12, 2012, it would have looked way more believable. But now that we have something to compare performance by, suspicion is front and center. And I did not enjoy the last 10km because of that. Really sad.

In a word, one can say this is Armstrong's legacy. Casting huge doubt on Froome's effort today. Or the effort of any GC favorite who rides like how Froome rode today.


----------



## cda 455

spade2you said:


> Yet, I doubt anyone will go after him or Sky unless they do something extremely stupid.


Today's stage just may be that 'something extremely stupid' you mention.


The cycling journalist world may very well put Froome under a microscope and start comparing him and Sky to the U.S. Postal team. 

It's interesting to read that I wasn't the only one to cast serious doubt about Froome _during the stage_! This is the first time I've ever had serious doubt about the performance of a rider while the stage was unfolding.


----------



## spade2you

cda 455 said:


> Today's stage just may be that 'something extremely stupid' you mention.
> 
> 
> The cycling journalist world may very well put Froome under a microscope and start comparing him and Sky to the U.S. Postal team.
> 
> It's interesting to read that I wasn't the only one to cast serious doubt about Froome _during the stage_! This is the first time I've ever had serious doubt about the performance of a rider while the stage was unfolding.


IDK, overall he and Wiggo were perhaps a little more dominant as a whole. Did anyone really bat an eye? Hell, I proposed they were doping last year and was dismissed as "sheer and utter drivel".


----------



## bballr4567

cda 455 said:


> You bring up valid points regarding Quintana.
> 
> But this thread is about whether Froome is riding clean or not. You keep making points in your case about Quintana, but this thread is about Froome.


I did post about Froome's early work. He ITT and climbing ability were clearly evident from his early stages. The reason I bring up Quintana, like I said, is that he is being hailed as awesome and pure yet his path to the TdF is almost nothing as I pointed out. His 2012 Espana results are nothing outrageous for a "pure climber" yet his 2013 TdF results are certainly eye opening. 

Its just funny that so many applaud Quintana but frown upon Froome.


----------



## cda 455

spade2you said:


> IDK, overall he and Wiggo were perhaps a little more dominant as a whole. Did anyone really bat an eye? Hell, I proposed they were doping last year and was dismissed as "sheer and utter drivel".


Yes, people here did bat an eye at last year's TDF.

I believe were there huge suspicion last year about Froome and Wiggins right here in the Doping Forum.


Good questions were brought up because both were easy contenders for the top podium. In fact, what really raised eye brows was the fact that Froome had to wait for Wiggins on several stages and Wiggins was doing awesome against the rest of the peloton.


----------



## cda 455

bballr4567 said:


> I did post about Froome's early work. He ITT and climbing ability were clearly evident from his early stages. The reason I bring up Quintana, like I said, is that he is being hailed as awesome and pure yet his path to the TdF is almost nothing as I pointed out. His 2012 Espana results are nothing outrageous for a "pure climber" yet his 2013 TdF results are certainly eye opening.
> 
> Its just funny that so many applaud Quintana but frown upon Froome.


Once again, this thread is about Froome. Not Quintana.


I think your exaggerating a little bit regarding peoples responses here about Quintana. Who said Quintana is 'awesome and pure'?


----------



## spade2you

cda 455 said:


> Yes, people here did bat an eye at last year's TDF.
> 
> I believe were there huge suspicion last year about Froome and Wiggins right here in the Doping Forum.
> 
> 
> Good questions were brought up because both were easy contenders for the top podium. In fact, what really raised eye brows was the fact that Froome had to wait for Wiggins on several stages and Wiggins was doing awesome against the rest of the peloton.


You don't recall particular naysayers dismissing everything from the "butthurt" Americans? 

Last year was like T-Mobile '96. This year is just US Postal. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the next ITT.


----------



## masont

robdamanii said:


> Because he's a PURE CLIMBER. That's what they do: climb mountains. Columbians are well known for this and little else.
> 
> Froome saw an amazing rise to untouchability after joining Sky. Like Porte. Like Wiggins. *Like Michael Rogers (where is he now?) *
> 
> The whole team is beyond dirty.


12th on GC helping Contador


----------



## bballr4567

cda 455 said:


> Once again, this thread is about Froome. Not Quintana.
> 
> 
> I think your exaggerating a little bit regarding peoples responses here about Quintana. Who said Quintana is 'awesome and pure'?





pedalruns said:


> *He is a pure climber... did you notice his TT time?? * He has not come out of nowwhere, he has already made his name in climbing and he is only 23, this is his FIRST TDF.... The question is what was Froome doing at 23???
> 
> Also look at Contador, we now know that he was doped back in those days...and look at how well he TT'd and how well he climbed back then.. He was/is a great climber but the extra help from the pharmacy made him Extraterrestrial back then... Very similiar to Froome performance of this years tour imo. This year Contador is still very good, but not extra good like before..





88 rex said:


> If Quintana dominates the TT in a few years then I'll agree with you. *There is nothing suspicious about a midget South American climber out climbing the field.* He may well be dirty, but it's not super extraordinary. Can we agree Froome is on something?





Local Hero said:


> *If Quintana had sat in and attacked on the final climb* I'm sure he would have matched Froome.



In his first year in the TdF (and his second large stage race) people are pulling for him and think he could of matched Froome who has been a professional for 6 years. How many rookie TdF riders contend for the KoM jersey? 

While his stage performances are strong and surely make people suspect with the recent history, it bugs me to no end that supposedly Froome "came out of no where" to content for the TdF. That is all Im trying to counter. 


All Im saying is that if Froome is guilty because his performances are good then why arent other people? Why use other people as a judge when their performances are out of the realm as well? Where was the Dan Martin thread when he won Stage 9 sprinting after a huge day of climbing?


----------



## spade2you

bballr4567 said:


> All Im saying is that if Froome is guilty because his performances are good then why arent other people?


Because they don't believe in miracles?


----------



## bballr4567

spade2you said:


> Because they don't believe in miracles?


And that is all you got out of that? Figures.


----------



## spade2you

bballr4567 said:


> And that is all you got out of that? Figures.


Figures what, tough guy?


----------



## bballr4567

spade2you said:


> Figures what, tough guy?


That after all that I posted all you could come up with is miracles. Not the fact the guy has trained for 6 years or has rode with a top notch team for 3 and didnt come from nothing. That his climbing and ITT have always been good even when he first started. Yet, all we get is this miracles. Do you train for your races? Do you see improvements year and year if you have worked hard? Im going to assume yes or you would of stopped racing. 

I wont even touch the tough guy remark except it was unnecessary and silly.


----------



## den bakker

Ventruck said:


> Robbing AC of his 4th TdF victory.


that made me lol. thanks.


----------



## spade2you

bballr4567 said:


> That after all that I posted all you could come up with is miracles. Not the fact the guy has trained for 6 years or has rode with a top notch team for 3 and didnt come from nothing. That his climbing and ITT have always been good even when he first started. Yet, all we get is this miracles. Do you train for your races? Do you see improvements year and year if you have worked hard? Im going to assume yes or you would of stopped racing.
> 
> I wont even touch the tough guy remark except it was unnecessary and silly.


In '09 he got mentioned in the Giro once or once and was dropped as a simple stage hunter. He wasn't THAT good at climbing and TTing at the time. I watched that race too, ya know. 

They ALL had credible stories for why they were doing so well and winning, even Lance at the time.


----------



## FTR

Not forgetting Porte who a handful of years ago was working as a lifeguard at a local swimming pool in Tasmania.


----------



## robdamanii

masont said:


> 12th on GC helping Contador


Compared to last year where he was shredding the peloton a la Richie Porte? NFW he's the same rider he was last year.


----------



## robdamanii

FTR said:


> Not forgetting Porte who a handful of years ago was working as a lifeguard at a local swimming pool in Tasmania.


That swim coach on Sky must have seen his "innate talent."


----------



## love4himies

cda 455 said:


> You bring up valid points regarding Quintana.
> 
> But this thread is about whether Froome is riding clean or not. You keep making points in your case about Quintana, but this thread is about Froome.
> 
> 
> Because of the Armstrong era and fallout, the ride today by Froome looked ridiculously suspicious. Almost stupidly 'obvious'. If this stage were to have happened anytime before Oct. 12, 2012, it would have looked way more believable. But now that we have something to compare performance by, suspicion is front and center. And I did not enjoy the last 10km because of that. Really sad.
> 
> In a word, one can say this is Armstrong's legacy. Casting huge doubt on Froome's effort today. Or the effort of any GC favorite who rides like how Froome rode today.


I agree. Froome's ride today just looked too unbelievable. Even Quintana started to falter in the last few km's.


----------



## JoelS

I'm hearing that this drug isn't being tested, though it is officially banned. O2 doping and weight loss. AICA ribonucleotide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Fireform

Today was it for me. He posted the second fastest ascent of Ventoux ever in the TDF, within 2 seconds of LA's time in 2002. _With a head wind._ And he climbed the last 6.15km 30 sec faster than Pantani in 2000.

Not normal. Bummer.


----------



## love4himies

Fireform said:


> Today was it for me. He posted the second fastest ascent of Ventoux ever in the TDF, within 2 seconds of LA's time in 2002. _With a head wind._ And he climbed the last 6.15km 30 sec faster than Pantani in 2000.
> 
> Not normal. Bummer.


I can hear it now. It was the feeding strategy that gave them the extra boost.


----------



## spade2you

love4himies said:


> I can hear it now. It was the feeding strategy that gave them the extra boost.


That and elliptical chainrings.

I demand we check Quintana's coffee for extra Colombian "sugar".


----------



## cda 455

spade2you said:


> You don't recall particular naysayers dismissing everything from the "butthurt" Americans?
> 
> Last year was like T-Mobile '96. This year is just US Postal. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the next ITT.


True; There definitely were.


But weren't those naysayers just a few fellow Redcoats of Froome and Wiggo :lol: ?!

There were also a few Redcoats here that raised concerns about Froome and Wiggo's performance too (along with us butthurt Yanks)  !



Conspiracy theorist prediction: 
The TT is this Weds. I'll predict that Froome will lose two minutes by the time they all reach Paris in an attempt to make him look more believable. Since it looks like Froome has more than enough dominants in the peloton, he'll spread out the two minute loss between the TT and three remaining mountain stages.


----------



## NextTime

Froome's acceleration away from Contador was unworldly. Any guesses out there as to how fast he was going on that move? It looked like he was going 20+ mph.


----------



## Ventruck

Fireform said:


> Today was it for me. He posted the second fastest ascent of Ventoux ever in the TDF, within 2 seconds of LA's time in 2002. _With a head wind._ And he climbed the last 6.15km 30 sec faster than Pantani in 2000.
> 
> Not normal. Bummer.


Is that seriously true? where did you source that?

I mean would someone be THAT stupid to ride like that?


----------



## cda 455

bballr4567 said:


> That after all that I posted all you could come up with is miracles. Not the fact the guy has trained for 6 years or has rode with a top notch team for 3 and didnt come from nothing. That his climbing and ITT have always been good even when he first started. Yet, all we get is this miracles. Do you train for your races? Do you see improvements year and year if you have worked hard? Im going to assume yes or you would of stopped racing.
> 
> I wont even touch the tough guy remark except it was unnecessary and silly.


Are you thereby officially declaring that it is possible, while racing clean, to equal the ultra-incredible performances of known past dopers?


Because that is what you're saying, in essence.

Fireform poasted earlier that Froome's effort today nearly equaled LA time up Mt. Ventoux. Froome was also 30sec faster than Pantani the last 6.15km. Both were notorious dopers.


----------



## cda 455

cda 455 said:


> Disclaimer: Fictitious scenario  .
> 
> 
> Remember in the movie Good Fellas where Robert De Niro's character is pissed off when his fellow criminals walk into a bar all dressed up and looking fancy from the money they got in a crime? He was mad because he specifically told them to lay low and not spend any money for awhile until the heat was off. So it wouldn't look obvious that they just got a ton of money.
> 
> Take that scene and apply it to Sky team. I can see Brailsford and/or the Directeur sportif for the TDF screaming at Froome and Porte when they entered the team bus after the podium ceremony.
> 
> *Directeur sportif:* "Are you F'ing nuts, Froome?!! I told you to win the stage and keep it close, not destroy the field like you did today!! Do you realize how suspicious you look now?!! They're going to really have a field day comparing us to the U.S. Postal team! I told you that you could show the world your dominants at the upcoming time trial. But noooooooooooooooooooooo! You had to go and do what you did today!!"
> 
> "Porte! You bloody basturd! Do you know how suspicious you look blowing away all the top climbers pacing Froome up Mt. Ventoux?!! What were you two thinking?!!"
> 
> 
> I can see something like that happening behind closed doors :lol: !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BTW; Trivia question:*
> Was there ever a rider, who wore the number 'one' while not winning the previous TDF, go on to win the TDF?





Fireform said:


> Today was it for me. He posted the second fastest ascent of Ventoux ever in the TDF, within 2 seconds of LA's time in 2002. _With a head wind._ And he climbed the last 6.15km 30 sec faster than Pantani in 2000.
> 
> Not normal. Bummer.


Agree.


Froome's performance today lead me to poast a possible behind-closed-doors scenario  .


----------



## Salsa_Lover

Ventruck said:


> Is that seriously true? where did you source that?
> 
> I mean would someone be THAT stupid to ride like that?


MONT VENTOUX (last 15.65 km [from St. Esteve], 8.74 %, 1368 m)

----TOP 10 LIST

-1. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 48:33 | 2002
-2. Chris Froome _________ GBR | 48:35 | 2013
-3. Andy Schleck _________ LUX | 48.57 | 2009
-4. Alberto Contador _____ ESP | 48:57 | 2009
-5. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:00 | 2009
-6. Marco Pantani ________ ITA | 49:01 | 2000
-7. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:01 | 2000
-8. Frank Schleck ________ LUX | 49:02 | 2009
-9. Nairo Quintana _______ COL | 49:04 | 2013
10. Roman Kreuziger ______ CZE | 49:05 | 2009


----------



## bballr4567

cda 455 said:


> Are you thereby officially declaring that it is possible, while racing clean, to equal the ultra-incredible performances of known past dopers?
> 
> 
> Because that is what you're saying, in essence.


I dont see why it ISNT possible as much as some of you see it as impossible. 


Everything in sports has been getting faster and faster. Look at track. The 100m record has been broken 7 times in the last ten years. What about Phelps in swimming? He has dominated the field for over a decade and its just a natural gift and hard work. 

Yet, in cycling that is never the case anymore and I can understand why. Its always guilty and then maybe they are a little less guilty these days. 


Lets look at it this way as some other posters have pointed out. Why, if he was doping, would he just demolish the whole field on the two hardest days of climbs and bring that to the team? Plus, the team doctors had to give him O2 before the podium as he was feeling light headed and dizzy on the team bus. Now, with EPO in your system that would never ever happen or any other type of oxygen doping program.




Salsa_Lover said:


> MONT VENTOUX (last 15.65 km [from St. Esteve], 8.74 %, 1368 m)
> 
> ----TOP 10 LIST
> 
> -1. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 48:33 | 2002
> -2. Chris Froome _________ GBR | 48:35 | 2013
> -3. Andy Schleck _________ LUX | 48.57 | 2009
> -4. Alberto Contador _____ ESP | 48:57 | 2009
> -5. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:00 | 2009
> -6. Marco Pantani ________ ITA | 49:01 | 2000
> -7. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:01 | 2000
> -8. Frank Schleck ________ LUX | 49:02 | 2009
> -9. Nairo Quintana _______ COL | 49:04 | 2013
> 10. Roman Kreuziger ______ CZE | 49:05 | 2009


Where is the rest of the climb? Isnt it officially a 20.8 km climb?


----------



## spookyload

Take a statistics class. You will see why people don't believe it is legitimate. You don't become that much better than EVERYONE else in a couple years. Especially when you were so mediocre just prior. Now you Lt is almost as good as you now too. When the sports best are all in the same general power and performance range and you are blowing them off the road like they are Cat 4s, there will be questions. At the top levels, it is a sport of minimal gains over time. Not earth shattering change in a short amount of time.


----------



## Ventruck

Salsa_Lover said:


> MONT VENTOUX (last 15.65 km [from St. Esteve], 8.74 %, 1368 m)
> 
> ----TOP 10 LIST
> 
> -1. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 48:33 | 2002
> -2. Chris Froome _________ GBR | 48:35 | 2013
> -3. Andy Schleck _________ LUX | 48.57 | 2009
> -4. Alberto Contador _____ ESP | 48:57 | 2009
> -5. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:00 | 2009
> -6. Marco Pantani ________ ITA | 49:01 | 2000
> -7. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:01 | 2000
> -8. Frank Schleck ________ LUX | 49:02 | 2009
> -9. Nairo Quintana _______ COL | 49:04 | 2013
> 10. Roman Kreuziger ______ CZE | 49:05 | 2009



searched up that list but I could never find the definite source aside from some Twitter account based in Finland. Also did see attempts to time segments via live video, some suggesting Froome did the later 6-7km even faster than LA.

That being said, don't take my curiosity about the legitimacy of these numbers as an indication I'm actually defending Froome. Between this ridiculous performance, and his ITT, I have huge skepticism of Froome.


----------



## bballr4567

spookyload said:


> Take a statistics class. You will see why people don't believe it is legitimate. You don't become that much better than EVERYONE else in a couple years. * Especially when you were so mediocre just prior. * Now you Lt is almost as good as you now too. When the sports best are all in the same general power and performance range and you are blowing them off the road like they are Cat 4s, there will be questions. At the top levels, it is a sport of minimal gains over time. Not earth shattering change in a short amount of time.


I have taken a stats class. Im pretty sure I got an A in it. 

Again, why does this mediocre stuff about Froome keep popping up? He has always preformed good in mountain and ITT stages since he turned pro. If you dont believe what I have already posted go look it up for yourself. Its not like he was coming in 90th and suddenly started winning. He climbed through a field that he was mostly better than from the beginning.


----------



## stevesbike

speaking of statistics, there was a 1.3% variance in the estimate of time today for the last 15.65 km. The difference between the top 10 fastest times is 1.6%. Veetoo (the Finnish guy) bases the estimate off Google earth street view etc. Ross Tucker claims 3% margin of error for the VAM model, but this is not a validated measure. The parameter uncertainty is far larger than 3%. Even a jersey zipped vs. an open one can account for a large enough error to trivialize the estimates. Further, relative peformance (the top time list) is insensitive to environmental variations - today was a tailwind mostly and Froome was part of a large group until 7k. Quintano was a bit slower but was on his own for 14km, so actually would have a higher watts/kg than Froome. Of course, not a word about him.

Twitter was going crazy until the estimate actually came in for Froome. All under 6 watts/kg. Not even in the unprincipled 'suspicious' category. 



Ventruck said:


> searched up that list but I could never find the definite source aside from some Twitter account based in Finland. Also did see attempts to time segments via live video, some suggesting Froome did the later 6-7km even faster than LA.
> 
> That being said, don't take my curiosity about the legitimacy of these numbers as an indication I'm actually defending Froome. Between this ridiculous performance, and his ITT, I have huge skepticism of Froome.


----------



## AdamM

> Again, why does this mediocre stuff about Froome keep popping up? He has always preformed good in mountain and ITT stages since he turned pro. If you dont believe what I have already posted go look it up for yourself. Its not like he was coming in 90th and suddenly started winning. He climbed through a field that he was mostly better than from the beginning.


Prior to the 2011 Vuelta, what results from Froome are you referring to? Been a pro since 2007, so coming up the ladder, did he have a history of winning or high placing?


----------



## pedalruns

bballr4567 said:


> I have taken a stats class. Im pretty sure I got an A in it.
> 
> Again, why does this mediocre stuff about Froome keep popping up? He has always preformed good in mountain and ITT stages since he turned pro. If you dont believe what I have already posted go look it up for yourself. Its not like he was coming in 90th and suddenly started winning. He climbed through a field that he was mostly better than from the beginning.


I looked it up (posted this before, but since you ask again) I call the below medoicre and not to mention he CHEATED IN THE GIRO and was thrown out... tells me quite a bit right there:

Froome turned professional in 2007 with the South African Team Konica Minolta 

2008 Team Barloworld TDF-he finished eighty-fourth overall and eleventh among the young riders' category.

And his first year with Sky.. Froome rode the 2010 Giro d'Italia, but was disqualified for holding on to a motorbike on stage 19. During his first season with Sky, his best result was at the Tour du Haut Var, where he finished ninth in the overall standings


----------



## David Loving

Froome was too good today - he's definitely doped up. It'l take them several years to figure out what it is.


----------



## bballr4567

bballr4567 said:


> In 2008 at 24, Chris was racing for Barloworld in the Giro. He finished 34th in the ITT. He has always had good results in the ITT. This was his 2nd year in procycling. Also, in stage 5 of the same tour, he finished in 28th in the hardest mountain stage. Every year he has improved to the point where last year he was obviously one of the best climbers in the field. That took him 5 years to reach the summit of the field.
> 
> 2008 TdF:
> 
> Stage 4 ITT: 33rd
> Stage 9: 51st
> Stage 10: 120th (involved in a wreck I believe)
> Stage 15: 127th
> Stage 16: 138th
> Stage 17: 31st
> Stage 20 ITT: 16th





AdamM said:


> Prior to the 2011 Vuelta, what results from Froome are you referring to? Been a pro since 2007, so coming up the ladder, did he have a history of winning or high placing?


 I've already posted the 2009 Giro results. I could go after the 2010 Giro and TdF but Im sure we would see a similar performance of the ITT and most mountain stages. 


Pedalruns, show me PROOF that he cheated with a banned substance. I went back and read the report on why he was DQ'd in the Giro. He held onto the motorbike because he was done. He also had an injury to his knee. Go past the GC results and look at the STAGES like I have done and stop taking direct quotes from wiki. Its really not that hard to do the research yourself.


----------



## love4himies

bballr4567 said:


> Everything in sports has been getting faster and faster. Look at track. The 100m record has been broken 7 times in the last ten years. What about Phelps in swimming? He has dominated the field for over a decade and its just a natural gift and hard work.
> 
> Yet, in cycling that is never the case anymore and I can understand why. Its always guilty and then maybe they are a little less guilty these days.



They are doping too. Just in today:

Jamaican sprinters Asafa Powell, Sherone Simpson test positive | Other Sports | Sports | Toronto Sun



> Former world 100 metres record holder Asafa Powell and Olympic 4x100 relay silver medallist Sherone Simpson have both tested positive for the stimulant oxilophrine at last month's Jamaican athletics championships.


I used to believe in Lance. I couldn't believe anybody would be so stupid as to dope when they were a cancer survivor. I believed the "never tested positive" I believed the "most tested athlete" couldn't have beaten the tests. 

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Froome and Porte were cycling just like US Postal team, I'm not going to be foolish enough to believe they are clean.


----------



## bballr4567

stevesbike said:


> speaking of statistics, there was a 1.3% variance in the estimate of time today for the last 15.65 km. The difference between the top 10 fastest times is 1.6%. Veetoo (the Finnish guy) bases the estimate off Google earth street view etc. Ross Tucker claims 3% margin of error for the VAM model, but this is not a validated measure. The parameter uncertainty is far larger than 3%. Even a jersey zipped vs. an open one can account for a large enough error to trivialize the estimates. Further, relative peformance (the top time list) is insensitive to environmental variations - today was a tailwind mostly and Froome was part of a large group until 7k. Quintano was a bit slower but was on his own for 14km, so actually would have a higher watts/kg than Froome. Of course, not a word about him.
> 
> Twitter was going crazy until the estimate actually came in for Froome.* All under 6 watts/kg. *Not even in the unprincipled 'suspicious' category.


Thank you for being at least a little bit sane. Im sure that this will be overlooked and just the time would be studied.


----------



## bballr4567

love4himies said:


> They are doping too. Just in today:
> 
> Jamaican sprinters Asafa Powell, Sherone Simpson test positive | Other Sports | Sports | Toronto Sun


Seven years after he breaks the record is proof he did it long ago? Man, gotta be tough in your family if you steal the last corn on the cob.


----------



## pedalruns

bballr4567 said:


> I've already posted the 2009 Giro results. I could go after the 2010 Giro and TdF but Im sure we would see a similar performance of the ITT and most mountain stages.
> 
> 
> Pedalruns, show me PROOF that he cheated with a banned substance. I went back and read the report on why he was DQ'd in the Giro. He held onto the motorbike because he was done. He also had an injury to his knee.


Excuse me...I didn't say he cheated with a banned substance???? He held on to a motorbike, that is cheating, against the rules.. thus he was DQ'd.... If he was done he should have got into the team car. 

BTW I want to believe Froome is clean.. I just see the writing on the walls, sorry this is just my opinion.. I respect yours that you think he is clean, many people believed other riders were clean as well for years.. Hopefully we will never see him on the English version of Oprah in about 10 years.


----------



## Fireform

stevesbike said:


> speaking of statistics, there was a 1.3% variance in the estimate of time today for the last 15.65 km. The difference between the top 10 fastest times is 1.6%. Veetoo (the Finnish guy) bases the estimate off Google earth street view etc. Ross Tucker claims 3% margin of error for the VAM model, but this is not a validated measure. The parameter uncertainty is far larger than 3%. Even a jersey zipped vs. an open one can account for a large enough error to trivialize the estimates. Further, relative peformance (the top time list) is insensitive to environmental variations - today was a tailwind mostly and Froome was part of a large group until 7k. Quintano was a bit slower but was on his own for 14km, so actually would have a higher watts/kg than Froome. Of course, not a word about him.
> 
> Twitter was going crazy until the estimate actually came in for Froome. All under 6 watts/kg. Not even in the unprincipled 'suspicious' category.


If there was a tailwind, why were the Dutchmen chasing Froome talking about the headwind they were fighting all the way? 

I recommend this to you, from the Science of Sport webpage:

View attachment 284132


Guess where Froome plots?


----------



## bballr4567

pedalruns said:


> Excuse me...I didn't say he cheated with a banned substance???? He held on to a motorbike, that is cheating, against the rules.. thus he was DQ'd.... If he was done he should have got into the team car.


I still fail to see how this shows he is doping. Are you suggesting that because he held onto the motorbike that he is capable of cheating? 


I want to believe he is clean too but the fact that we havent even had a whiff of him using banned substances (unlike LA who had numerous tests swept clean but there was tons of noise) I have to believe he is innocent until proven guilty. As I said though, in here, its guilty and then if you never test positive you are still guilty but just not that guilty. 


Plus, look at the LA tragectoy up the pro ranks for the TdF. WD, WD, 36, WD, cancer, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 23. THAT I find hard to believe and did when it was happening.


----------



## jorgy

bballr4567 said:


> Look at track. The 100m record has been broken 7 times in the last ten years.


Yes, let's look at 100m. Looks like Tyson Gay and Asafa Powell both got popped, LOL.


----------



## bocksta

Froome showing that high cadence still wins the TDF. Got to love it.


----------



## The Tedinator

bballr4567 said:


> I have taken a stats class. Im pretty sure I got an A in it.
> 
> Again, why does this mediocre stuff about Froome keep popping up? He has always preformed good in mountain and ITT stages since he turned pro. If you dont believe what I have already posted go look it up for yourself. Its not like he was coming in 90th and suddenly started winning. He climbed through a field that he was mostly better than from the beginning.


I have "looked it up for myself". Try this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEGpv0xn0E8

Please note the video at 7:20 in. It shows Simon Gerrans dropping your hero like a bad habit. Make sure you keep watching until at least 8:20 in, when Froome starts "paper boying" from side to side to keep from freaking falling off!

Let me give you a hint re: internet trolling. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.


----------



## The Tedinator

There seems to be about 6 pages of on again, off again posts re: Quintana.

The title of this thread is concerning Chris Froome. If we started a Quintana thread, it would be about 4 posts long. "Anyone think Quintana is clean?" Followed by four posts saying, "Nope."
Maybe Movistar needs to hire some internet interns to come in here like the Sky Fanbois, and before them the Postal fanbois, and obfuscate the conversation.


----------



## pedalruns

bballr4567 said:


> I still fail to see how this shows he is doping. Are you suggesting that because he held onto the motorbike that he is capable of cheating?
> 
> 
> I want to believe he is clean too but the fact that we havent even had a whiff of him using banned substances (unlike LA who had numerous tests swept clean but there was tons of noise) I have to believe he is innocent until proven guilty. As I said though, in here, its guilty and then if you never test positive you are still guilty but just not that guilty.
> 
> 
> Plus, look at the LA tragectoy up the pro ranks for the TdF. WD, WD, 36, WD, cancer, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 23. THAT I find hard to believe and did when it was happening.


Yes that shows he is capable of cheating imo...

And I want to believe too.. and maybe he is clean and yes there is not any stories of him turning up with back dated dr. notes, etc... BUT imo he has turned it around pretty fast, he didn't really have great results up until a couple of years ago.. (see my previous posts on his results)  That is just how I see his past results which doesn't translate into tour champions.. imo. 

89th in the tour in 2010, in the Giro in 09 he was 38th and in 2010 he was DQ' not really what I call the next tour champion material? 

And really I hope I'm wrong and you are correct. But hey this is why we have a doping forum.. to talk about it.


----------



## bballr4567

Lmao! Now I'm a troll and sky fanboi. Yea, that is the argument you really want to post about? I merely brought up Quintana because he is a pure climber so it's ok to destroy times on Mont V. because he is a midget and has had instant results in his first TdF. 

Hell, I'm a Euskaltel fan for crikes sakes. 

Sorry for being critical of the thinking of the doping forum. 

Pedal, no, he hasn't had great GC results but reading between the lines and you can see he has good results in the ITT for sure and decent results in mountain stages. We can agree that Barloworld really wasn't a good development team.


----------



## DIRT BOY

The world is laughing at cycling today if the heads of cycling this the sport and the yellow jersey is clean. Froome dropped droppers like he would drop any of us! Again, stats don't lie and neither does his ride today with your own eyes!

LMFAO when I saw 3 sprinters getting popped today! Maybe the only sport outside if cycling and football & swimming that are dirtier. Then again folks, sports is full if dopers including GOLF! From the beginning of sport till the day it disappears.


----------



## The Tedinator

Did you watch that video? Do you have any more comments about "mediocre stuff" re: Froome? No one is making stuff up. The guy has come from nowhere. Even Johan Brailsford was unwilling to give him more than 100,000 Euros to resign with Sky before the 2011 Vuelta.


----------



## masont

robdamanii said:


> Compared to last year where he was shredding the peloton a la Richie Porte? NFW he's the same rider he was last year.


Are you disagreeing with the fact that I posted, or the assumption of what I meant that you invented?


----------



## The Tedinator

http://www.up-shack.com/assets/up/10866121d68f8b9af608cb16b440c8b4.swf

Says it all, doesn't it?


----------



## CheapTrek

Oldermileeater said:


> I'd be willing to bet with so much speculation these days, those who see my cycling performance will say I am doping because I am a 52 year old. I'm supposed to be over-the-hill, but I in fact DO ride 6+ hours a day in the hilly Piedmont averaging 17 - 18 MPH.


Well... You're either doping or a mutant... or possibly an old mutant doper. 

That said, I think I love you. 

Ride until you run out of legs.


----------



## Slartibartfast

The Tedinator said:


> Did you watch that video? Do you have any more comments about "mediocre stuff" re: Froome? No one is making stuff up. The guy has come from nowhere. Even Johan Brailsford was unwilling to give him more than 100,000 Euros to resign with Sky before the 2011 Vuelta.


GREAT video! Wow, I had no idea...

BTW, just before I read your post I was thinking exactly the same about bballr -- has to be a Sky shill. I have to admit, though, whenever anyone attacked Lance in 2000, 2001 or so, I was at their throat. Then I learned what to look for...


----------



## bballr4567

The Tedinator said:


> Did you watch that video? Do you have any more comments about "mediocre stuff" re: Froome? No one is making stuff up. The guy has come from nowhere. Even Johan Brailsford was unwilling to give him more than 100,000 Euros to resign with Sky before the 2011 Vuelta.


Did you look up his ITT times? They were damn respectable for being brand new in the pro ranks. If you cant see that then you are blinded by your ambition to find dopers. If we are using videos from 2009 showing iffy results to show guilt than you need to look at his good results to show innocence. Of course, we cant do that in the doping forum because everybody is guilty. Then, do you REALLY, REALLY think that Barloworld is a team where a young rider can develop? 


Like I said, Im not Sky fan. I think they make the TdF quite boring and they are no fun to watch. Im a Euskaltel and BMC fan. I have absolutely no hope in tours for a few years to come.

What I DO find funny is that its ONLY Sky the majority of doping forum posters go after. How many riders today were in the top 10 of Mont V. climbs today? 3, 4?


----------



## cda 455

The Tedinator said:


> I have "looked it up for myself". Try this:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEGpv0xn0E8
> 
> Please note the video at 7:20 in. It shows Simon Gerrans dropping your hero like a bad habit. Make sure you keep watching until at least 8:20 in, when Froome starts "paper boying" from side to side to keep from freaking falling off!
> 
> Let me give you a hint re: internet trolling. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.


Um. Can you say, "Cracked?!" :eek6:


He didn't even finish in the top 10 on that stage.

Froome went from pacing with Gerrans to full-on exploded. Usually it's keeping up to 'F' it, I'll just ride at my own pace and cut my loss'.


Thanks for sharing the clip.


----------



## cda 455

Slartibartfast said:


> GREAT video! Wow, I had no idea...
> 
> BTW, just before I read your post I was thinking exactly the same about bballr -- has to be a Sky shill. I have to admit, though, whenever anyone attacked Lance in 2000, 2001 or so, I was at their throat. Then I learned what to look for...


Yep. I was a huge LA fanboi too.


It got more and more difficult to believe LA until the Oct. surprise bomb went off.

I just wished that doping was his only offense. But the MF'er was very efficient at character assassinations as well :mad5: . And that is why I despise him so much now.

His own mother, from early on, thinks he's a complete A-hole. What does that tell you about him?


----------



## SFTifoso

IMO this is an arms race, where teams have the incentive to hire the best scientist/doctors, but the UCI just doesn't seem to care. The UCI needs to hire brilliant minds on the science of sports, but instead they have a bunch of techs who can only read graphs.


----------



## RTSO2112

Froome
Once out of the womb
you saw the bloom
and heard the vrrroooom
with a sonic boom
he cleared the room
(even Lars Boom)
Then, with lots of gloom
and plenty of doom
he brought out the broom
and cleaned up on Mount Vontomb
Now off to Khartoum!


----------



## cda 455

RTSO2112 said:


> Froome
> Once out of the womb
> you saw the bloom
> and heard the vrrroooom
> with a sonic boom
> he cleared the room
> (even Lars Boom)
> Then, with lots of gloom
> and plenty of doom
> he brought out the broom
> and cleaned up on Mount Vontomb
> Now off to Khartoum!


:lol:


Now sing it to the tune of 'Everyday is like Sunday'  !


----------



## Cableguy

The most disturbing thing to me about this is how adamant team Sky has been about being clean... some of the stuff that has come out of the mouths of their riders and team officials is the type of stuff you can't come back from. The, "I swear by the grave of my mother and my children that I'm not cheating or using drugs. How could I live with myself if I did? What would I tell my kids?" type stuff... it's disgusting how people can be so two faced and crooked. 

Yes, maybe they're telling the truth but seriously, the probability that they're riding completely clean and dominating against other teams who *are* doping is just about 0. Do you really think I'm that stupid?


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

Cableguy said:


> The most disturbing thing to me about this is how adamant team Sky has been about being clean... some of the stuff that has come out of the mouths of their riders and team officials is the type of stuff you can't come back from. The, "I swear by the grave of my mother and my children that I'm not cheating or using drugs. How could I live with myself if I did? What would I tell my kids?" type stuff... it's disgusting how people can be so two faced and crooked.
> 
> Yes, maybe they're telling the truth but seriously, the probability that they're riding completely clean and dominating against other teams who *are* doping is just about 0. Do you really think I'm that stupid?


Simple answer then.. the other teams aren't doping.

You guys are making wild assumptions based on wild assumptions that are based on wild assumptions.

So you come out with conclusions that make no sense, only based on three sets of unrealistic assumptions.


----------



## AJL

To those now defending Froome. You do realize that you sounds just like the LA supporters of the past (and I was one of them initially**). We are being fed the same type of disinformation from team Sky as we were from US Postal, etc. Lost weight, special training, cancer taught him to endure more pain, etc. They all turned out to be convenient excuses used to sell a lie. If you watch the English speaking broadcasts with Phil and Paul, your hear them happily regurgitating the SKY propaganda as to how and why Froome or Porte performing on a given day. Perfectly orchestrated just like it was with US Postal/Discovery, etc. In the past with LA there were threads upon threads year after year arguing all the finer points of human performance science from every angle. It all proved pointless in the end.

If you look at the time gaps to the other GC contenders/dopers, it's pretty much like the LA days. The similarities are startling (smash your competition when you first get to the mountains, pad you advantage in the ITTs). We've gone through this in the 90's (Festina, et al), in the 2000's (LA in particular, plus a host of others with standouts like Landis and Contador) and now we are going trough it again with SKY starting with Wiggans and Froome. You can learn from history now, or eventually have it all blow up sometime in the future. There's no out here. The other GC guys haven't figured out how to dope higher w/o getting caught with the increased scrutiny they are getting in the aftermath of LA affair. Sky has, simple as that. To quote one of my favorite recent Sci-Fi series, BSG (yeah, they stole it, but so what) "This has all happened before and it will all happen again".






** I briefly withdrew myself as a member or RBR for personal reasons, my original join date is a few years earlier than shown.


----------



## The Tedinator

ALIHISGREAT said:


> Simple answer then.. the other teams aren't doping.
> 
> You guys are making wild assumptions based on wild assumptions that are based on wild assumptions.
> 
> So you come out with conclusions that make no sense, only based on three sets of unrealistic assumptions.


Let me ask you this: You think Sky is clean. Great!

Why are you in here with the rest of us bone idle wan*ers, arguing then? Leave us to our Tin Foil hats and be off to the Pro Racing forum, with the rest of the gushing, gullible masses.


----------



## love4himies

jorgy said:


> Yes, let's look at 100m. Looks like Tyson Gay and Asafa Powell both got popped, LOL.


And Sherome Simpson of Jamaica.


----------



## Bluenote

Interesting article on Froome / Sky's performance. 

The text of the article isn't so interesting, but the context is. Basically a major cycling publication, at the height of the Tour, saying 'is this performance bullshit?'

Commentary: Is Chris Froome just too good to be true?


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

The Tedinator said:


> Let me ask you this: You think Sky is clean. Great!
> 
> Why are you in here with the rest of us bone idle wan*ers, arguing then? Leave us to our Tin Foil hats and be off to the Pro Racing forum, with the rest of the gushing, gullible masses.


Everyone likes a bit of healthy debate from time to time.

Anyway, someone has to stop you guys from going _completely_ insane


----------



## roddjbrown

Has anyone got a link to decent power estimations from Ventoux? I'd be interested to see if Froome was in fact below 6 W/kg (in which case the only explanation is that every other climber accidentally ate concrete for breakfast) or whether he was pushing more like 6.7.

As it goes, the only possible thing I can think of that supports Sky being clean is that this looks so blatant it's almost beyond the too-good-to-be-true logic.


----------



## skinewmexico

I so want to think Froome is clean, and he looked like a bad a** last year too. But then I remember Balco, and wonder if all we need is an almost empty syringe dropped in the bag of someone from the WADA.


----------



## love4himies

Time for damage control:

Froome to disclose cycling team?s training secrets in wake of doping questions - The Globe and Mail



> dismayed by repeated questions about doping, the team of Tour de France leader Chris Froome volunteered on Monday to open up to independent scrutiny all of its training secrets to try to prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that the Briton and his teammates are riding clean.





> Froome batted away any comparison to Armstrong, saying: “To compare me with Lance, I mean, Lance cheated. I’m not cheating. End of story.”





> He suggested the World Anti-Doping Agency could help by appointing an expert who could pore over every facet of Froome’s preparations for the Tour he’s now leading by more than four minutes, with just six stages left to the finish in Paris.
> 
> This expert “can have everything that we’ve got. They can come and live with us, they can have all of our information, they can see all of our data, they can have access to every single training file,” as well Sky riders’ blood readings, weight and power data, he said.


----------



## roddjbrown

love4himies said:


> Time for damage control:
> 
> Froome to disclose cycling team?s training secrets in wake of doping questions - The Globe and Mail


These promises to lay everything bare have come before - and yet Brailsford is also saying he won't release power numbers.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

roddjbrown said:


> These promises to lay everything bare have come before - and yet Brailsford is also saying he won't release power numbers.


Brailsford is saying he won't release the numbers to the public... so the idiotic pseudo-scientists who are currently trying to ruin the sport don't do any further damage. Because that's what this is all about.. a few self-important twitter accounts quoting wild guesses at power figures and saying "oohh, ahhh, this assumption, that assumption, *but its pretty damning and doesn't look good*"

he has suggested handing everything over to WADA though.. and experts who actually know how to interpret the combination of all the data provided... although I guess then you guys would assume Sky had paid them to keep their mouth shut or something?


----------



## J24

roddjbrown said:


> These promises to lay everything bare have come before - and yet Brailsford is also saying he won't release power numbers.


Dave Brailsford's got a real problem cause he knows that no one's going to be satisfied unless they get complete access to all of Sky's records, and from his recent statements its pretty obvious he wont allow that.

Keep in mind that Brailsford has a lot more at stake here than Sky's 2012 and 13 Tour winners, on an international level there are the 8 or more Olympic medals that the UK track team won when Brailsford coached them.


----------



## JoelS

When push comes to shove do you honestly believe they'd allow that in the run up to next year's Tour? Once we get past Today, they won't be touching the stuff anymore for this race as it's no longer needed. We can't time travel back and put that type of scrutiny on the prep for this year.


----------



## Local Hero

Commentary: Is Chris Froome just too good to be true?
^How do journalists get away with that? More than half of the article is repeating unsourced accusations from the echochamber of twitter. When did journalism degenerate to repeating rumors? So many weasel words! That article parallels the slander they posted on Freddie Rodriguez. 

Velonews is trash. 



This one is a little better. 
_Brailsford also challenged journalists to put their heads together and come up with ideas about what Team Sky could do to prove “beyond reasonable doubt that we’re not doing anything.”

“You tell me what would prove it for you, what could we do so that you wouldn’t have to ask me the question?” Brailsford said. “Instead of saying, ‘Dave, how are you going to prove to us you’re not doping?’ which isn’t the greatest question to ask, why not think collectively, what would be the best methodology possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that we and Chris aren’t doping?”

“I’m not sure I’ve got the answer to that. But I think collectively if we thought about it maybe we could come up with an answer.”_



No matter what it will be ... *INCONCLUSIVE*. 

-Froome's blood values will not show depressed reticulocyte production immediately following a spike in RBC count. 

-Froome's power files will indicate riding at the absolute limits of human ability, better than anyone else this year. This is to be expected, as he beat everyone else. 

Will anyone be happy? 

(Actually, Wiggans will be happy as the scrutiny will be passed on.)


----------



## aclinjury

Ever since the Vuelta, Froome and Contador look like completely different riders in the sense that they've switched place. Froome today is like the old Contador 2-3 years ago (when the later is most likely to be doped up pretty good), and Contadore today is like the old Froome 2-3 years ago.

Now both of these guys are about the same age. At this level, both probably train just as hard, using probably mostly the same coaching techniques.

So how do you explain such a discrepancy in performance. You can't seriously tell me that one rider is peaking while the other is declining based on their natural age progression because their age difference doesn't justify it. At this stage in their career and at their age, a "superstar" rider like Contador doesn't become a so-so but above average rider overnight, and a so-so above average rider like Froome doesn't become a superstar performer overnight.. litterally within a year.

It's not much different than asking a 100m track sprint vetran to consistently cut his time off by 0.3 sec within a period of 1 year. If you run a 10.0 sec, you don't just run 9.7 next year. And if you run 9.7 sec, you don't suddenly run 10.0 slow next year (barring any injury). It just doesn't happen naturally without the dope factor.

The only explanation left if the doping. Contador either stopped or tone down his dope program greatly, and/or at the same time Froome is upping his dope program greatly. The only thing left to really wonder about is how is Froome and Sky are able to go undetected? This is what Armstrong experience has taught us, no?


----------



## roddjbrown

J24 said:


> Dave Brailsford's got a real problem cause he knows that no one's going to be satisfied unless they get complete access to all of Sky's records, and from his recent statements its pretty obvious he wont allow that.
> 
> Keep in mind that Brailsford has a lot more at stake here than Sky's 2012 and 13 Tour winners, on an international level there are the 8 or more Olympic medals that the UK track team won when Brailsford coached them.


Buddy, as a brit let me tell you, the track team has won a lot more than 8 medals

And Alihisgreat, since you seem to think I'm someone determined to denigrate sky's reputation - I would like nothing more than for Sky to be clean, precisely because of the implications for the track team. Brailsford isn't just hiding this from pseudo-scientists, have a look at what happened when Kimmage was due to follow Sky in 2010


----------



## DrSmile

Does anyone know the specifics of British anti-doping laws? It would strike me as incredibly convenient if the British anti-doping laws were currently very lax compared to other European countries.

Never mind, I figured as much...

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...tion/UK_Anti_Doping_Legislation_Sept_2010.pdf


----------



## roddjbrown

DrSmile said:


> Does anyone know the specifics of British anti-doping laws? It would strike me as incredibly convenient if the British anti-doping laws were currently very lax compared to other European countries.


They were actually more severe in a sporting sense - a failure meant a lifetime Olympic ban (hence Millar's absence for so many years) - before this was overturned in court


----------



## The Tedinator

roddjbrown,

Have you modified your view re: Sky and their "program"? I seem to remember you as a staunch Sky defender previously. 

Do I have you mistaken for someone else? If not, what changed for you, if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## roddjbrown

The Tedinator said:


> roddjbrown,
> 
> Have you modified your view re: Sky and their "program"? I seem to remember you as a staunch Sky defender previously.
> 
> Do I have you mistaken for someone else? If not, what changed for you, if you don't mind me asking?


Sort of. I didn't so much defend Sky previously as argued against applying flawed logic (not just to Sky but to any as yet unproven doper) as some sort of evidence of wrongdoing. As it goes, I didn't think when I was watching it that last year's tour was necessarily as clearly doped as a lot of people on this forum made out (and I suspect that's what you're thinking of in terms of my views). I suppose that looks like I'm not prepared to question Wiggins but I am Froome but for me personally, whilst not exactly a classic for viewers, I didn't see a lot last year at the time that necessarily indicated doping.

I suppose what makes me a lot more sceptical this year is two fold - Firstly there's the obvious exceptional performances of both Porte and Froome. I was less shocked by Wiggins last year because his track success at least proved (provided he was clean on the track) that he had the commitment levels and aerobic abilities to be an exceptional endurance athlete. I could possibly believe they were clean if that's all it was - I could square it away by their bigger budgets, better support etc. etc. 

However, secondly, and definitely more concerning for me, is that Porte seems to be cut from a very similar template to Froome who in turn seems to be cut from a very similar template to Wiggins. I am less shocked by exceptional climbing or a great TT and more worried by the fact that Sky seem to have the ability to reapply the formula from one rider to another. Theoretically you could say that they'll train them the same and therefore you'll see the same rider style but to take three riders in a row and to turn them into both climbing and TT specialists seems more likely to be chemically induced than trained.


----------



## J24

If Sky is dirty and unfortunately by implication UK Cycling, then all of the blame should fall on Sir Dave Brailsford, he designed the programs, hired the people to implement them, and introduced his riders to it.
I very much doubt that anything can happen at Sky without Sir Dave having the final word.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

roddjbrown said:


> Buddy, as a brit let me tell you, the track team has won a lot more than 8 medals
> 
> And Alihisgreat, since you seem to think I'm someone determined to denigrate sky's reputation - I would like nothing more than for Sky to be clean, precisely because of the implications for the track team. Brailsford isn't just hiding this from pseudo-scientists, have a look at what happened when Kimmage was due to follow Sky in 2010


I'm not sure what stance to take on Kimmage - he just seems famous for calling LA a "cancer" on the sport which took balls, but didn't really achieve anything?

But if Wiggins had a personal problem with Kimmage then I wouldn't blame him for not wanting him there. 


and @roddjbrown

you don't get suspicious if a sports team goes out and buys three good players in any other sport.. so why should it be suspicious to buy three strong riders in cycling?

Sky did the testing, they have the numbers, and they spent their money based on rider potential. There is no 'magic formula' to turn a donkey into a racehorse (even dope couldn't do that!).. its about finding the right riders and paying their wages. Something which Sky are good at doing.


----------



## spade2you

ALIHISGREAT said:


> Sky did the testing, they have the numbers, and they spent their money based on rider potential. There is no 'magic formula' to turn a donkey into a racehorse (even dope couldn't do that!).. its about finding the right riders and paying their wages. Something which Sky are good at doing.


Yeah, US Postal made those claims, too. 

UK Postal it is.


----------



## The Tedinator

ALIHISGREAT,
Could you point me in the right direction indicating that Froome had this kind of potential before 2011? IIRC, Sky was offering him a low ball amount to stay with the team, until his Vuelta performance.

I also would respectfully disagree about donkey into a racehorse also. See Bjarne Riis. Before he became 'Mr. 60%" he was a donkey.


----------



## Corsaire

AJL said:


> To those now defending Froome. You do realize that you sounds just like the LA supporters of the past (and I was one of them initially**). We are being fed the same type of disinformation from team Sky as we were from US Postal, etc. Lost weight, special training, cancer taught him to endure more pain, etc. They all turned out to be convenient excuses used to sell a lie. If you watch the English speaking broadcasts with Phil and Paul, your hear them happily regurgitating the SKY propaganda as to how and why Froome or Porte performing on a given day. Perfectly orchestrated just like it was with US Postal/Discovery, etc. In the past with LA there were threads upon threads year after year arguing all the finer points of human performance science from every angle. It all proved pointless in the end.
> 
> If you look at the time gaps to the other GC contenders/dopers, it's pretty much like the LA days. The similarities are startling (smash your competition when you first get to the mountains, pad you advantage in the ITTs). We've gone through this in the 90's (Festina, et al), in the 2000's (LA in particular, plus a host of others with standouts like Landis and Contador) and now we are going trough it again with SKY starting with Wiggans and Froome. You can learn from history now, or eventually have it all blow up sometime in the future. There's no out here. The other GC guys haven't figured out how to dope higher w/o getting caught with the increased scrutiny they are getting in the aftermath of LA affair. Sky has, simple as that. To quote one of my favorite recent Sci-Fi series, BSG (yeah, they stole it, but so what) "This has all happened before and it will all happen again". ** I briefly withdrew myself as a member or RBR for personal reasons, my original join date is a few years earlier than shown.



Exactly. I'd just add let's not forget the doping business (yes, it is a business) is also about money and power, and SKY is the team who's currently got it, money to have access to it and the power (connections) to get away with it. But it is also about image. The last thing theTDF organizers and cycling officials want right now is another scandal, at least not just yet. Long live TDF!

Walks like duck, craps like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck!


----------



## DrSmile

J24 said:


> If Sky is dirty and unfortunately by implication UK Cycling, then all of the blame should fall on Sir Dave Brailsford, he designed the programs, hired the people to implement them, and introduced his riders to it.
> I very much doubt that anything can happen at Sky without Sir Dave having the final word.


To be fair, with Lance everybody thought the same of Chris Carmichael, who apparently had nothing whatsoever to do with actually "training" Lance. The same could be happening at Sky. Do I believe this "head in the sand" defense ? No not really but it is remotely possible.


----------



## Local Hero

Everyone talks about how Sky has the money to pay for a doping regimen. 

Has anyone looked to Sky's financials for telltale signs of doping?


----------



## spade2you

Doping forum drink rule #37. Claiming Sky is clean for a reasons that US Postal once used: take 3 drinks do jazz hands.


----------



## Ventruck

Random reminder
Bike Pure removes Froome from its website ahead of Tour

There were no accusations, but Froome+Sky didn't really bother with them anymore...


...FOR SOME REASON


----------



## bballr4567

Ventruck said:


> Random reminder
> Bike Pure removes Froome from its website ahead of Tour
> 
> There were no accusations, but Froome+Sky didn't really bother with them anymore...
> 
> 
> ...FOR SOME REASON


Im a little confused. I have heard of Bike Pure before but I've never really checked out their site too much. Well, I went over there and I checked out a few pros and I cant find any power numbers for any one. Do the riders provide the numbers for the website owners who than conclude they are doping?

Also, if Sky is under scrutiny for not being a part of them, I didnt find any other teams from the TdF that are pledging to be drug free on there either. Maybe Im just not seeing it.


----------



## aclinjury

roddjbrown said:


> Sort of. I didn't so much defend Sky previously as argued against applying flawed logic (not just to Sky but to any as yet unproven doper) as some sort of evidence of wrongdoing. As it goes, I didn't think when I was watching it that last year's tour was necessarily as clearly doped as a lot of people on this forum made out (and I suspect that's what you're thinking of in terms of my views). I suppose that looks like I'm not prepared to question Wiggins but I am Froome but for me personally, whilst not exactly a classic for viewers, I didn't see a lot last year at the time that necessarily indicated doping.
> 
> I suppose what makes me a lot more sceptical this year is two fold - Firstly there's the obvious exceptional performances of both Porte and Froome. I was less shocked by Wiggins last year because his track success at least proved (provided he was clean on the track) that he had the commitment levels and aerobic abilities to be an exceptional endurance athlete. I could possibly believe they were clean if that's all it was - I could square it away by their bigger budgets, better support etc. etc.
> 
> However, secondly, and definitely more concerning for me, is that Porte seems to be cut from a very similar template to Froome who in turn seems to be cut from a very similar template to Wiggins. I am less shocked by exceptional climbing or a great TT and more worried by the fact that Sky seem to have the ability to reapply the formula from one rider to another. Theoretically you could say that they'll train them the same and therefore you'll see the same rider style but to take three riders in a row and to turn them into both climbing and TT specialists seems more likely to be chemically induced than trained.



It's not just the Wiggins/Froome/Porte template.

Look at Rogers too. Superdomestique like while on Sky. He left Sky and now looks more normal. Can't say Rogers suddenly forget how to train like a pro.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

The Tedinator said:


> ALIHISGREAT,
> Could you point me in the right direction indicating that Froome had this kind of potential before 2011? IIRC, Sky was offering him a low ball amount to stay with the team, until his Vuelta performance.
> 
> I also would respectfully disagree about donkey into a racehorse also. See Bjarne Riis. Before he became 'Mr. 60%" he was a donkey.


I think this is a good write up - Froome's Thoughts: Chris Froome & Doping

the guy basically explains why Froome was at a disadvantage in his early career, and why he developed at Sky. Although he had some decent results in GT stages previous to sky too, decent ITT placings etc. Its a shame he had to DQ in the Giro 2010 because that might have given us a better idea had he not been injured. 

But basically Bilharzia, and late development (for various reasons - not including doping!) explain a lack of outstanding results pre-2011.


----------



## Local Hero

aclinjury said:


> It's not just the Wiggins/Froome/Porte template.
> 
> Look at Rogers too. Superdomestique like while on Sky. He left Sky and now looks more normal. Can't say Rogers suddenly forget how to train like a pro.


How did Rogers do at the Tour of California?


----------



## King Arthur

Guilty until proven otherwise........


----------



## Slartibartfast

roddjbrown said:


> Sort of. I didn't so much defend Sky previously as argued against applying flawed logic (not just to Sky but to any as yet unproven doper) as some sort of evidence of wrongdoing. As it goes, I didn't think when I was watching it that last year's tour was necessarily as clearly doped as a lot of people on this forum made out (and I suspect that's what you're thinking of in terms of my views). I suppose that looks like I'm not prepared to question Wiggins but I am Froome but for me personally, whilst not exactly a classic for viewers, I didn't see a lot last year at the time that necessarily indicated doping.
> 
> I suppose what makes me a lot more sceptical this year is two fold - Firstly there's the obvious exceptional performances of both Porte and Froome. I was less shocked by Wiggins last year because his track success at least proved (provided he was clean on the track) that he had the commitment levels and aerobic abilities to be an exceptional endurance athlete. I could possibly believe they were clean if that's all it was - I could square it away by their bigger budgets, better support etc. etc.
> 
> However, secondly, and definitely more concerning for me, is that Porte seems to be cut from a very similar template to Froome who in turn seems to be cut from a very similar template to Wiggins. I am less shocked by exceptional climbing or a great TT and more worried by the fact that Sky seem to have the ability to reapply the formula from one rider to another. Theoretically you could say that they'll train them the same and therefore you'll see the same rider style but to take three riders in a row and to turn them into both climbing and TT specialists seems more likely to be chemically induced than trained.


Great post! Genetic doping... they've learned how to clone performance. Seriously, Pete Kennaugh looks to be annointed after Porte....


----------



## 88 rex

Local Hero said:


> Everyone talks about how Sky has the money to pay for a doping regimen.
> 
> Has anyone looked to Sky's financials for telltale signs of doping?


They are funded, at least in part, by the British Government, right?


----------



## spade2you

88 rex said:


> They are funded, at least in part, by the British Government, right?


If that's the case, there is entirely too much delicious irony going on.


----------



## Local Hero

88 rex said:


> They are funded, at least in part, by the British Government, right?


Not sure. 

But if someone is buying drugs then somewhere money is missing.


----------



## roddjbrown

88 rex said:


> They are funded, at least in part, by the British Government, right?


Not sure how that would be true at all, do you have any source?

I suppose that Brailsford will receive some sort of UK Sport funding but that is through the National Lottery. I imagine though that it's immaterial in comparison to what Murdoch puts towards the track and road teams


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

Wiggo and Froome dog in 2009:










Froome looking a bit chunky. Wonder why he's quicker up hill now?


----------



## spade2you

ALIHISGREAT said:


> Froome looking a bit chunky. Wonder why he's quicker up hill now?


He lost 20lbs and maintained the same power. I'm trying to think of where I heard that one before. It escapes me.


----------



## The Tedinator

spade2you said:


> He lost 20lbs and maintained the same power. I'm trying to think of where I heard that one before. It escapes me.


Oooh. I saw what you did there!

Don't forget cadence change too.


----------



## bballr4567

bballr4567 said:


> Im a little confused. I have heard of Bike Pure before but I've never really checked out their site too much. Well, I went over there and I checked out a few pros and I cant find any power numbers for any one. Do the riders provide the numbers for the website owners who than conclude they are doping?
> 
> Also, if Sky is under scrutiny for not being a part of them, I didnt find any other teams from the TdF that are pledging to be drug free on there either. Maybe Im just not seeing it.


After some more digging I found this: 



> Hi Rich, would be more than happy to show you figures and explain in more detail to you what we do. Please drop me an email andy at bikepure.org. Thanks.


Bike pure wont release what they do with the power figures publicly. Irony? I think so.


----------



## spade2you

The Tedinator said:


> Oooh. I saw what you did there!


Good. Cuz I don't think he saw what he did there. I can't tell if people are joking or are simply ignoring the insane amount of similarities of US Postal to Team Sky.


----------



## 88 rex

spade2you said:


> If that's the case, there is entirely too much delicious irony going on.



Maybe I was mistaken, and I guess I don't totally understand how British national sports work............BUT I know someone who helps coach another British national team in a different sport and he says the Sky budget is HUGE. His budget (the person I know) comes from the same source as Sky, at least in part.

How are British national and Olympic teams funded?


----------



## aclinjury

spade2you said:


> He lost 20lbs and maintained the same power. I'm trying to think of where I heard that one before. It escapes me.


let me help out

"I'm sorry that you don't believe..."

oh stop it you already knew dammit


----------



## DrSmile

roddjbrown said:


> They were actually more severe in a sporting sense - a failure meant a lifetime Olympic ban (hence Millar's absence for so many years) - before this was overturned in court


According to this:

www.cyclingnews.com - the world centre of cycling

it was a 2 year ban. It should be noted that this was a ban by British Cycling (basically a UCI suspension), which is completely separate from any anti-doping law which is non-existent in Britain. So essentially there will be no criminal follow through if/once Sky gets "nicked."


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

spade2you said:


> Good. Cuz I don't think he saw what he did there. I can't tell if people are joking or are simply ignoring the insane amount of similarities of US Postal to Team Sky.


I went through this last year I think.. but here are some more similarities to add to your damning evidence:

-They both ride bikes 
-The both use Shimano groupsets
-The both have riders of different nationalities
-They are both big budget teams
-They both eat food (alegedly) 
-They both drink water 
-Both have American riders on the roster
-They both use buses to transport the riders

and the list goes on.


----------



## roddjbrown

DrSmile said:


> According to this:
> 
> www.cyclingnews.com - the world centre of cycling
> 
> it was a 2 year ban. It should be noted that this was a ban by British Cycling (basically a UCI suspension), which is completely separate from any anti-doping law which is non-existent in Britain. So essentially there will be no criminal follow through if/once Sky gets "nicked."


That's the British Cycling ban - not the Olympic ban. They're different bodies


----------



## FTR

ALIHISGREAT said:


> I went through this last year I think.. but here are some more similarities to add to your damning evidence:
> 
> -They both ride bikes
> -The both use Shimano groupsets
> -The both have riders of different nationalities
> -They are both big budget teams
> -They both eat food (alegedly)
> -They both drink water
> -Both have American riders on the roster
> -They both use buses to transport the riders
> 
> and the list goes on.


And they have both publicly stated that they are drug free.
Dont forget that one.


----------



## spade2you

88 rex said:


> Maybe I was mistaken, and I guess I don't totally understand how British national sports work............BUT I know someone who helps coach another British national team in a different sport and he says the Sky budget is HUGE. His budget (the person I know) comes from the same source as Sky, at least in part.
> 
> How are British national and Olympic teams funded?


I haven't the slightest idea about the actual financials. I just think it would be hilarious if we could draw yet another fun comparison of Sky to US Postal.


----------



## DrSmile

roddjbrown said:


> That's the British Cycling ban - not the Olympic ban. They're different bodies


The olympic ban only kept him from competing in the olympics. Not sure how that's a significantly "more severe in a sporting sense" because it doesn't keep him from earning a living. 

So to summarize, British cyclists have nothing to worry about other than a UCI ban. That didn't stop the French, German, or Spanish riders when they didn't have an anti-doping law. If the Brits were serious they'd make it a criminal "offence" and bring down the hammer.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

88 rex said:


> Maybe I was mistaken, and I guess I don't totally understand how British national sports work............BUT I know someone who helps coach another British national team in a different sport and he says the Sky budget is HUGE. His budget (the person I know) comes from the same source as Sky, at least in part.
> 
> How are British national and Olympic teams funded?


UK Sport has a lottery backed "World class performance program" UK Sport - How the funding works

More specifically this page shows the various partners of British Cycling:

British Cycling's Partners

Including Uk Sport, The National lottery, Sky etc.


----------



## roddjbrown

DrSmile said:


> The olympic ban only kept him from competing in the olympics. Not sure how that's a significantly "more severe in a sporting sense" because it doesn't keep him from earning a living.
> 
> So to summarize, British cyclists have nothing to worry about other than a UCI ban. That didn't stop the French, German, or Spanish riders when they didn't have an anti-doping law. If the Brits were serious they'd make it a criminal "offence" and bring down the hammer.


Banning someone for life from the Olympics as well as a 2 year competition ban is more severe than just banning someone from competition for 2 years. It's relatively basic maths but I can walk you through it if needs be.

No arguments on the criminal offence though - Carl Lewis has been campaigning for that for a while.


----------



## Local Hero

*I want a wristband for blood parasites.*



spade2you said:


> He lost 20lbs and maintained the same power. I'm trying to think of where I heard that one before. It escapes me.


Armstrong overcame cancer. 

Froome overcame a blood parasite that hampered his performance by eating his red blood cells.


----------



## Salsa_Lover

Froome being dropped by the same guys he left in the dust on Ventoux...

Just 10 months ago

http://youtu.be/MScq8IltIEs


----------



## love4himies

Salsa_Lover said:


> Froome being dropped by the same guys he left in the dust on Ventoux...
> 
> Just 10 months ago
> 
> the battle continues la vuelta stage 14 2012 rodrigues froome contador - YouTube


It won't load for me to see. Do I need a utube account to view it?


----------



## The Tedinator

Salsa_Lover said:


> Froome being dropped by the same guys he left in the dust on Ventoux...
> 
> Just 10 months ago
> 
> the battle continues la vuelta stage 14 2012 rodrigues froome contador - YouTube


Well, to be fair, he had just dragged Bradley Wiggins all over the mountains of France! He was justifiably a little tired. Even Froomedawg couldn't maintain a peak all year long.

Errrrrrrrr, until this year that is.


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> Commentary: Is Chris Froome just too good to be true?
> ^How do journalists get away with that? More than half of the article is repeating unsourced accusations from the echochamber of twitter. When did journalism degenerate to repeating rumors? So many weasel words! That article parallels the slander they posted on Freddie Rodriguez.
> 
> Velonews is trash.
> 
> 
> 
> This one is a little better.
> _Brailsford also challenged journalists to put their heads together and come up with ideas about what Team Sky could do to prove “beyond reasonable doubt that we’re not doing anything.”
> 
> “You tell me what would prove it for you, what could we do so that you wouldn’t have to ask me the question?” Brailsford said. “Instead of saying, ‘Dave, how are you going to prove to us you’re not doping?’ which isn’t the greatest question to ask, why not think collectively, what would be the best methodology possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that we and Chris aren’t doping?”
> 
> “I’m not sure I’ve got the answer to that. But I think collectively if we thought about it maybe we could come up with an answer.”_
> 
> 
> 
> No matter what it will be ... *INCONCLUSIVE*.
> 
> -Froome's blood values will not show depressed reticulocyte production immediately following a spike in RBC count.
> 
> -Froome's power files will indicate riding at the absolute limits of human ability, better than anyone else this year. This is to be expected, as he beat everyone else.
> 
> Will anyone be happy?
> 
> (Actually, Wiggans will be happy as the scrutiny will be passed on.)


Velo news can get away with it because they wrote it as an "opinion piece" and wrote it as a series of "questions."

Asking questions, even difficult or incendiary ones is part of what journalists do. 

It's fair to say 'hey, in a sport rife with doping, how do we approach amazing performances.' 

Honestly, Id be more concerned if they weren't talking about the elephant in the room.


----------



## Terex

Bluenote said:


> Interesting article on Froome / Sky's performance.
> 
> The text of the article isn't so interesting, but the context is. Basically a major cycling publication, at the height of the Tour, saying 'is this performance bullshit?'
> 
> Commentary: Is Chris Froome just too good to be true?


And Pez Cycling's "A Tale of Two Tours", i.e., Froome and Everyone Else. Talking about how Contador should "pay better attention to his diet" and that Froome looked "Pantaniesque".


----------



## Cableguy

About Sky and their secret power numbers, some food for thought... Wiggins is quoted as stating he averaged 456w for 55 minutes during 2011 Worlds. Pretty sure he was listed as 69kg in 2011. In other words, 456w / 69kg = 6.61 w/kg. That was 2011 mind you, he got even faster in 2012 as seen by his domination that year namely the the Tour/Olympics. Maybe he broke the 7.0 w/kg barrier in 2012...

Maybe Wiggins was wrong, or his oval chain rings threw off the wattage numbers, but you'd think with all the time, money, expertise, heightened training, etc. etc. yadda yadda claimed by Sky that Wiggins would actually know what he's talking about.


----------



## Corsaire

Cableguy said:


> About Sky and their secret power numbers, some food for thought... Wiggins is quoted as stating he averaged 456w for 55 minutes during 2011 Worlds. Pretty sure he was listed as 69kg in 2011. In other words, 456w / 69kg = 6.61 w/kg. That was 2011 mind you, he got even faster in 2012 as seen by his domination that year namely the the Tour/Olympics. Maybe he broke the 7.0 w/kg barrier in 2012...
> 
> Maybe Wiggins was wrong, or his oval chain rings threw off the wattage numbers, but you'd think with all the time, money, expertise, heightened training, etc. etc. yadda yadda claimed by Sky that Wiggins would actually know what he's talking about.


LeMond calls for Froome, others to release power data

LeMond has been sharply critical of performances by modern stars during their respective eras (Lance Armstrong, Alberto Contador), but he held back from accusing today’s best grand tour rider of cheating.

Instead, he said Sky and other teams should release power data to be reviewed by independent panelists in conjunction with blood profiles to add to the biological passport program.

And he didn’t mince words about teams’ reluctance to release that data to experts.

“It’s bullshit. That’s bullshit. Because if you can’t release your watts … they’re doing it right now,” he said of teams reviewing power data following the stage. “They’re looking at it right now, bottom to the top.

LeMond calls for Froome, others to release power data


----------



## robdamanii

masont said:


> Are you disagreeing with the fact that I posted, or the assumption of what I meant that you invented?


The basis of the idea that Rogers is the same as he was last year.

Hint: he's not even close.


----------



## stevesbike

Wiggins actually produces less power for 1 hour than predicted from the critical power plot Andy Coggan produced based on Wiggins 2004 pursuit (which is expected from the power profile of a pursuiter). More generally, the plot showed that his power output was consistent throughout his entire career.

Froome's power on Ventoux was 5.9 watts. This was the same wattage that Ross Tucker said in 2009 Tour was 'encouraging.' 

Conclusion: there is a lot of hype about a dominant rider based on relative performance and a misunderstanding of absolute performance. 

The question everyone should be asking is why are the older, formerly dominant riders suffering so much now? hint: maybe because they were 'selected' on the basis of their response to doping rather than talent alone. 



Cableguy said:


> About Sky and their secret power numbers, some food for thought... Wiggins is quoted as stating he averaged 456w for 55 minutes during 2011 Worlds. Pretty sure he was listed as 69kg in 2011. In other words, 456w / 69kg = 6.61 w/kg. That was 2011 mind you, he got even faster in 2012 as seen by his domination that year namely the the Tour/Olympics. Maybe he broke the 7.0 w/kg barrier in 2012...
> 
> Maybe Wiggins was wrong, or his oval chain rings threw off the wattage numbers, but you'd think with all the time, money, expertise, heightened training, etc. etc. yadda yadda claimed by Sky that Wiggins would actually know what he's talking about.


----------



## bigbadbenny

What Froome needs to do in the coming stages is lose some time, this would disperse the suspicion. We all know he’s got plenty of “Juice” in the tank, but it would tactically be a brilliant move. Then we would write it off as a bad day and he is human after all and the circus will continue.


----------



## AJL

Corsaire said:


> Exactly. I'd just add let's not forget the doping business (yes, it is a business) is also about money and power, and SKY is the team who's currently got it, money to have access to it and the power (connections) to get away with it. But it is also about image. The last thing theTDF organizers and cycling officials want right now is another scandal, at least not just yet. Long live TDF!
> 
> Walks like duck, craps like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck!


Oh yeah, big bucks in doping. Some of it is probably controlled by organized crime. Twice I've read of trucks loaded with EPO being stolen just b/4 the Olympics - what a strange coincidence.


----------



## AJL

spade2you said:


> If that's the case, there is entirely too much delicious irony going on.


Oh yes there is. The monies from the National Lottery are targeted Cycling and one other sport as the main areas GBR would become dominant in again. The incentives on an individual level aren't huge, but for a group, say Track Cycling it's probably quite a bit in total-> UK Sport - How the funding works
Of course, there are other important things in the UK, like peerage, that need to be considered. Sir Brailsford has more than a nice ring to it among the British glitterati.




spade2you said:


> He lost 20lbs and maintained the same power. I'm trying to think of where I heard that one before. It escapes me.


Yes, it's sickening how SKY has just carried on with the US Postal play book with a twist that is giving them an advantage in the current regime. That fact that people can't see this for what it is is making me somewhat ill. But allot of folks have forgotten the massive flame wars of the past such as when UCI report on the 1999 sample retests, identified as LA's, came out.

Maybe I'll just start referring people to post #311 till their heads implode :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## cda 455

Local Hero said:


> Everyone talks about how Sky has the money to pay for a doping regimen.
> 
> Has anyone looked to Sky's financials for telltale signs of doping?


Good question.


And the answer: Sky had a known doping doctor on the payroll the entire season last year. Coincidentally, he was not retained following the Oct. LA surprise at the end of the season.


----------



## RTSO2112

bigbadbenny said:


> What Froome needs to do in the coming stages is lose some time, this would disperse the suspicion. We all know he’s got plenty of “Juice” in the tank, but it would tactically be a brilliant move. Then we would write it off as a bad day and he is human after all and the circus will continue.


He already did that on stage 13...so expect more of it to come. The conspiracy nut in me tells me winners in next week's stages will be manipulated to "dispurse suspicion" on the whole. Like I said earlier in the week, the whole thing is rigged...to a degree. Case in point, Sky was "allowed to feed" on Ventoux (afterward) bc the race organizers moved the goal posts...I am sure they covered their tracks well.


----------



## r1lee

roddjbrown said:


> No arguments on the criminal offence though - Carl Lewis has been campaigning for that for a while.


Of course he has, he's the biggest doper of them all in the track world. What a piece of shi....


----------



## usernametaken

Missed stage 15 on Eurosport and had to catch it with Phil and Paul. According to them - 'Froomestrong's performance shows the world he is clean and has nothing to hide! If he was doping, he wouldn't have made such a standout performance.' 

ROFL what are these guys smoking, and where can I get it??


----------



## Marc

usernametaken said:


> Missed stage 15 on Eurosport and had to catch it with Phil and Paul. According to them - 'Froomestrong's performance shows the world he is clean and has nothing to hide! If he was doping, he wouldn't have made such a standout performance.'
> 
> ROFL what are these guys smoking, and where can I get it??


These are the same two gents who said during Andy Schleck's piss poor ITT "Andy is on really good form".


----------



## Cableguy

stevesbike said:


> Wiggins actually produces less power for 1 hour than predicted from the critical power plot Andy Coggan produced based on Wiggins 2004 pursuit (which is expected from the power profile of a pursuiter). More generally, the plot showed that his power output was consistent throughout his entire career.
> 
> Froome's power on Ventoux was 5.9 watts. This was the same wattage that Ross Tucker said in 2009 Tour was 'encouraging.'
> 
> Conclusion: there is a lot of hype about a dominant rider based on relative performance and a misunderstanding of absolute performance.
> 
> The question everyone should be asking is why are the older, formerly dominant riders suffering so much now? hint: maybe because they were 'selected' on the basis of their response to doping rather than talent alone.


Hmm what's more likely, 

1) Everyone else *except* team Sky all at the same time has become slower due to a huge, widespread, unanimous decrease in doping all across the board and Sky just happens to posses the true world class NATURAL talents to win the TdF, and everyone on their team only coincidentally improves *dramatically* upon joining (through natural means of course)

or

2) Sky has a superior doping program and their GC riders stand out like a sore thumb making everyone else look much weaker.


----------



## David Loving

Sky and Froome? Are you going to believe your lying eyes, or what we tell you?


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

Cableguy said:


> Hmm what's more likely,
> 
> 1) Everyone else *except* team Sky all at the same time has become slower due to a huge, widespread, unanimous decrease in doping all across the board and Sky just happens to posses the true world class NATURAL talents to win the TdF, and everyone on their team only coincidentally improves *dramatically* upon joining (through natural means of course)
> 
> or
> 
> 2) Sky has a superior doping program and their GC riders stand out like a sore thumb making everyone else look much weaker.


errrmm number 1)

although there is no coincidence... and their improvement hasn't been dramatic.. perhaps research a bit more and you'd know this.


----------



## The Tedinator

Welp, praise be god! I have seen the light! Doing a 180 on Froomestrong!

There Is No Reason To Doubt Froome's Performances, Says Contador | Cyclingnews.com

I mean, when Dirty Bertie endorses you, you HAVE to be as clean as the wind driven snow. Not to mention LA tweeting his words of endearment to you.


----------



## JoelS

The Tedinator said:


> Welp, praise be god! I have seen the light! Doing a 180 on Froomestrong!
> 
> There Is No Reason To Doubt Froome's Performances, Says Contador | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> I mean, when Dirty Bertie endorses you, you HAVE to be as clean as the wind driven snow. Not to mention LA tweeting his words of endearment to you.


The only thing that proves is that Omerta is still alive and well.


----------



## EaRp

JoelS said:


> The only thing that proves is that Omerta is still alive and well.



I agree. Omerta is still riding strong in the peloton!


----------



## cda 455

The Tedinator said:


> Welp, praise be god! I have seen the light! Doing a 180 on Froomestrong!
> 
> There Is No Reason To Doubt Froome's Performances, Says Contador | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> I mean, when Dirty Bertie endorses you, you HAVE to be as clean as the wind driven snow. Not to mention LA tweeting his words of endearment to you.



What do you think is his motive for such a statement?


----------



## nOOky

Because Contador has been shooting up at night and he's going to put in a couple of good attacks and jump ahead of Froome, and he is laying the foundation for himself...


----------



## Marc

nOOky said:


> Because Contador has been shooting up at night and he's going to put in a couple of good attacks and jump ahead of Froome, and he is laying the foundation for himself...


We'll finally answer the question, which is better-tainted beef or tainted tea and crumpets?


----------



## cda 455

Marc said:


> We'll finally answer the question, which is better-tainted beef or tainted tea and crumpets?


:lol:


"Could we have Keppers for breakfast; mommy-dear, mommy-dear......!"


----------



## roddjbrown

cda 455 said:


> :lol:
> 
> 
> "Could we have Keppers for breakfast; mommy-dear, mommy-dear......!"


Is Keppers a German sprinter?

Contador is attacking again... looks like the propaganda was planned


----------



## cda 455

roddjbrown said:


> Is Keppers a German sprinter?
> 
> Contador is attacking again... looks like the propaganda was planned


I spelled it wrong.


It's Kipper snacks. 

That line comes from the song, 'Breakfast in America' by Supertramp.


----------



## aclinjury

bigbadbenny said:


> What Froome needs to do in the coming stages is lose some time, this would disperse the suspicion. We all know he’s got plenty of “Juice” in the tank, but it would tactically be a brilliant move. Then we would write it off as a bad day and he is human after all and the circus will continue.


Usually in the top echelon of any sport, only seconds separate the top performers. Aside from Froome, the other GC guys are competive amongst themselves. Usuaslly it's like this for TdF. Just should hold par, hold the lead, not dominate the mountain stages after almost won TT against the world's best time trialist. It's like somebody flipped Froome to "KILLER" mode! Overnight transformation compared to just 6-10 months ago.

Putting everything together, you have Wiggins, now Froome, Porte down the road? And I would put Uran and Rogers in there too (though Rogers has left, and Uran soon to leave). SKY is the limit!


----------



## J24

Interesting that prior to joining Team Sky as a Performance Coach in2009, Tim Kerrison, was a coach with the Australian Olympic Swim Team who've been having their doping problems lately.
Also fellow Aussie swimming coach Dennis Cottrell coached the Chinese Women's Olympic team who were accused of doping their way to gold in 2012.
Cottrell's denials in the media in 2012 sound just like Sir Dave Australian coach defends Chinese swimmer accused of doping - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


----------



## AJL

ALIHISGREAT said:


> errrmm number 1)
> 
> although there is no coincidence... and their improvement hasn't been dramatic.. perhaps research a bit more and you'd know this.


Perhaps, if you understood the history of cycling (over that past 25 years in particular), you'd understand why it is much more likely to be 2). I assume you are young or new to cycling and hence have let most of your naive posts alone. Just realize that cycling is no different from other sports (except that it is the preeminent endurance test) and exceptional performances demand exceptional scrutiny.


----------



## Salsa_Lover

Dave Brailsford was interviewed on France 2 L'après Tour on the specific subject, "Is Froome doping ?"

to the question: how it is possible that he goes so fast ( like a motorcycle ) on the Ventoux, leaving all behind, and if this is not enough reason to be suspicious? 

his answers were :

No, he is not doping
No, his power levels have not increased on the last 3 years
They just have optimized it, focusing his effort on specific skills, like this seated accelerations, and that he is even able to go faster.

He said also they ( Sky ) are ready to disclose all the numbers about the power/cadence/weight/VO2 Max etc of their riders and their methods, but only to a panel of scientists, because they want to keep confidentiality about this.


----------



## love4himies

Is it possible to be doping behind Brailsford's back?


----------



## mpre53

r1lee said:


> Of course he has, he's the biggest doper of them all in the track world. What a piece of shi....


And a world class hypocrite about it, to boot. Pointing fingers at Ben Johnson while he was doped to the gills himself.


----------



## eyebob

Poor Paul and Phil, they have to see the stuff in front of their eyes and just call it...probably all the while rollling their eyes.


----------



## J24

eyebob said:


> Poor Paul and Phil, they have to see the stuff in front of their eyes and just call it...probably all the while rollling their eyes.


I'm getting the impression that they're not buying into the clean Sky B.S. anymore, their usual enthusiasm is beginning to sounding forced.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

J24 said:


> Interesting that prior to joining Team Sky as a Performance Coach in2009, Tim Kerrison, was a coach with the Australian Olympic Swim Team who've been having their doping problems lately.
> Also fellow Aussie swimming coach Dennis Cottrell coached the Chinese Women's Olympic team who were accused of doping their way to gold in 2012.
> Cottrell's denials in the media in 2012 sound just like Sir Dave Australian coach defends Chinese swimmer accused of doping - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)



So Sky are doping because they employ an Australian? Makes sense... good logic. keep fighting the good fight. 

Michele Ferrari is an Italian, so any teams employing an Italian must be doping? Is that how it works?


----------



## spade2you

Meh, riders being dopers or not, I simply see it their job to simply call the race.


----------



## J24

ALIHISGREAT said:


> So Sky are doping because they employ an Australian? Makes sense... good logic. keep fighting the good fight.
> 
> Michele Ferrari is an Italian, so any teams employing an Italian must be doping? Is that how it works?


I am sooo sorry that was too subtle for you,


----------



## spade2you

AJL said:


> Oh yes there is. The monies from the National Lottery are targeted Cycling and one other sport as the main areas GBR would become dominant in again. The incentives on an individual level aren't huge, but for a group, say Track Cycling it's probably quite a bit in total-> UK Sport - How the funding works
> Of course, there are other important things in the UK, like peerage, that need to be considered. Sir Brailsford has more than a nice ring to it among the British glitterati.


Interesting. 



AJL said:


> Yes, it's sickening how SKY has just carried on with the US Postal play book with a twist that is giving them an advantage in the current regime. That fact that people can't see this for what it is is making me somewhat ill. But allot of folks have forgotten the massive flame wars of the past such as when UCI report on the 1999 sample retests, identified as LA's, came out.
> 
> Maybe I'll just start referring people to post #311 till their heads implode :smilewinkgrin:


LOL, I couldn't tell if they believed it or were being insanely clever/sarcastic. It would seem that they've followed the US Postal play book and made the necessary adjustments. I guess I don't see any reason not to learn from those mistakes and do a better job.


----------



## WeakMite

An 11 minute radio interview with Kimmage posted today. He's got quite a bit to say about Froome and Nicolas Roche.

http://www.newstalk.ie/player/podcasts/Off_The_Ball/Off_The_Ball_Highlights/27339/0/paul_kimmages_tour_report


----------



## black light

What about the illegal feed bags at 20k - what was in those bags!


----------



## RTSO2112

black light said:


> What about the illegal feed bags at 20k - what was in those bags!


They were "deemed" legal after the fact...how convenient!


----------



## FTR

J24 said:


> blah blah blah Australian swim team, blah blah blah


I dont think your understanding of the Australian "doping" is correct either.
Pretty sure none of the AUstralian swim team have been charged or convicted of "doping".
They had taken some prescription tablets (stillnox) at the Beijing Olympics and were reprimanded for their behaviour.
They more got in trouble for their behaviour and for the poor performances that may or may not have resulted from their behaviour.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

Here we go guys, I'm upping the ante and invoking Goodwin's law - I'm applying The Doping Forum logic to other areas.

Certain things have happened in the past - eg. Terrible things in Nazi Germany.

There isn't any evidence that these terrible things are still happening... but we should all be super suspicious of German people, and assume they're still doing it?

Is that how it works?


----------



## roddjbrown

ALIHISGREAT said:


> Here we go guys, I'm upping the ante and invoking Goodwin's law - I'm applying The Doping Forum logic to other areas.
> 
> Certain things have happened in the past - eg. Terrible things in Nazi Germany.
> 
> There isn't any evidence that these terrible things are still happening... but we should all be super suspicious of German people, and assume they're still doing it?
> 
> Is that how it works?


Precisely - have you seen Kittel's blonde hair and blue eyes?


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

roddjbrown said:


> Precisely - have you seen Kittel's blonde hair and blue eyes?


and he's won more Stages than Froome so far this year.. that's awfully suspicious.


----------



## The Tedinator

ALIHISGREAT said:


> and he's won more Stages than Froome so far this year.. that's awfully suspicious.


You are right....it is.

ARD Link Kittel To German Blood Doping Investigation | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## spade2you

The Tedinator said:


> You are right....it is.
> 
> ARD Link Kittel To German Blood Doping Investigation | Cyclingnews.com


Sprinters don't dope.


----------



## The Tedinator

spade2you said:


> Sprinters don't dope.


Especially since 2006!


----------



## Cableguy

The Tedinator said:


> Especially since 2006!


2006, I got a 2006 from Tedinator! 2006! Do I hear a 2007? 2007? 2006 going once... going twice...


----------



## AJL

ALIHISGREAT said:


> So Sky are doping because they employ an Australian? Makes sense... good logic. keep fighting the good fight.
> 
> Michele Ferrari is an Italian, so any teams employing an Italian must be doping? Is that how it works?


Are you purposely being inane or is English a second language for you?


----------



## DrSmile

Regarding black light blood doping, from previous discussions this appeared to merely be a way to legitimize the transfusion equipment being present. In reality it was the transfusions that were utilized for doping, the black light was merely a ruse.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

The Tedinator said:


> You are right....it is.
> 
> ARD Link Kittel To German Blood Doping Investigation | Cyclingnews.com





Any update on that investigation?


----------



## The Tedinator

ALIHISGREAT said:


> Any update on that investigation?


Sorry man. Don't have time to be your research assistant! Just a casual search on cyclingnews gave up this as the last article that they published:

German NADA Asks CAS To Review Black Light Blood Doping Case | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## 55x11

spade2you said:


> Meh, riders being dopers or not, I simply see it their job to simply call the race.


exactly. Their job is to call the race and engaging in wild speculations is not one of them - I am sure sponsors and promoters wouldn't be happy with that. We, on the other hand, can say whatever we want on this forum.


----------



## SFTifoso

Sky has said that they would be willing to let WADA basically live with them. So why doesn't WADA take them up on their offer? WADA is supposed to catch cheaters, but they can also speak for and vouch for honest riders. Froome is a really nice guy, and I would love to believe he's clean, but with our sport's history he and his team should understand why we can't take them up on their word.

If he's really clean, and I were in his place, I would be moving mountains to make sure the world knows I'm clean. But instead all we hear from sky is a bunch of talk. I would've petitioned WADA to live with the sky riders, well before the start of the tour, and throughout the tour.


----------



## cda 455

ALIHISGREAT said:


> Here we go guys, I'm upping the ante and invoking Goodwin's law - I'm applying The Doping Forum logic to other areas.
> 
> Certain things have happened in the past - eg. Terrible things in Nazi Germany.
> 
> There isn't any evidence that these terrible things are still happening... but we should all be super suspicious of German people, and assume they're still doing it?
> 
> Is that how it works?


You are supposedly going to college. Yet this is what you come up with for an argument  ?


The world found out of the Nazi war crimes in 1945.

Over the next 20 years were there any repeat offenses/crimes by said Nazi's?


There is a clear 20 year history of pro cycling in which riders were caught doping both in competition as well as out. In addition, doping paraphernalia were confiscated during raids, etc. 

And there is history to compare pre-EPO performance to current day performances.


Your poast leads me to believe you have absolutely no idea of either the history of post-WWII or the history of pro cycling going back 20 years. Absolutely clueless. 

Are you that intellectually lazy that you didn't think of researching your own point before you poasted?

Or are you just trolling hoping to stir a hornets nest with your vile example for an argument? I think you're just trolling quite frankly.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

Sky have given Froome's power numbers since la Vuelta 2011 to L'Equipe to have a look at










Summary from @inrng on twitter https://twitter.com/inrng



> the Inner Ring ‏@inrng 1h
> 3. his weight's been stable for races and 4. Grappe says he must have excellent powers of recovery. Data go from Vuelta 2011 to Mont Ventoux
> 
> the Inner Ring ‏@inrng 1h
> 2. Sky have never measured his V02 max but Grappe says he must have a score close to the known physiological limits
> 
> the Inner Ring ‏@inrng 1h
> 1. Froome's power curve (W vs time) has a normal slope and his rides in the Tour are consistent with data from last 2 years


Where does this leave the debate? well of course it doesn't mean he isn't doping (eg. how does he keep his weight down? etc.) .. but it is an indication that he is within human physiological limits.

What do you guys think?



Edit: Also after I spent a while slagging off the whole power-estimation thing, apparently the estimates have been reasonably close to the real power data!

Edit 2: Google translate version of L'Equipe article Google Translate version of L?Equipe article on Froome data | Journal Velo


----------



## Marc

Oh look.

Double D'Huez Day...and...[highlight to read spoiler content]

Froome is single-handedly shutting down everyone else's attempts on the first climb.


----------



## Bluenote

Could you edit this to say 'spoiler alert', please? It's just common courtesy.


----------



## Marc

Bluenote said:


> Could you edit this to say 'spoiler alert', please? It's just common courtesy.


Done, now edit your quoting of my post.


----------



## pedalruns

ALIHISGREAT said:


> Sky have given Froome's power numbers since la Vuelta 2011 to L'Equipe to have a look at
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Summary from @inrng on twitter https://twitter.com/inrng
> 
> 
> 
> Where does this leave the debate? well of course it doesn't mean he isn't doping (eg. how does he keep his weight down? etc.) .. but it is an indication that he is within human physiological limits.
> 
> What do you guys think?
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Also after I spent a while slagging off the whole power-estimation thing, apparently the estimates have been reasonably close to the real power data!
> 
> Edit 2: Google translate version of L'Equipe article Google Translate version of L?Equipe article on Froome data | Journal Velo


That don't release anything prior to 2011 so it seems it would be hard to compare anything before his magic rise... 

As an armchair fan I still don't believe.. It is too wierd with Team Sky how they have managed to produce two different tour winners in 2 years (providing Froome doesn't fall off his bike) that totally dominates the field... And not to mention Porte waiting in the shadows with his superhuman performances. 

IMO Cycling has earned the doubters like myself... 

The UCI and the riders (omertra) have SPEWED LIES FOR YEARS and just expected fans to follow like sheep.. Why would I believe it is clean now? I'll still watch the specatale though.


----------



## cda 455

ALIHISGREAT said:


> Sky have given Froome's power numbers since la Vuelta 2011 to L'Equipe to have a look at
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Summary from @inrng on twitter https://twitter.com/inrng
> 
> 
> 
> Where does this leave the debate? well of course it doesn't mean he isn't doping (eg. how does he keep his weight down? etc.) .. but it is an indication that he is within human physiological limits.
> 
> What do you guys think?
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Also after I spent a while slagging off the whole power-estimation thing, apparently the estimates have been reasonably close to the real power data!
> 
> Edit 2: Google translate version of L'Equipe article Google Translate version of L?Equipe article on Froome data | Journal Velo


Very interesting.


This will definitely be looked over with a fine-toothed comb.


Thanks for poasting the link.


----------



## Rip Van Cycle

The feeling that I'm getting is similar to the feeling that I got when Roger Clemens led the National League in ERA at the amazing age of 42. To me, the only plausible recourse was to look sidelong and say "yeah, right..."

Can't prove in a court-of-law that Clemens didn't find what Ponce de León was looking for-- and can't prove in a court-of-law that Froome isn't a naturally-tuned meteoric phenomenon (yet)  ... but experience strongly indicates that skeptics are entitled to their suspicion. 

As has been said many times here, and also in other places, this would be a hell of a race if not for Froome's freakazoid performance. Who knows? Maybe 5-6 years from now, we'll ALL be impelled to recognize that places 2-5 is "the real race."


----------



## DrSmile

Rip Van Cycle said:


> As has been said many times here, and also in other places, this would be a hell of a race if not for Froome's freakazoid performance. Who knows? Maybe 5-6 years from now, we'll ALL be impelled to recognize that places 2-5 is "the real race."


Judging by yesterday's time trial and the time gaps, maybe it's more like places 6-10.


----------



## ghost6

No, I do not think Froome is clean.


----------



## roddjbrown

I don't think Froome is clean. I am however open to the possibility that I may know the square root of nothing about what a clean bike race looks like and am therefore basing this view on nothing more than a gut feeling and some cigarette packet calculations.

Open-minded but sceptical as hell


----------



## FTR

ALIHISGREAT said:


> Sky have given Froome's power numbers since la Vuelta 2011 to L'Equipe to have a look at


Someone pointed out elsewhere that this is the same Dr Grappe that supported Lance when his doping allegations first hit:

www.cyclingnews.com news and analysis


----------



## FTR

pedalruns said:


> As an armchair fan I still don't believe.. It is too wierd with Team Sky how they have managed to produce two different tour winners in 2 years (providing Froome doesn't fall off his bike) that totally dominates the field... And not to mention Porte waiting in the shadows with his superhuman performances.


Reading Porte's Wikepedia info is a good laugh.

Basically did nothing much (compared to the fields).
2011 came 5th in the Aussie National titles.
Joined Sky.
Became Superman, Ironman, The Hulk and Megatron all rolled into one with side serves of The Wolverine, The Flash and The Human Torch .


----------



## Ventruck

Grappe's assessment is so vague period. 

Even if the power _curve_ looks right (I don't know how that was the case for Ventoux), exactly what were the numbers this Tour?


----------



## DrSmile

FTR said:


> Someone pointed out elsewhere that this is the same Dr Grappe that supported Lance when his doping allegations first hit:
> 
> www.cyclingnews.com news and analysis


Great link. That was 2001. 12 years and this douche is still spewing his lies.


----------



## The Tedinator

FTR said:


> Someone pointed out elsewhere that this is the same Dr Grappe that supported Lance when his doping allegations first hit:
> 
> www.cyclingnews.com news and analysis


Awesome link! Maybe they will pass the numbers around to guys like Ashendon(sp?). Still, in the end, they are just numbers. What is needed is a totally independent WADA in charge of the antidoping. Money toward more ABP testing and analysis must be found from somewhere. And by independent I mean the weasels at the UCI are totally out of the picture.


----------



## The Tedinator

This is a huge PR stunt on the part of Johan Brailsford. The question is why release this? It shows desperation. One thing it doesn't show is that Froome is clean. Even a bone idle wanker like me can tell with his naked eye that Froome has been at a very high level since 2011.  I don't need spreadsheets to acertain that.

What is needed is his numbers before 2011. Then Johan Brailsford can start explaining how those numbers went thru the roof.

He also might have made a mistake in who he released these numbers too. Grappe defended Pharmstrong as has been noted above. But even Grappe is saying on twitter:

_@fredgrappe 
Ai-je une seule fois évoqué le fait qu'il n'est pas dopé ? Les données analysées ne permet pas de le dire. Je dois rester très honnête...

@fredgrappe 
La question qu'il faut davantage se poser c'est plutôt de savoir quel était son profil avant 2011 ? Et là, je n'en sait rien...
_
There is a natural translation of this from someone in the Clinic:

_"Have I said one single time that he is not doped? The data analysed do not suffice to reach that conclusion. I must be very honest...

...The question we must ask is: what was his profile before 2011? And I know nothing of that..."_

All Brailsford has done here is fed a bone to the true believers to use in their myth making. Anyone with a brain will see thru this. And the fact that he is this desperate to do it encourages me greatly.


----------



## The Tedinator

I am going to give Johan Brailsford some free advice:

If you start out telling the truth, from the beginning; then you won't have to remember what you said then as opposed to now, or to whom you said it. No stupid blather about the blood parasite and when it was discovered, no unbelievable B.S. about Leinders (hells bells, even a simple google search would have told you all you needed to know), no 180's on what a clean peloton climbing should look like. And you wouldn't look just so stupid when a wanker like me asks; "Dave, really?....All the $$$ Sky has, all the advanced training you have, all the 'marginal gains', and you have no VO2/max test results for the Dawg? He's never been in a wind tunnel until this year? Really?"


----------



## cda 455

The Tedinator said:


> I am going to give Johan Brailsford some free advice:
> 
> If you start out telling the truth, from the beginning; then you won't have to remember what you said then as opposed to now, or to whom you said it. No stupid blather about the blood parasite and when it was discovered, no unbelievable B.S. about Leinders (hells bells, even a simple google search would have told you all you needed to know), no 180's on what a clean peloton climbing should look like. And you wouldn't look just so stupid when a wanker like me asks; "Dave, really?....All the $$$ Sky has, all the advanced training you have, all the 'marginal gains', *and you have no VO2/max test results for the Dawg?* He's never been in a wind tunnel until this year? Really?"


Yeah; Even I picked up on that.


What are the chances of that be accurate? 

Froome having no v02/max test results?


----------



## roddjbrown

cda 455 said:


> Yeah; Even I picked up on that.
> 
> 
> What are the chances of that be accurate?
> 
> Froome having no v02/max test results?


Absolutely nil. Brailsford's approach with the track cycling team starts with measuring the v02 of potential kids. It's how they found Laura Trott amongst others.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

cda 455 said:


> Yeah; Even I picked up on that.
> 
> 
> What are the chances of that be accurate?
> 
> Froome having no v02/max test results?


Actually VO2 max isn't particularly important... and its not really used as a performance metric anymore 

_Jonathan Vaughters
‏@Vaughters
@SSbike no idea. Vo2 max is concept from the 50's. We deal with lactate metabolism and ability to process o2 over long durations._


----------



## Ventruck

ALIHISGREAT said:


> Actually VO2 max isn't particularly important... and its not really used as a performance metric anymore


Are you saying that out of your own informed deductions, or merely assuming Vaughters' argument as true and perhaps undertaking it as your own?


----------



## robdamanii

ALIHISGREAT said:


> Actually VO2 max isn't particularly important... and its not really used as a performance metric anymore
> 
> _Jonathan Vaughters
> ‏@Vaughters
> @SSbike no idea. Vo2 max is concept from the 50's. We deal with lactate metabolism and ability to process o2 over long durations._


Vaughters opinion still has nothing to do with the way British Cycling does things. Nice strawman though.


----------



## qwe213

*Froome doping or not?*

Hej, do you think Froome is doped? 

Listen to the interview from the yesterdays stage: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx293GmX7tUkqKqmmpBOeQQ/videos


----------



## The Tedinator

Sky froome data release to Grappe blatant PR scam ? veloclinic


----------



## usernametaken

I don't analyze race stats, but what is stopping Sky from tampering with the numbers before they release them?


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

Ventruck said:


> Are you saying that out of your own informed deductions, or merely assuming Vaughters' argument as true and perhaps undertaking it as your own?


What?

I've made a statement of fact that I have learned about from various sources (including that quote, anecdotal evidence on other forums etc.), and put in the Vaughters quote to back it up since he has more credibility on the issue than me.

Don't really see a problem with that? After all.. its an internet forum.. not an academic paper I'm writing. 




usernametaken said:


> I don't analyze race stats, but what is stopping Sky from tampering with the numbers before they release them?


Not sure, but I suspect you'd leave evidence somewhere in the data. Eg. with that Strava EPO website you can easily tell by looking at the shape of the performance graphs is someone has boosted their file.


----------



## spade2you

ALIHISGREAT said:


> Not sure, but I suspect you'd leave evidence somewhere in the data. Eg. with that Strava EPO website you can easily tell by looking at the shape of the performance graphs is someone has boosted their file.


Not if you change the calibration of the power meter.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

spade2you said:


> Not if you change the calibration of the power meter.


Not sure if that applies, unless Sky were planning this way back in 2011.


----------



## Cableguy

usernametaken said:


> I don't analyze race stats, but what is stopping Sky from tampering with the numbers before they release them?


Yep, there's no way to know if anything was done to the power data between the time it was downloaded and then handed over. As silly as this sounds, they could simply subtract 20w from every increment of power recorded and no one would have any idea... in the off chance data from a diff team contradicted theirs, don't worry - calibration error. The non-round chain rings are also known for messing with the accuracy of power.


----------



## DrSmile

Watching today's stage... Sky takes three riders + Froome and decimates the peleton, reducing it immediately to 15 riders and virtually instantly wiping out 90 seconds from the leading group. Not normal. NOT NORMAL! How could anyone possibly buy this? I've watched the TDF since Fingon and Hinault, nothing has ever been so obviously suspicious. Yuck!


----------



## stevesbike

guess you missed the stage when Hinault and Lemond simply rode away from the field and had enough of a gap to work out their differences while cruising up Alpe D'huez. Then there was Merckx, who won the yellow, mountains, and points jersey - all in the same Tour. 

Re Cableguy, Grappe said that the Froome files were within 2-3% of his own estimates based on his own power models. 





DrSmile said:


> Watching today's stage... Sky takes three riders + Froome and decimates the peleton, reducing it immediately to 15 riders and virtually instantly wiping out 90 seconds from the leading group. Not normal. NOT NORMAL! How could anyone possibly buy this? I've watched the TDF since Fingon and Hinault, nothing has ever been so obviously suspicious. Yuck!


----------



## DrSmile

stevesbike said:


> guess you missed the stage when Hinault and Lemond simply rode away from the field and had enough of a gap to work out their differences while cruising up Alpe D'huez. Then there was Merckx, who won the yellow, mountains, and points jersey - all in the same Tour.
> 
> Re Cableguy, Grappe said that the Froome files were within 2-3% of his own estimates based on his own power models.


Guess you missed the part I was talking about, where three no-name domestiques dropped everyone except for the climbers. Armstrong, Rasmussen, etc were all singularities, heck even Telekom and US Postal never made it this obvious and they WERE admittedly doping the whole team. Anyone who thinks virtually an entire team can just become top 10 riders in a season is just naive. From this point on anyone I meet on the road or in a shop that tells me Sky is clean I reserve the right to punch them in the face badger style.


----------



## cda 455

stevesbike said:


> guess you missed the stage when Hinault and Lemond simply rode away from the field and had enough of a gap to work out their differences while cruising up Alpe D'huez. Then there was Merckx, who won the yellow, mountains, and points jersey - all in the same Tour.
> 
> Re Cableguy, Grappe said that the Froome files were within 2-3% of his own estimates based on his own power models.



I'm sure Lance and/or Johan has used those examples as well during their reign.


----------



## den bakker

DrSmile said:


> From this point on anyone I meet on the road or in a shop that tells me Sky is clean I reserve the right to punch them in the face badger style.


why do I have the feeling it would look more like this from your side? 
Cyclists fighting - YouTube


----------



## Bluenote

stevesbike said:


> guess you missed the stage when Hinault and Lemond simply rode away from the field and had enough of a gap to work out their differences while cruising up Alpe D'huez. Then there was Merckx, who won the yellow, mountains, and points jersey - all in the same Tour.
> 
> Re Cableguy, Grappe said that the Froome files were within 2-3% of his own estimates based on his own power models.


Merckx was busted for doping numerous times. So he's not the best example to use. 

'Clean riders can totally do that, look at Merckx. Err...wait...maybe not.'


----------



## mtsheron

I think personally they should know that testing is iminent given the recent Armstrong saga. But then on the other hand I could care less if they all dope to compete. Let's face it..............had we rather see schmucks like us trying to ride over 2000 miles in 21 days and gasping for breath and taking 10 hours plus to do a 120 mile ride or had you rather see the freaks of nature cyclist who do superhuman things!!! 

Same with baseball which is under so much scrutiny.........you rather see frail bodied avergae players that could never hit a ball out of the infield or a roid monger Bagwell that can jack a ball 450 feet! 

Pro sports should be exempt............afterall, sports should not be a role model for kids.....parents should so don't hand that role model stuff out in reply to this.


----------



## FTR

stevesbike said:


> guess you missed the stage when Hinault and Lemond simply rode away from the field and had enough of a gap to work out their differences while cruising up Alpe D'huez. Then there was Merckx, who won the yellow, mountains, and points jersey - all in the same Tour.
> 
> Re Cableguy, Grappe said that the Froome files were within 2-3% of his own estimates based on his own power models.


Guess you missed the part where I posted that this is the same Grappe who defended Lance way back in 2001.


----------



## JoelS

No test yet for AICAR.....


----------



## PaxRomana

So, let's get this straight. Froome, a guy who couldn't climb out of bed just a few years ago, undergoes a miraculous transformation in the fall of 2011 for the Vuelta, a time when he had no contract for the following year. From then, he's been dominant. Guess Sky must be stupid not to have realized what a future he had until that sudden Vuelta transformation.

Then Richie Porte, who struggled last year, is now a world beater, dropping top climbers like Quintana, Rodriguez, and Contador. 

Sky is the new UK Postal. Same recycled trash.


----------



## stevesbike

This is consistently misinterpreted. He said that Armstrong's performance could be produced without doping, not that they were somehow evidence of not doping. Later, in 2005 he said Armstrong's performance was near the limit of human physiology and predicted a VO2max of 85-90 ml/min/kg. He didn't have access to power data for 2 years for Armstrong, and no one is coming out accusing Grappe of being a Froome apologist (Science of Sport etc endorse Grappe though there are some technical issues with his power profiling that Andy Coggan and some others take issue with). 

Froome was also tested 19 times at the Tour – 13 blood and/or urine tests, and six biological passport profiles. tested 29 times, 23 times in competition, six times out of competition. So there is a lot of biopassport data on him, which would make any doping tricky to do undetected. 

Re AICAR, there is a test, which was published in 2010 and it is easy to detect. It may await validation for use, but that doesn't preclude retroactive testing. 

Also the notion that Froome couldn't climb before 2011 is simply a myth.

Re Porte, he finished top 10 at his first grand tour and 4th in the world championship ITT. 



FTR said:


> Guess you missed the part where I posted that this is the same Grappe who defended Lance way back in 2001.


----------



## PaxRomana

stevesbike said:


> This is consistently misinterpreted. He said that Armstrong's performance could be produced without doping, not that they were somehow evidence of not doping. Later, in 2005 he said Armstrong's performance was near the limit of human physiology and predicted a VO2max of 85-90 ml/min/kg. He didn't have access to power data for 2 years for Armstrong, and no one is coming out accusing Grappe of being a Froome apologist (Science of Sport etc endorse Grappe though there are some technical issues with his power profiling that Andy Coggan and some others take issue with).
> 
> Froome was also tested 19 times at the Tour – 13 blood and/or urine tests, and six biological passport profiles. tested 29 times, 23 times in competition, six times out of competition. So there is a lot of biopassport data on him, which would make any doping tricky to do undetected.
> 
> Re AICAR, there is a test, which was published in 2010 and it is easy to detect. It may await validation for use, but that doesn't preclude retroactive testing.
> 
> Also the notion that Froome couldn't climb before 2011 is simply a myth.
> 
> Re Porte, he finished top 10 at his first grand tour and 4th in the world championship ITT.


Again with the misdirection. Porte finished in the Top 10 BECAUSE HE WAS ALLOWED TO GO ON A BREAK. He was so far behind that he was permitted to go. He did not stay with the top climbers on the stages that matter, unlike here. 

Care to post how Froome was doing pre-2011? That he was kicked out of the 2010 Giro for holding on to a motorcycle on a climb? That he finished as pack fodder with Barloworld? That he was zig-zagging up climbs before 2011?

Funny stuff right there. Especially the part about "passing tests". I think Armstrong "passed" a few in his time too. So did Ulrich. So did Valverde. So did Basso. So did Marion Jones. 

So, "never tested positive" just isn't worth a whole lot.


----------



## cq20

PaxRomana said:


> That he was kicked out of the 2010 Giro for holding on to a motorcycle on a climb?


1) He was holding onto a motorcycle but it was a police motorcycle, so wasn't trying to conceal what he was doing.
2) He was holding on because he was suffering from knee problems, was off the back and had already decided to quit.
3) He was trying to get to soigneur at the top of the Mortirolo to get post-retirement treatment

.. all this background information is readily available and adds a bit of context.


----------



## stevesbike

the infamous Froome zigzagging - did you actually watch stage 14 of the 2009 Giro? The one that is supposed to show Froome can't climb? He was part of a 150km breakaway, he was the one who shattered the breakaway on the first part of the final climb and got the gap with Gerrans. Have you read how the stage was reported? The UK telegraph headline: "Chris Froome showed his capabilities by finishing sixth." Froome was also interviewed and stated he was over-geared for the final climb, which is pretty clear in the video footage as it's the 16% section where he loses Gerrans. The 2010 Giro incident was because he was about to abandon the race due to a knee injury at the upcoming feed zone where the team car was waiting for him.

In the 2008 Tour, he was regularly climbing with the leaders and was in fact 7th over the Croix de fer on the Queen stage (17), the last climb before Alpe D'huez. The peloton had been blown to bits at the start of this climb and a lot of top riders were dropped. This was the famous Cancellara shredding everyone incident on the start of the Croix de fer climb. He ended up 3rd that day on the young rider category behind Andy Schleck and Kreuziger. His team was thrilled with the result and it was reported widely as a sign of his potential. For a neopro on a small team that had a heavy spring campaign in his first grand tour, there was lots of people who saw that as a sign of potential.

There are other early signs of his potential - not all riders come up through a strong national federation in a cycling rich country like Holland or France. 



PaxRomana said:


> Again with the misdirection. Porte finished in the Top 10 BECAUSE HE WAS ALLOWED TO GO ON A BREAK. He was so far behind that he was permitted to go. He did not stay with the top climbers on the stages that matter, unlike here.
> 
> Care to post how Froome was doing pre-2011? That he was kicked out of the 2010 Giro for holding on to a motorcycle on a climb? That he finished as pack fodder with Barloworld? That he was zig-zagging up climbs before 2011?
> 
> Funny stuff right there. Especially the part about "passing tests". I think Armstrong "passed" a few in his time too. So did Ulrich. So did Valverde. So did Basso. So did Marion Jones.
> 
> So, "never tested positive" just isn't worth a whole lot.


----------



## upstateSC-rider

I think when Froome outsprints Cav and Kit on the Champs your question as to whether or not he is doping will be answered.


----------



## PaxRomana

stevesbike said:


> the infamous Froome zigzagging - did you actually watch stage 14 of the 2009 Giro? The one that is supposed to show Froome can't climb? He was part of a 150km breakaway, he was the one who shattered the breakaway on the first part of the final climb and got the gap with Gerrans. Have you read how the stage was reported? The UK telegraph headline: "Chris Froome showed his capabilities by finishing sixth." Froome was also interviewed and stated he was over-geared for the final climb, which is pretty clear in the video footage as it's the 16% section where he loses Gerrans. The 2010 Giro incident was because he was about to abandon the race due to a knee injury at the upcoming feed zone where the team car was waiting for him.
> 
> In the 2008 Tour, he was regularly climbing with the leaders and was in fact 7th over the Croix de fer on the Queen stage (17), the last climb before Alpe D'huez. The peloton had been blown to bits at the start of this climb and a lot of top riders were dropped. This was the famous Cancellara shredding everyone incident on the start of the Croix de fer climb. He ended up 3rd that day on the young rider category behind Andy Schleck and Kreuziger. His team was thrilled with the result and it was reported widely as a sign of his potential. For a neopro on a small team that had a heavy spring campaign in his first grand tour, there was lots of people who saw that as a sign of potential.
> 
> There are other early signs of his potential - not all riders come up through a strong national federation in a cycling rich country like Holland or France.


In the 2008 Tour, Froome finished 84th, two hours and 22 minutes behind. Climbing with the leaders, huh?

The only 2 races he won in 2009 were the Anatomic Jock Race and Giro del Capo. Oh, and 36th in the Giro, over an hour back. 

Guess Sky agreed on his potential, since he didn't even have a contract for 2012 until his miraculous transformation at the Vuelta.

But keep spinning it.


----------



## ghost6

PaxRomana said:


> In the 2008 Tour, Froome finished 84th, two hours and 22 minutes behind. Climbing with the leaders, huh?
> 
> The only 2 races he won in 2009 were the Anatomic Jock Race and Giro del Capo. Oh, and 36th in the Giro, over an hour back.
> 
> Guess Sky agreed on his potential, since he didn't even have a contract for 2012 until his miraculous transformation at the Vuelta.
> 
> But keep spinning it.


Yep. Funny how so many think Froome spent years building up to his current 5 minute dominance. The guy has doped more in the last year than LA did in his 7 years.


----------



## stevesbike

I'm not spinning anything. I'm merely indicating that a rider's development can't be understood without context and that with Froome especially there is a distortion of his early professional career to make it look as though he was incapable of climbing. This is simply untrue, as the fact of his performance on the Queen stage of his first Tour indicated. It's ridiculous to require him to place high on overall GC in his first Tour given his background and context. The Froome haters better learn to deal with it because he looks like he'll be around a long time winning. There's always soccer....




PaxRomana said:


> In the 2008 Tour, Froome finished 84th, two hours and 22 minutes behind. Climbing with the leaders, huh?
> 
> The only 2 races he won in 2009 were the Anatomic Jock Race and Giro del Capo. Oh, and 36th in the Giro, over an hour back.
> 
> Guess Sky agreed on his potential, since he didn't even have a contract for 2012 until his miraculous transformation at the Vuelta.
> 
> But keep spinning it.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

PaxRomana said:


> In the 2008 Tour, Froome finished 84th, two hours and 22 minutes behind. Climbing with the leaders, huh?
> 
> The only 2 races he won in 2009 were the Anatomic Jock Race and Giro del Capo. Oh, and 36th in the Giro, over an hour back.
> 
> Guess Sky agreed on his potential, since he didn't even have a contract for 2012 until his miraculous transformation at the Vuelta.
> 
> But keep spinning it.



Seriously?

You have to look at the whole context of the results, you can't just blurt out 84th place and 2hrs 20 mins down - how do we know what the reasons for that performance were?


----------



## Cableguy

stevesbike said:


> Re Cableguy, Grappe said that the Froome files were within 2-3% of his own estimates based on his own power models.


Who is Grappe? Link?


----------



## cda 455

Cableguy said:


> Who is Grappe? Link?


"Frederic Grappe, a cycling coach who is also a reputed researcher in sports science."


His comments on Froome were very similar to what he said about LA, apparently.

After L?Equipe report, Brailsford in talks to release Froome?s data


----------



## stevesbike

what he said about Froome was quite different from what he said about Armstrong because he never had 2 years of power data from Armstrong and he never made a claim about Armstrong's power declining over the course of a grand tour, as he did with Froome. 

Sky released 2 years of data to L'equipe along with the timeline of Froome's testing, which was extensive (biopassport and regular controls). Grappe is a sports scientist who examined the data and said there were no abnormalities in it, etc, which has been documented elsewhere in detail. 



cda 455 said:


> "Frederic Grappe, a cycling coach who is also a reputed researcher in sports science."
> 
> 
> His comments on Froome were very similar to what he said about LA, apparently.
> 
> After L?Equipe report, Brailsford in talks to release Froome?s data


----------



## PaxRomana

stevesbike said:


> what he said about Froome was quite different from what he said about Armstrong because he never had 2 years of power data from Armstrong and he never made a claim about Armstrong's power declining over the course of a grand tour, as he did with Froome.
> 
> Sky released 2 years of data to L'equipe along with the timeline of Froome's testing, which was extensive (biopassport and regular controls). Grappe is a sports scientist who examined the data and said there were no abnormalities in it, etc, which has been documented elsewhere in detail.


More misdirection. Sky released 2 years of data, going back to 2011, the year of Froome's miraculous transformation. Nothing before.

Froome showed zero capacity for Grand Tour success before the 2011 Vuelta. If he was so talented, why had Sky not even renewed his contract for 2012 by the time of the Vuelta? Let's look at his results pre-Vuelta 2011. The guy had NOTHING of note on his palmares. Nothing. Anatomic Jock Race? LMAO.

Grappe is the same guy who couldn't find anything wrong with Armstrong. No surprise that Sky would choose this guy. Why did Sky choose Leinders as their doctor? 

Sean Yates, who was a DS with Lance's Disco team in 2005? Yep, with Sky.

Froome's performance on Ventoux was in line with the doped performances of the early to mid 2000s. Sign after sign point to something going on with Sky, and it's not "marginal gains" from swimming coaches.


----------



## stevesbike

I said they released 2 years of data - not sure where the supposed misdirection is. Froome did not ride with a power meter at Barloworld, so there is no data to hand over and it wouldn't be in Sky's possession anyway. I indicated where Froome showed promise - there are a lot of protour riders who have never won a professional race. There are more than placings to gauge rider ability. Froome showed that in the 150 km breakaway at the Giro, Queen stage of his first Tour. He showed it by winning stage 5 of the 2007 Giro delle Regioni while he was basically a part-time racer and still attending college: the headline for that one, which was called 'historic:'

"nobody could stop the Kenyan this time, not even a guy like Cyril Gautier, from a country with a strong cycling tradition like France."

You need to update your information: Sean Yates is no longer with Sky. He left last year because he couldn't sign their zero tolerance contract.
Froome's performance was under 6 watts/kg on Ventoux - look at veloclinic, science of sport, veetoo, etc. It was a good time because there was a tailwind most of the climb. 

Grappe said what many sports scientists said about Armstrong - that his performance was consistent with the upper limit of performance based on known VO2max values. He said that on the basis of the power estimate models he used, not access to power data, which is why the Froome analysis was different. 

Do you know a way to fake power data that is within 2-3% of model estimates over 2 years that is consistent over that period of time with no abnormalities - spikes, etc.? That takes into account biopassport test dates? Is there a way to hide doping in 2 years of such data? For the last few years, the only way to dope at the Tour is to minimize decline in blood values across 3 weeks. You can't enter with a spike to start and you can't increase blood values across 3 weeks. Froome showed a consistent loss of power over 3 weeks and has had many more biopassport controls than most, including out of competition. The idea that he's doping a lot is implausible to say the least.


----------



## Cableguy

stevesbike said:


> what he said about Froome was quite different from what he said about Armstrong because he never had 2 years of power data from Armstrong and he never made a claim about Armstrong's power declining over the course of a grand tour, as he did with Froome.
> 
> Sky released 2 years of data to L'equipe along with the timeline of Froome's testing, which was extensive (biopassport and regular controls). Grappe is a sports scientist who examined the data and said there were no abnormalities in it, etc, which has been documented elsewhere in detail.


Yeah, I'll take this a huge grain of salt, and try not to choke.



stevesbike said:


> Froome was also tested 19 times at the Tour – 13 blood and/or urine tests, and six biological passport profiles. tested 29 times, 23 times in competition, six times out of competition. So there is a lot of biopassport data on him, which would make any doping tricky to do undetected.


So now he replaces Armstrong as the most tested athlete? If Froome showed up positive or suspicious in any tests, I would not be surprised in the least if it was swept under the rug. 

Again, it's not just Froome either. The entire team wreaks. Too many coincidences and miraculous performances that defy common sense.


----------



## Cableguy

cda 455 said:


> "Frederic Grappe, a cycling coach who is also a reputed researcher in sports science."
> 
> 
> His comments on Froome were very similar to what he said about LA, apparently.
> 
> After L?Equipe report, Brailsford in talks to release Froome?s data


Thanks!


----------



## prs77

I spent so many years believing that most of the peloton was doping. I became completely jaded with pro cycling. The Armstrong revelations just proved to me what I had been thinking and hearing for years. I'm not sure what caused the change in me, but I actually think Froome is clean. Maybe a small part of me just wants to believe in him, so I can enjoy pro cycling again.


----------



## captain stubbing

wow...what a stupid post!

froome rode this after riding the TDF, the others didn't and prepared specifically for it.


----------



## captain stubbing

i find this totally bizarre that there was so much evidence against lance armstrong along the way and he was defended right till the end yet there is not one scrap of evidence against froome and you lot have him guilty cause he's winning??

btw, which great GC riders has he beaten.....an out of form contador, a 36 year old evans, a washed up schleck, Nibali wasn't there, VV and Purito weren't amongst the top favourites either. it was the same last year with wiggans, not much depth in GC contenders at the moment.

ffs, a 23 yo first timer came second.


----------



## Bluenote

captain stubbing said:


> i find this totally bizarre that there was so much evidence against lance armstrong along the way and he was defended right till the end yet there is not one scrap of evidence against froome and you lot have him guilty cause he's winning??
> 
> btw, which great GC riders has he beaten.....an out of form contador, a 36 year old evans, a washed up schleck, Nibali wasn't there, VV and Purito weren't amongst the top favourites either. it was the same last year with wiggans, not much depth in GC contenders at the moment.
> 
> ffs, a 23 yo first timer came second.


People don't suspect he's doping because he's winning. They suspect it because he is dominant, turning in times in the mountains that rival Armstrong. 

Context is what did Armstrong in, too. When it was just the ex mechanic saying that Armstrong had drugs at his house, no one wanted to hear it. But as one by one his main rivals got busted for, or admitted to, doping Armstrong's performance looked different.


----------



## love4himies

Bluenote said:


> People don't suspect he's doping because he's winning. They suspect it because he is dominant, turning in times in the mountains that rival Armstrong.


That's why I'm suspicious. 

Won't say for sure, but watching him on this tour just seemed too good to be true. If he had his share of bad days of climbing like the others, then I would say, yup, he's human and he has good days and bad days just like everybody else. 

I hope I'm wrong and he just had an extraordinarily good tour and that the majority of the peloton is now clean.


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> That's why I'm suspicious.
> 
> Won't say for sure, but watching him on this tour just seemed too good to be true. If he had his share of bad days of climbing like the others, then I would say, yup, he's human and he has good days and bad days just like everybody else.
> 
> I hope I'm wrong and he just had an extraordinarily good tour and that the majority of the peloton is now clean.


getting dropped on the climbs are not enough I assume? How much show he be dropped with before it's ok?


----------



## lstar24

Just seen this site, brilliant...

isfroomedoping.com

At the moment the majority think he's not doping.


----------



## love4himies

den bakker said:


> getting dropped on the climbs are not enough I assume? How much show he be dropped with before it's ok?


In my books, nope, he was too perfect.


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> In my books, nope, he was too perfect.


how much should he be dropped by? 45 seconds? 90 seconds? 180 seconds? 2000 seconds? a week?


----------



## PaxRomana

den bakker said:


> getting dropped on the climbs are not enough I assume? How much show he be dropped with before it's ok?


Froome dropped on climbs? Huh? He blew away everyone on Ax3, Mont Ventoux, crushed the hilly TT. When was he dropped? When he had ZERO incentive to chase Quintana and Rodriguez in the final K on the last climb? 

I mean, really.


----------



## PaxRomana

lstar24 said:


> Just seen this site, brilliant...
> 
> isfroomedoping.com
> 
> At the moment the majority think he's not doping.


The same majority who thought Lance was clean too. The majority who know nothing about cycling.


----------



## PaxRomana

stevesbike said:


> I said they released 2 years of data - not sure where the supposed misdirection is. Froome did not ride with a power meter at Barloworld, so there is no data to hand over and it wouldn't be in Sky's possession anyway.


Really? The signed Froome without knowing any power numbers? LOL. 
By the way, Froome joined Sky in 2010, so where is that extra year of power numbers?

The tailwind on the Ventoux comment is silly. Have you seen a map of the climb? It zig-zags. Seriously, that tailwind crap came from a tongue-in-cheek comment from Henderson, and the Sky fans latched onto it.

Once again, if this guy had such ability, why had Sky not offered him a contract for 2012 before his Vuelta 2011 transformation? Everyone knew the guy was a good domestique, not a GT contender. You're just citing examples of individual races or stages, where he did ok. Look at his palmares, he was nothing remarkable before 2011. That's why everyone is laughing at Sky and Grappe for analyzing just data after the 2011 Vuelta.


----------



## stevesbike

Alleging someone is doping because their results improved is a pretty flimsy basis - it is equally consistent with the guy having some raw talent that required a better team structure and development. Julich said exactly that when he coached him at Sky. David Millar has also come out vocally in defense of Froome - guess you know more than Millar about what doping looks like. Or maybe you think Millar's ex-doper-now-clean-cycling-advocate is just a smokescreen...

It's pretty easy to toss around doping allegations anonymously on an Internet forum. It's a lot harder to try to actually substantiate it with at least a plausible explanation for how doping is consistent with the 2 years of power data and Grappe's comments. Noticed you didn't even try to answer the serious questions about this, the biopassport, etc. Hopefully, you have more thought in it than it all being a big conspiracy theory.

Re Ventoux, again, look at the model estimates. They are all under 6 watts/kg for Froome (veloclinic etc). Power is a measure of absolute performance and is more revealing than historical relative performance. Froome's climbing also slowed down over the Tour (FWIW, Quintana is the one who put up the most impressive numbers, not Froome). 



PaxRomana said:


> Really? The signed Froome without knowing any power numbers? LOL.
> By the way, Froome joined Sky in 2010, so where is that extra year of power numbers?
> 
> The tailwind on the Ventoux comment is silly. Have you seen a map of the climb? It zig-zags. Seriously, that tailwind crap came from a tongue-in-cheek comment from Henderson, and the Sky fans latched onto it.
> 
> Once again, if this guy had such ability, why had Sky not offered him a contract for 2012 before his Vuelta 2011 transformation? Everyone knew the guy was a good domestique, not a GT contender. You're just citing examples of individual races or stages, where he did ok. Look at his palmares, he was nothing remarkable before 2011. That's why everyone is laughing at Sky and Grappe for analyzing just data after the 2011 Vuelta.


----------



## love4himies

OK, the truth is in: Cycling is now the world's cleanest sport, so I say that he must be "clean" too.

Tour de France winner Chris Froome: 'cycling is now the world's cleanest sport' ? video | Sport | guardian.co.uk

Spade2you: you can now use 2013 as the new benchmark for the peloton being clean.


----------



## den bakker

PaxRomana said:


> Froome dropped on climbs? Huh? He blew away everyone on Ax3, Mont Ventoux, crushed the hilly TT. When was he dropped? When he had ZERO incentive to chase Quintana and Rodriguez in the final K on the last climb?
> 
> I mean, really.


ok he tried to drop them just before for fun and then planned to sit up. makes sense.


----------



## PaxRomana

stevesbike said:


> Alleging someone is doping because their results improved is a pretty flimsy basis - it is equally consistent with the guy having some raw talent that required a better team structure and development. Julich said exactly that when he coached him at Sky. David Millar has also come out vocally in defense of Froome - guess you know more than Millar about what doping looks like. Or maybe you think Millar's ex-doper-now-clean-cycling-advocate is just a smokescreen...
> 
> It's pretty easy to toss around doping allegations anonymously on an Internet forum. It's a lot harder to try to actually substantiate it with at least a plausible explanation for how doping is consistent with the 2 years of power data and Grappe's comments. Noticed you didn't even try to answer the serious questions about this, the biopassport, etc. Hopefully, you have more thought in it than it all being a big conspiracy theory.
> 
> Re Ventoux, again, look at the model estimates. They are all under 6 watts/kg for Froome (veloclinic etc). Power is a measure of absolute performance and is more revealing than historical relative performance. Froome's climbing also slowed down over the Tour (FWIW, Quintana is the one who put up the most impressive numbers, not Froome).


Biopassport? Did the biopassport catch Sayar? DiLuca? Santambrogio? No, they got busted for EPO. It has been explained time and time again how the biopassport can be beaten. 

Once again, explain why Sky never offered the guy a contract past 2011 until he went crazy at the Vuelta?

Want to talk numbers? Ok, let's talk numbers. Cyclismas did an analysis of Froome's numbers on Ax3D. 
Commentary | Cyclismas
Right up there with Armstrong, and better than many of the 2000-2005 dopers. Richie Porte was right behind him.

Veloclinic's analysis shows that all 3 guys, Froome, Quintana, and Rodriguez showed performances consistent with the 2000-2006 full-on doping era. Maybe we need to extend that era. 

2013 Tour de France Overall Analysis – veloclinic

I see you also conveniently ignored the fact that Froome joined Sky in 2010, but Brailsford only gave Grappe power data from the 2011 Vuelta transformation onward. A year and a half of data are "missing".


----------



## AJL

Well, people know where I stand. On the plus side, we didn't see stuff like this at this years tour:






Even if it was exciting at the time.


----------



## PaxRomana

den bakker said:


> ok he tried to drop them just before for fun and then planned to sit up. makes sense.


No, what doesn't make sense is your comment that Froome was dropped. The guy destroyed everyone on the two main climbs, Ax3D and Ventoux. The race was over at Semnoz. You're ignoring a 3 week race to focus on the last K of one climb when things were already settled.


----------



## den bakker

PaxRomana said:


> No, what doesn't make sense is your comment that Froome was dropped. The guy destroyed everyone on the two main climbs, Ax3D and Ventoux. The race was over at Semnoz. You're ignoring a 3 week race to focus on the last K of one climb when things were already settled.


you are right. as soon as you ignored the data points you don't like he was not dropped. carry on.


----------



## PaxRomana

den bakker said:


> you are right. as soon as you ignored the data points you don't like he was not dropped. carry on.


Data point. Singular. And that has been explained to you.


----------



## den bakker

PaxRomana said:


> Data point. Singular. And that has been explained to you.


and I made it pretty clear I thought your explanation was boll0cks.


----------



## PaxRomana

den bakker said:


> and I made it pretty clear I thought your explanation was boll0cks.


No problem. You can believe whatever you want to believe.


----------



## aclinjury

One thing you all have to admit, Froome is a likable guy with good manners. Unlike Lance the ahole, or even Wiggins.


----------



## Fireform

Take a look at the science of sport review, or veloclinic on tumblr. They are ok with Froome's early dominance but the later climbs by himself and Quintana especially are deep into Armstrong era doper territory.


----------



## Cableguy

captain stubbing said:


> there is not one scrap of evidence against froome and you lot have him guilty cause he's winning??


Its not because he's winning, it's how he's winning. And while it may be tempting to make the argument *all* his rivals are just slow, crappy, washed up, etc... it's not likely and doesn't add up. Now couple that with all the other suspicious performances coming out of Sky... 

I can understand reserving judgement on whether or not Froome is doping, but at least be suspicious... otherwise you're just burrying your head in the sand IMO


----------



## bluelena69

Sport is full of athletes who were marginal, at best, only to flourish when provided with the right handling and training. Froome very well could have been a freak of nature who went largely unnoticed and underdeveloped until Sky recognized his potential. Sometimes, the ability to identify that potential is the only trump card necessary. I learned this from my father, who has coached a number of Olympians, World Champions and World Record holders.

Froome clearly originates in a system that was quite obviously deficient in its ability to identify and nurture such talent and he strikes me as the quintessential diamond in the rough.


----------



## PaxRomana

bluelena69 said:


> Sport is full of athletes who were marginal, at best, only to flourish when provided with the right handling and training. Froome very well could have been a freak of nature who went largely unnoticed and underdeveloped until Sky recognized his potential. Sometimes, the ability to identify that potential is the only trump card necessary. I learned this from my father, who has coached a number of Olympians, World Champions and World Record holders.


This explanation is implausible. Sky did not "recognize his potential". They hired him in 2010. His contract expired at the end of 2011, and they never offered him a renewal until his 2011 Vuelta miracle transformation. In other words, for over a year and a half, Sky trained him, tested him, and, based on what they saw, he apparently was not worth locking in with an additional contract until September 2011 when he exploded in the Vuelta.


----------



## The Human G-Nome

Cycling isn't like other sports where skills may be developed over time. You either have the genetic gifts, or you don't. Training methods between pro teams are very similar because they all have access to the same literature. "The right handler" is great if you're talking about baseball or basketball, but has very little to do with whether a pro cyclist can go from very good to immortal over the course of 3 years. It's not like the cycling coach says "ok Chris, once almost everyone is blown off the back, that's why you go into hyperspin and drop every other great climber in the world."

A change in intervals or diet doesn't make that happen. Something else does. If Froome really is completely clean the good for him, but to not be suspicious when all signs tell you that you should be is just quixotic. 

The idea that Sky has this magic formula of which no other pro team has access to just laughable. Didn't we say the same things about Brunyell and US Postal? Remember when we were lead to believe that Lance simply trained harder and smarter than everyone else? We are saying the exact same things now about the current champ. 

Honestly, this story would be a lot more believable if Richie Porte didn't often look like the second strongest rider in the race, and if Wiggins hadn't just won it last year, transforming himself from a guy who was only ever average in the mountains to the TdF winner. 1/2 finishes by the same team usually end up the biggest indicator of an uneven playing field, and the history of cycling is ripe with those parlays.


----------



## mpre53

captain stubbing said:


> i find this totally bizarre that there was so much evidence against lance armstrong along the way and he was defended right till the end yet there is not one scrap of evidence against froome and you lot have him guilty cause he's winning??
> 
> btw, which great GC riders has he beaten.....an out of form contador, a 36 year old evans, a washed up schleck, Nibali wasn't there, VV and Purito weren't amongst the top favourites either. it was the same last year with wiggans, not much depth in GC contenders at the moment.
> 
> ffs, a 23 yo first timer came second.


It probably has more to do with his pre-2011 results being mediocre. Quintana is more of a throwback to guys like Hinault, Fignon, and LeMond who podiumed in their very first TDF.


----------



## den bakker

PaxRomana said:


> No problem. You can believe whatever you want to believe.


the only thing I offered was the timing on a stage. you then put your beliefs on top of that.


----------



## PaxRomana

mpre53 said:


> It probably has more to do with his pre-2011 results being mediocre. Quintana is more of a throwback to guys like Hinault, Fignon, and LeMond who podiumed in their very first TDF.


I'd add Ulrich to that list, who was a talent from the very beginning, drugs notwithstanding. Hinault, Fignon, Lemond were true talents. Guys like Froome/Armstong/Wiggins are just more sophisticated versions of Isidro Nozal.


----------



## PaxRomana

Interesting to see Froome's comments about Semnoz.



> After welling up at the post-stage formalities, he admitted: “On the final climb, with around 2km to go, I was almost overcome by this feeling.
> 
> “I found myself thinking, ‘This is it, I’ve actually done it’, knowing I would be going to Paris in yellow and nobody is going to take it away from me. I would have loved to win the stage, but I didn’t have the legs because it was such an emotional feeling – the great realisation of what I’ve achieved here made it difficult to concentrate.”


He got dropped because he was overcome by the emotion of winning the Tour, not by anything the other guys did. Earlier in the stage, he was toying with them. He dropped Contador like a rock, chased up to Quintana and Rodriguez, caught, and passed them. 

Chris Froome all but seals Tour de France glory with success on Le Semnoz - Mirror Online


----------



## stevesbike

it's pretty clear you've made up your mind and apparently are able to sense how much of an effort Froome made on those climbs to tell he was just 'toying' with them. Your view is against the most informed people on the subject, including David Walsh, who has spent more time with Sky than any other outsider, having unlimited access to the team and staff, writing that he's seen Froome's 2010-2011 piopassport values and there's no difference, etc. David Millar also defends Froome, as does Lemond. 

Apparently, the damning evidence is that 1) Froome improved and became consistent across grand tours, 2) Froome was riding at half effort this Tour and not trying. Whatever it takes I guess to keep the cynicism alive. 

I think a lot of cycling fans actually like the doping drama and need to inject it even when there's no evidence. Next step Quintana and Purito...




PaxRomana said:


> Interesting to see Froome's comments about Semnoz.
> 
> 
> 
> He got dropped because he was overcome by the emotion of winning the Tour, not by anything the other guys did. Earlier in the stage, he was toying with them. He dropped Contador like a rock, chased up to Quintana and Rodriguez, caught, and passed them.
> 
> Chris Froome all but seals Tour de France glory with success on Le Semnoz - Mirror Online


----------



## den bakker

PaxRomana said:


> Interesting to see Froome's comments about Semnoz.
> 
> 
> 
> He got dropped because he was overcome by the emotion of winning the Tour, not by anything the other guys did. Earlier in the stage, he was toying with them. He dropped Contador like a rock, chased up to Quintana and Rodriguez, caught, and passed them.
> 
> Chris Froome all but seals Tour de France glory with success on Le Semnoz - Mirror Online


you believe words coming out of Froomes mouth?


----------



## Local Hero

PaxRomana said:


> He got dropped because he was overcome by the emotion of winning the Tour, not by anything the other guys did.
> ...
> 
> Chris Froome all but seals Tour de France glory with success on Le Semnoz - Mirror Online


Thanks for posting the article. 

What I see there is an acceptance with getting dropped. I've felt a lot of different emotions as a finally "let go" and other racers pedaled away from me. Sometimes I said things to myself just to protect my own ego or mitigate the loss. I've said that I was OK with them dropping me because of X, Y or Z. Maybe I had won a race earlier in the week or I had a race coming up. Maybe I could have dug a little deeper. I was saving myself, maybe. I've been able to redefine victory in a number of ways as I got dropped.

I can only imagine the euphoria and release that Froome felt when he was certain that he would win the world's biggest cycling event. Maybe he would have dug just that much deeper if the time gap had been 5 seconds instead of 5 minutes. 

But the fact remains that he got dropped.


----------



## FTR

Read up on Porte.
All the comments about Froome having not much prior to Sky equally apply to Porte IMO.

A year or so prior to Sky he managed top 10 in the Australian national Championships. Then suddenly exploded.
Before that he was riding and working as a life saver at a municipal pool in Tasmania.


----------



## Local Hero

FTR said:


> Before that he was riding and working as a life saver at a municipal pool in Tasmania.


A pro athlete working a low end job makes sense to me. A "pro" cyclist I know gets a small salary, free bikes/travel/gear yet works part time as a wrench. Many of the "professional" runners and triathletes I know work at shoe stores. Working as a lifeguard makes sense for someone who wants to spend most of their time training.

That's not to say that he's clean. It's just saying that doing something unfulfilling while waiting for a big break is reasonable.


----------



## den bakker

FTR said:


> Read up on Porte.
> All the comments about Froome having not much prior to Sky equally apply to Porte IMO.
> 
> A year or so prior to Sky he managed top 10 in the Australian national Championships. Then suddenly exploded.
> Before that he was riding and working as a life saver at a municipal pool in Tasmania.


joined sky in 2012

a stage in tour of denmark 2011 
stage in tour of romandie 2010
a top 10 in the giro with a bit of luck in 2010. 
3 victories in 2009.


----------



## PaxRomana

Local Hero said:


> Thanks for posting the article.
> 
> What I see there is an acceptance with getting dropped. I've felt a lot of different emotions as a finally "let go" and other racers pedaled away from me. Sometimes I said things to myself just to protect my own ego or mitigate the loss. I've said that I was OK with them dropping me because of X, Y or Z. Maybe I had won a race earlier in the week or I had a race coming up. Maybe I could have dug a little deeper. I was saving myself, maybe. I've been able to redefine victory in a number of ways as I got dropped.
> 
> I can only imagine the euphoria and release that Froome felt when he was certain that he would win the world's biggest cycling event. Maybe he would have dug just that much deeper if the time gap had been 5 seconds instead of 5 minutes.
> 
> But the fact remains that he got dropped.


I interpret it as, he knew he had won the Tour, so it didn't matter anymore. He wanted to enjoy the moment and the emotions it brought. Compare that to every other stage where the Tour was still at least relatively in doubt and he destroyed the competition.

When the Tour was in doubt, Froome crushed everyone. When it didn't matter, he soft-pedaled it in.


----------



## PaxRomana

Local Hero said:


> A pro athlete working a low end job makes sense to me. A "pro" cyclist I know gets a small salary, free bikes/travel/gear yet works part time as a wrench. Many of the "professional" runners and triathletes I know work at shoe stores. Working as a lifeguard makes sense for someone who wants to spend most of their time training.
> 
> That's not to say that he's clean. It's just saying that doing something unfulfilling while waiting for a big break is reasonable.


I think the point is that the guys who have major potential are already scouted out and are being mentored and brought along without having to work odd jobs. Porte dropping everyone except Froome on Ax3D was just ridiculous. The guy never showed that kind of potential before joining Sky. Now he's crushing guys like Quintana, Valverde, Rodriguez, Contador, Evans, and the rest of the world's top climbers? Hilarious.


----------



## stevesbike

NFL teams spend millions of dollars scouting prospects. They use sophisticated scoring algorithms, utilize high school, college stats, combine scores, pro days, etc. to compile huge predictive databases for recruiting. You should look to see what the correlation is between where a player gets drafted and success in the NFL. It's not easy in any sport to predict who is going to emerge as a star. 

Cycling does not have anything like this sort of recruiting system. If you spent some time looking at the history, you'd see how many 'next great Tour riders' never live up to the promise. Like the NFL, success also depends on the team structure a rider is put into. How many grand tour contenders have emerged from a small team? It's not only because the best prospects are hired into the best teams. It's because the team has the resources and structure to develop the rider. 



PaxRomana said:


> I think the point is that the guys who have major potential are already scouted out and are being mentored and brought along without having to work odd jobs. Porte dropping everyone except Froome on Ax3D was just ridiculous. The guy never showed that kind of potential before joining Sky. Now he's crushing guys like Quintana, Valverde, Rodriguez, Contador, Evans, and the rest of the world's top climbers? Hilarious.


----------



## kokothemonkey

Local Hero said:


> Thanks for posting the article.
> 
> What I see there is an acceptance with getting dropped. I've felt a lot of different emotions as a finally "let go" and other racers pedaled away from me. Sometimes I said things to myself just to protect my own ego or mitigate the loss. I've said that I was OK with them dropping me because of X, Y or Z. Maybe I had won a race earlier in the week or I had a race coming up. Maybe I could have dug a little deeper. I was saving myself, maybe. I've been able to redefine victory in a number of ways as I got dropped.
> 
> I can only imagine the euphoria and release that Froome felt when he was certain that he would win the world's biggest cycling event. Maybe he would have dug just that much deeper if the time gap had been 5 seconds instead of 5 minutes.
> 
> But the fact remains that he got dropped.


Just because Froome got dropped doesn't mean he is clean. Lance got dropped by Pantani and Ullrich, sometimes even when it mattered. 

Froome is getting dropped by guys who are putting out >6W/kg which were levels that were unobtanium in 2010 and 2011, now it seems like the top 5 are all able to put out nearly 6w/kg or beyond.


----------



## love4himies

stevesbike said:


> Cycling does not have anything like this sort of recruiting system. If you spent some time looking at the history, you'd see how many 'next great Tour riders' never live up to the promise. Like the NFL, success also depends on the team structure a rider is put into. How many grand tour contenders have emerged from a small team? It's not only because the best prospects are hired into the best teams. It's because the team has the resources and structure to develop the rider.


I think it also depends on how hard the individual is going to work at riding. I can imagine it's a commitment that must consume your life, training day in and day out. Doesn't matter how much riding talent somebody has, or the resources that are at hand, if that individual is not going to give 120%, then that individual is not going to be a GC contender. 

I really honestly believe that Froome worked his butt off to get into the shape he's in, however, the performance that he delivered made it look like all other Tour contenders slacked off during the year.


----------



## PaxRomana

stevesbike said:


> NFL teams spend millions of dollars scouting prospects. They use sophisticated scoring algorithms, utilize high school, college stats, combine scores, pro days, etc. to compile huge predictive databases for recruiting. You should look to see what the correlation is between where a player gets drafted and success in the NFL. It's not easy in any sport to predict who is going to emerge as a star.
> 
> Cycling does not have anything like this sort of recruiting system. If you spent some time looking at the history, you'd see how many 'next great Tour riders' never live up to the promise. Like the NFL, success also depends on the team structure a rider is put into. How many grand tour contenders have emerged from a small team? It's not only because the best prospects are hired into the best teams. It's because the team has the resources and structure to develop the rider.


So, yet again, after spending over a year and a half with Froome, why did Sky not renew his contract until the Vuelta 2011? 

Moreover, cycling is not like football or baseball or whatever. Riders can be assessed by vo2max, power-to-weight ratio, etc. early on. If you don't have the genetics, you're not going to be a GT rider, unless you "prepare". There was no indication, nor did Sky find one, that Froome was such a talent, until he miraculously almost won the 2011 Vuelta.


----------



## PaxRomana

love4himies said:


> I think it also depends on how hard the individual is going to work at riding. I can imagine it's a commitment that must consume your life, training day in and day out. Doesn't matter how much riding talent somebody has, or the resources that are at hand, if that individual is not going to give 120%, then that individual is not going to be a GC contender.
> 
> I really honestly believe that Froome worked his butt off to get into the shape he's in, however, the performance that he delivered made it look like all other Tour contenders slacked off during the year.


EXACTLY the same argument Lance and his fans used. "Oh, Lance works harder than everyone." Complete nonsense. These guys train like crazy. They dedicate themselves 100%.


----------



## 86TDFWinner

cyclesport45 said:


> Froome hasn't won yet. And Froome hasn't threatened Lemond yet (as far as we know. . . ).


Give it time........


----------



## stevesbike

this is a very naive view of the sport. There is a lot more to winning a grand tour than simply producing good numbers in the lab. There are a lot of riders who produce great test results but never materialize as great grand tour riders. 

Find one source predicting Hesjedal would win a grand tour. Tell you what, for every source you find, I'll produce ten saying Gesink would...



PaxRomana said:


> So, yet again, after spending over a year and a half with Froome, why did Sky not renew his contract until the Vuelta 2011?
> 
> Moreover, cycling is not like football or baseball or whatever. Riders can be assessed by vo2max, power-to-weight ratio, etc. early on. If you don't have the genetics, you're not going to be a GT rider, unless you "prepare". There was no indication, nor did Sky find one, that Froome was such a talent, until he miraculously almost won the 2011 Vuelta.


----------



## KY TREK 1.2

Cycling is one of the dirties sports their are and to perform like he did, probably.


----------



## paredown

stevesbike said:


> .... David Millar also defends Froome, as does Lemond...


The clip on NBC when they interviewed Lemond (final stage I think)--Lemond was much more measured--he more or less said what I feel--you want to believe, but....

I think that is when Lemond made (or repeated) the comment that they should release the power numbers...

I'm with the doubters on this--the absence of VO2 max, the missing power output numbers from pre-2011, and the uncanny resemblance of the stories that explain his rise to greatness to those of LA etc...

There is an outside chance that Contador, although not having as crappy a tour as Cadel and Schleck did not have the wherewithall (he sure did not look good for the first third of the tour) and Froome looked invincible by comparison. 

But to have a similar performance from Ritchie Porte stretches credibility.

To see Porte pacing Froome up the climbs and compare how he looked to Contador's boys made you think that either Porte is also a genetic freak who Sky was lucky enough to discover (like Wiggo and Froome), or both Froome and Porte were on the juice.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Fireform said:


> Take a look at the science of sport review, or veloclinic on tumblr. They are ok with Froome's early dominance but the later climbs by himself and Quintana especially are deep into Armstrong era doper territory.


Untested and non-scientific modelling of power outputs and associated trends thereof are not a particularly insightful means to assess the doping status of any individual rider.

Those models have not had any scientific rigour applied to them and to give them undeserved credibility shows how unfortunately people will grapple onto something that sounds sciency which supports pre-conceived bias.

The Grappe analysis is equally flawed. As if looking a 18 power files from some climbs over a couple of years is supposed to declare something about a rider's doping status, let alone the limitations of his power-duration modelling methodology.

People can crap on about wind not mattering all they like, the simple fact is it is a huge unknown and non-measured variable that has a very large impact on the speed-power relationship, even on steep climbs, so much so that the errors in any such estimates are quite large, and it is disingenuous of anyone to publish such data without error bars for an unknown input of such significance.

I saw some pVAM and dpVAM numbers for the Semnoz climb the other day putting those guys into the doper box. A climb never before used and for which there was a tailwind. It's such nonsense.

Is Froome a doper? Who knows, but these crummy power estimations are certainly not the means to determine that, and neither would having all the SRM files. It's a red herring.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

paredown said:


> the absence of VO2 max,


You do realise that those who understand use of power measurement in training realise that VO2max tests and values are neither relevant nor of any particular value in determining a rider's training prescription or development needs. They are also not particularly good at determining a rider's performance potential beyond placing them in very broad categories.

VO2max tests are so 1980/90s. I am not surprised in the slightest that modern coaching doesn't bother with them, and that those who are behind the times still do.

I would read nothing into the absence of VO2max data.


----------



## paredown

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> You do realise that those who understand use of power measurement in training realise that VO2max tests and values are neither relevant nor of any particular value in determining a rider's training prescription or development needs. They are also not particularly good at determining a rider's performance potential beyond placing them in very broad categories.
> 
> VO2max tests are so 1980/90s. I am not surprised in the slightest that modern coaching doesn't bother with them, and that those who are behind the times still do.
> 
> I would read nothing into the absence of VO2max data.


I honestly asking and not flaming--are you suggesting that a world class road cyclist would only be interested in power output and lactate threshold and never do a VO2 max test as part of the baseline before training for a season or event, or to check progress during a season's training?


----------



## robdamanii

paredown said:


> I honestly asking and not flaming--are you suggesting that a world class road cyclist would only be interested in power output and lactate threshold and never do a VO2 max test as part of the baseline before training for a season or event, or to check progress during a season's training?


Or that Sky, who claim to be so all knowing and all seeing, having every shred and scrap of data available, didn't bother to test him even once?


----------



## stevesbike

what would it add that can't be had with better detail and predictive power using WKO's performance manager or similar? 



robdamanii said:


> Or that Sky, who claim to be so all knowing and all seeing, having every shred and scrap of data available, didn't bother to test him even once?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

paredown said:


> I honestly asking and not flaming--are you suggesting that a world class road cyclist would only be interested in power output and lactate threshold and never do a VO2 max test as part of the baseline before training for a season or event, or to check progress during a season's training?


Not even lactate. Most of the cyclists themselves couldn't care less about VO2 or BL tests. They just want to train and race.

Power output is far more useful as a means to test and track performance and response than any VO2 or blood lactate test will be. Some people are just wedded to old comfortable methodology, that's all.


----------



## bluelena69

FTR said:


> Read up on Porte.
> All the comments about Froome having not much prior to Sky equally apply to Porte IMO.
> 
> A year or so prior to Sky he managed top 10 in the Australian national Championships. Then suddenly exploded.
> Before that he was riding and working as a life saver at a municipal pool in Tasmania.


Uh, you obviously didn't read up enough on Porte. In 2010, he won the best young rider while finishing a solid 7th at the Giro... while riding with Saxo. He inflicted plenty of pain in that race too, as I recall. You can't simply ignore the info that fails to align with your preconceptions.


----------



## FTR

OK, did comparitively nothing vs his more recent Sky days and especially vs this year where he is suddenly some mixture of super heroes, alien life form and divinity all rolled into one.


----------



## bluelena69

PaxRomana said:


> So, yet again, after spending over a year and a half with Froome, why did Sky not renew his contract until the Vuelta 2011?


Largely Wiggins' team and they recognized that they had too many cooks in the kitchen? The strained nature of Froome and Wiggins relationship was clear for the world to see for the past 13 months.


----------



## Fireform

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Untested and non-scientific modelling of power outputs and associated trends thereof are not a particularly insightful means to assess the doping status of any individual rider.
> 
> Those models have not had any scientific rigour applied to them and to give them undeserved credibility shows how unfortunately people will grapple onto something that sounds sciency which supports pre-conceived bias.
> 
> The Grappe analysis is equally flawed. As if looking a 18 power files from some climbs over a couple of years is supposed to declare something about a rider's doping status, let alone the limitations of his power-duration modelling methodology.
> 
> People can crap on about wind not mattering all they like, the simple fact is it is a huge unknown and non-measured variable that has a very large impact on the speed-power relationship, even on steep climbs, so much so that the errors in any such estimates are quite large, and it is disingenuous of anyone to publish such data without error bars for an unknown input of such significance.
> 
> I saw some pVAM and dpVAM numbers for the Semnoz climb the other day putting those guys into the doper box. A climb never before used and for which there was a tailwind. It's such nonsense.
> 
> Is Froome a doper? Who knows, but these crummy power estimations are certainly not the means to determine that, and neither would having all the SRM files. It's a red herring.


The SRM files would be a red herring? You are arguing as if you know he's clean. The track record of that position is not that hot. 

Also, the climb of the Alpe is one of the best documented in world. You're brushing that aside too.


----------



## den bakker

Fireform said:


> Also, the climb of the Alpe is one of the best documented in world. You're brushing that aside too.


you should go climb it under different wind and temperature conditions. you might be surprised.


----------



## Local Hero

Fireform said:


> The track record of that position is not that hot.


This argument is fallacious, as are other variations (eg _given the history of PEDs in cycling..._). 

Why? 

Why is it a bogus argument? 


Well, what if the guy is clean and this is what clean racing looks like? If Froome is clean it would do nothing to change the past. So we can't really go by the past to determine whether the guy is dirty.


----------



## cda 455

This thread really should be retitled: Armstrong v2.0


----------



## Greg88

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Untested and non-scientific modelling of power outputs and associated trends thereof are not a particularly insightful means to assess the doping status of any individual rider.
> 
> Those models have not had any scientific rigour applied to them and to give them undeserved credibility shows how unfortunately people will grapple onto something that sounds sciency which supports pre-conceived bias.
> 
> The Grappe analysis is equally flawed. As if looking a 18 power files from some climbs over a couple of years is supposed to declare something about a rider's doping status, let alone the limitations of his power-duration modelling methodology.
> 
> People can crap on about wind not mattering all they like, the simple fact is it is a huge unknown and non-measured variable that has a very large impact on the speed-power relationship, even on steep climbs, so much so that the errors in any such estimates are quite large, and it is disingenuous of anyone to publish such data without error bars for an unknown input of such significance.
> 
> I saw some pVAM and dpVAM numbers for the Semnoz climb the other day putting those guys into the doper box. A climb never before used and for which there was a tailwind. It's such nonsense.
> 
> Is Froome a doper? Who knows, but these crummy power estimations are certainly not the means to determine that, and neither would having all the SRM files. It's a red herring.


Finally after reading through this whole sorry thread of 'I've been watching cycling for years and dammit I know exactly what is going on' bullshit someone who has a vague idea of what they're talking about shows up. All this amateurish modelling being thrown about is as much use as the proverbial chocolate teapot.

There are huge fallacies, misconceptions and, best of all, people who are making up their own theories of what is going on and then getting really angry about it as if its definite fact. These are happening on BOTH sides of the argument.

Comparing Froome to Armstrong is pointless, there are almost an infinite number of unknowns in both cases not to mention the fact that someone doing as well as Armstrong is not a clear sign of doping in the same way that we don't assume anyone who runs as fast as Ben Johnson must be doping.

Pointing to past performances and saying x came in position y over z minutes down in cycling is just nonsense. Non team leaders have jobs to do which involve making sacrifices in time and performance but they can do well on certain stages because they could take it easy on others.

Is Froome doping? I sure as hell don't know and nobody else here does whether they think they do or not, only a few people in Team Sky will know for sure. If he isn't, brilliant. If he is, let's hope he gets caught sooner rather than later.


----------



## PaxRomana

bluelena69 said:


> Largely Wiggins' team and they recognized that they had too many cooks in the kitchen? The strained nature of Froome and Wiggins relationship was clear for the world to see for the past 13 months.


No, sorry, that explanation does not make any sense. So, then they decide to renew it after the Vuelta, when it's still Wiggins' team and Froome ends up dropping Wiggins in the Vuelta?


----------



## PaxRomana

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> I saw some pVAM and dpVAM numbers for the Semnoz climb the other day putting those guys into the doper box. A climb never before used and for which there was a tailwind. It's such nonsense.
> 
> Is Froome a doper? Who knows, but these crummy power estimations are certainly not the means to determine that, and neither would having all the SRM files. It's a red herring.


First, how exactly do you know there was a tailwind on Semnoz, and second, you do realize that the directions change on the climbs?

It's like saying there was a tailwind on Alpe d'Huez, without noticing the switchbacks.

That said, I do not have sufficient knowledge of power estimates to make an assessment of what does or does not constitute doping. I think some of these numbers do raise some serious questions though. Once you start seeing numbers that closely compare to the 90s and mid-2000s era, I start raising eyebrows. 

I can tell that my W/Kg clearly indicate that I am NOT doping.


----------



## kbwh

Greg88 said:


> Is Froome doping? I sure as hell don't know and nobody else here does whether they think they do or not, only a few people in Team Sky will know for sure. If he isn't, brilliant. If he is, let's hope he gets caught sooner rather than later.


^This.


----------



## stevesbike

1. you need to read his blog - he has done some sensitivity analyses to show the effects of wind estimate errors on these estimates.

2. not only that, but these various estimates (veloclinic, etc) disagreed about other inputs to the models, including such basic inputs as the time it took Froome to ascend Ventoux. There was a 1.3% range in this estimate alone - the difference between the top 10 times of all time is only 1.6%...

3. you actually can't tell by your w/kg whether you are doping. That's the point. 

4. Speaking of Alpe D'huez, go look at the top 200 ascent times (veetoo) and notice that the performances are correlated - there are clusters of comparable times in the same year. The models assume performances are independent, so the distribution shouldn't be correlated except for broad trends. If you look, for example, at the top 50 fastest 100 meter times in history, you'll see they are independent. This means the climb times are not indicative of absolute performance, but tactics and environmental factors are influencing the samples. This is even true of 2004, which was a time trial, so riders are clearly performing relative to one another (getting pace information from their teams during the ITT). If riders performances are interacting, however, it undermines the modeling effort and the attempt to extract meaningful comparisons across years. 




PaxRomana said:


> First, how exactly do you know there was a tailwind on Semnoz, and second, you do realize that the directions change on the climbs?
> 
> It's like saying there was a tailwind on Alpe d'Huez, without noticing the switchbacks.
> 
> That said, I do not have sufficient knowledge of power estimates to make an assessment of what does or does not constitute doping. I think some of these numbers do raise some serious questions though. Once you start seeing numbers that closely compare to the 90s and mid-2000s era, I start raising eyebrows.
> 
> I can tell that my W/Kg clearly indicate that I am NOT doping.


----------



## burgrat

I think all the Froome talk broke the forum over at Cyclingnews.com. The Clinic assplosed!


----------



## PaxRomana

stevesbike said:


> 1. you need to read his blog - he has done some sensitivity analyses to show the effects of wind estimate errors on these estimates.
> 
> 2. not only that, but these various estimates (veloclinic, etc) disagreed about other inputs to the models, including such basic inputs as the time it took Froome to ascend Ventoux. There was a 1.3% range in this estimate alone - the difference between the top 10 times of all time is only 1.6%...
> 
> 3. you actually can't tell by your w/kg whether you are doping. That's the point.
> 
> 4. Speaking of Alpe D'huez, go look at the top 200 ascent times (veetoo) and notice that the performances are correlated - there are clusters of comparable times in the same year. The models assume performances are independent, so the distribution shouldn't be correlated except for broad trends. If you look, for example, at the top 50 fastest 100 meter times in history, you'll see they are independent. This means the climb times are not indicative of absolute performance, but tactics and environmental factors are influencing the samples. This is even true of 2004, which was a time trial, so riders are clearly performing relative to one another (getting pace information from their teams during the ITT). If riders performances are interacting, however, it undermines the modeling effort and the attempt to extract meaningful comparisons across years.


First, I think you and Alex Simmons aren't on the same page. I posted the results from Veloclinic, and they're the ones who raised the red flag on Ax3D, which was a farcical stage. A former nobody and a decent domestique crushed a slew of former GT champions. Porte put almost a minute on Contador and Quintana. Put major time into Rodriguez too. 

Commentary | Cyclismas

Also, same on Mont Ventoux:

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

Sports Scientists say:



> Having said that, what was noteworthy today were the enormous gaps created on the final climb. That's because with the exception of Froome and perhaps Porte, the rest of the peloton performed in a manner that is typical of cycling over the last few years. Their performances were consistent with post-biological passport levels, and matched or even fell short of the prediction models. It was only Froome and Sky who exceeded them. Therefore, skepticism is normal, and failing to appreciate that will come only from extreme naivety or patriotism. History has taught us the value of some healthy cynicism, and if this level continues for three weeks, it makes for an uncomfortable Tour, of that there is no doubt.


The Science of Sport: Froome's first mountain performance: Cue debate


----------



## stevesbike

I've been in agreement with Alex Simmons about the unreliability of these estimates (I've also had numerous exchanges with the Science of Sport guys regarding these models). The more general point he was making is that the thresholds veloclinic etc. use to define a suspicious performance are arbitrary. 

Leaving aside the notion of a threshold, the models themselves have never been validated, the correlation I pointed to shows why their statistical assumptions are faulty, Simmons has shown why small errors in wind estimates can lead to large errors in model output, etc. 

You're also guilty of what Science of Sport refers to as performance pixelation re Porte, but don't worry about it too much - so are they. Of course, the biggest problem with them is that they post on a commercial website (which presents a major conflict of interest) and so have a vested interest in stirring the pot with their sensational headlines.




PaxRomana said:


> First, I think you and Alex Simmons aren't on the same page. I posted the results from Veloclinic, and they're the ones who raised the red flag on Ax3D, which was a farcical stage. A former nobody and a decent domestique crushed a slew of former GT champions. Porte put almost a minute on Contador and Quintana. Put major time into Rodriguez too.
> 
> Commentary | Cyclismas
> 
> Also, same on Mont Ventoux:
> 
> 2013 TDF Ventoux DpVAM / DpW/kg : And They Stay There ? veloclinic
> 
> Sports Scientists say:
> 
> 
> 
> The Science of Sport: Froome's first mountain performance: Cue debate


----------



## 86TDFWinner

David Loving said:


> Pro cycling is so corrupt there's no telling what happened. Froome is either juiced or the game is rigged. I think he's doped to the gills.


This.(Though at the moment, I have no proof)


----------



## trailrunner68

stevesbike said:


> ... including David Walsh, who has spent more time with Sky than any other outsider, having unlimited access to the team and staff, writing that he's seen Froome's 2010-2011 piopassport values and there's no difference...


That is funny. According to Sky's official cover story Froome was suffering from the dreaded disease badzilla during that time, which supposedly ate all of his red blood cells. This is the reason Froome rode like crap. Yet Walsh says there was no effect on his bio-passport.


----------



## mpre53

burgrat said:


> I think all the Froome talk broke the forum over at Cyclingnews.com. The Clinic assplosed!


Too many CF parts in the main server.


----------



## den bakker

burgrat said:


> I think all the Froome talk broke the forum over at Cyclingnews.com. The Clinic assplosed!


proof the clinic members are so jacket up on crack and meth in july the server cannot cope with their speed.


----------



## stevesbike

I'm not sure what badzilla is, but Bilharzia (actually schistosomiasis) doesn't eat red blood cells.



trailrunner68 said:


> That is funny. According to Sky's official cover story Froome was suffering from the dreaded disease badzilla during that time, which supposedly ate all of his red blood cells. This is the reason Froome rode like crap. Yet Walsh says there was no effect on his bio-passport.


----------



## trailrunner68

burgrat said:


> I think all the Froome talk broke the forum over at Cyclingnews.com. The Clinic assplosed!


Team Sky did not want people discussing the ridiculousness of Froome's performance. Even Armstrong was not a big enough a-hole to shut down forums.


----------



## trailrunner68

stevesbike said:


> I'm not sure what badzilla is, but Bilharzia (actually schistosomiasis) doesn't eat red blood cells.


According to Brailsford it does. That is his explanation for Froome sucking before his transformation. He also claims treatment knocked Froome out for months because it kills like everything, just like chemo, despite the actual treatment being one or two days of an orally taken drug.


----------



## stevesbike

I don't recall Brailsford receiving a medical degree specializing in tropical diseases, so the fact that he may be wrong about the underlying mechanism doesn't seem like an indictment of doping. Apparently the symptoms can vary substantially (depending on where the eggs end up) as can the response to treatment. It's pretty clearly something one wouldn't want and could interfere with performance in a stage race, but whatever it did it appears not to have influenced the biopassport significantly, according to Walsh's conversations with Sky, etc. or the fact that Froome didn't trigger anything with the passport. 



trailrunner68 said:


> According to Brailsford it does. That is his explanation for Froome sucking before his transformation. He also claims treatment knocked Froome out for months because it kills like everything, just like chemo, despite the actual treatment being one or two days of an orally taken drug.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

trailrunner68 said:


> According to Brailsford it does. That is his explanation for Froome sucking before his transformation. He also claims treatment knocked Froome out for months because it kills like everything, just like chemo, despite the actual treatment being one or two days of an orally taken drug.



Source?


----------



## PaxRomana

stevesbike said:


> I'm not sure what badzilla is, but Bilharzia (actually schistosomiasis) doesn't eat red blood cells.


Tell Chris Froome that.



> "It feeds on red blood cells so your immune system is always weaker and your recovery is not as fast," he says. "I would get chest infections and colds that lasted for weeks until I stopped training completely. In a way it was a relief when I found out."


More nonsense from Froome. 



> Froome believes he contracted it while fishing with his brother in Kenya. But taking biltricide, which he describes as "just like a poison – it kills everything in your stomach good and bad" – every six months has helped manage the symptoms, even if there is an unspoken fear that it could return.


Uh, no, Chris. 



> In general BILTRICIDE is very well tolerated. Side effects are usually mild and transient and do not require treatment.


BILTRICIDE® TABLETS (praziquantel)


----------



## PaxRomana

And more from the CDC:



> Safe and effective medication is available for treatment of both urinary and intestinal schistosomiasis. Praziquantel, a prescription medication, is taken for 1-2 days to treat infections caused by all Schistosoma species.


and



> Although a single course of treatment is usually curative, the immune response in lightly infected patients may be less robust, and repeat treatment may be needed after 2 to 4 weeks to increase effectiveness.


CDC - Schistosomiasis - Treatment
CDC - Schistosomiasis - Resources for Health Professionals


----------



## stevesbike

I was referring to chronic schistosomiasis, which I'm assuming Froome has (which is due to schistosome eggs that are trapped in organs/tissue, and which trigger the immune response that causes chronic symptoms). 

The worms themselves feed on red blood cells, so Froome is right in that sense, but if he's been treated the worms shouldn't be the problem. 

It's not implausible that whatever the mechanism this was a real medical issue for Froome. I've read that up to 250 million people are infected with this. 



PaxRomana said:


> Tell Chris Froome that.
> 
> 
> 
> More nonsense from Froome.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no, Chris.
> 
> 
> 
> BILTRICIDE® TABLETS (praziquantel)


----------



## PaxRomana

stevesbike said:


> I was referring to chronic schistosomiasis, which I'm assuming Froome has (which is due to schistosome eggs that are trapped in organs/tissue, and which trigger the immune response that causes chronic symptoms).
> 
> The worms themselves feed on red blood cells, so Froome is right in that sense, but if he's been treated the worms shouldn't be the problem.
> 
> It's not implausible that whatever the mechanism this was a real medical issue for Froome. I've read that up to 250 million people are infected with this.


Your first paragraph is nonsense. Bilharzia is a chronic disease. Please stop trying to confound the issue. It is VERY easily treatable.

You earlier said:


> I'm not sure what badzilla is, but Bilharzia (actually schistosomiasis) doesn't eat red blood cells.


Now you say:


> The worms themselves feed on red blood cells


----------



## trailrunner68

Bilharzia, also known as badzilla , is supposed to affect hemoglobin. The off-score used in the bio-passport is computed with hemoglobin and reticulocyte values. So the question become how can Froome have had a severe case of badzilla yet have normal passport values?

This goes to the story that Brailsfraud has put out, namely that Frrome could not perform because his blood was being affected by the badzilla but once that was cured, he turned into superman.


----------



## stevesbike

you'd better ask David Walsh (or pay to read his piece on why he believes in Froome):

"Walsh spoke to Richard Freeman, one of Team Sky's doctors, about Froome's dramatic improvement in the 2011 Vuelta a Espana and was convinced by the medical expert's theory.

"I was confused because Chris hadn't performed with this consistency for the team and I wondered how he'd done it," Freeman told Walsh.

"Before I could be satisfied, I spent two weeks re-examining all of his blood samples from his two seasons in our team and looked at all the information in his biological passport.

"What I wanted was to compare blood results from the Vuelta with the blood tests he'd done previously to see if there were changes. There weren't."

Re PaxRomana's comments on schistosomiasis, chronic schistosomiasis refers to the continued presence of eggs in the host, which cause the serious side effects. Presumably, Froome would have been free of the worms by late 2010 when he was treated, and it is the chronic stage that he still has medical issues with. Whatever, the case, this only supports Froome's case rather than suggests some nefarious doping - he says he's never required a TUE for it and the drugs he has to take aren't prohibited.




trailrunner68 said:


> Bilharzia, also known as badzilla , is supposed to affect hemoglobin. The off-score used in the bio-passport is computed with hemoglobin and reticulocyte values. So the question become how can Froome have had a severe case of badzilla yet have normal passport values?
> 
> This goes to the story that Brailsfraud has put out, namely that Frrome could not perform because his blood was being affected by the badzilla but once that was cured, he turned into superman.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

PaxRomana said:


> First, how exactly do you know there was a tailwind on Semnoz, and second, you do realize that the directions change on the climbs?


Because firstly I looked at the course layout, and also looked up the reported weather conditions for the time and day of the ascent. Wind from the NNW at 8-10km/h. The Semnoz climb heads SSE mostly, not much in the way of switchbacks as you can see from the course layout (the climb is the last section).

View attachment 284658


Secondly, I watched and rewatched the climb footage, and spectator flags were either showing tailwind, or not much at all in the more sheltered sections.

Now anyone who understands the speed-power relationship will know that it doesn't take much wind at all to make power estimates from speed very unreliable. 

If you can see flags being fluttered by the wind, then forget about making a sensible W/kg estimate.



PaxRomana said:


> It's like saying there was a tailwind on Alpe d'Huez, without noticing the switchbacks.


I am fully aware of switchbacks, and all that does is emphasise my point further - in that without decent segmented wind vectors, power estimations necessarily have wide error bars. Wind is not a zero sum game.



PaxRomana said:


> That said, I do not have sufficient knowledge of power estimates to make an assessment of what does or does not constitute doping. I think some of these numbers do raise some serious questions though. Once you start seeing numbers that closely compare to the 90s and mid-2000s era, I start raising eyebrows.
> 
> I can tell that my W/Kg clearly indicate that I am NOT doping.


But does it though? Just because your W/kg is less than some arbitrary number does not mean you are not doping. It might mean, for hypothetical instance, that your doping improves your performance but not enough to be a grand tour GC candidate.

Just to be clear - I am not suggesting you dope, just pointing out the fallacy of the argument, and one clear flaw in the use of power data as a dopeometer.


----------



## Corsaire

I've said this before in other forums, scientific FACT: there's no way a pro cyclist can perform at the level they do during three weeks without any chemical/drug help. Lance himself, from the very horse's mouth, has said it: "You can't win a Tour without doping." Hematocrits blood levels naturally get lower as the days of riding go on, no matter how fit, how naturally strong or super gifted of a rider you are, you can't eat and rest fast enough to recover and keep performing at those top level of performance. The saying, the best riders only get stronger in the third week of the tour, etc, is just non-sense, they can only get "stronger" with doping, period. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. To me Sky is the US Postal revisited, with the most power, money and therefore connections, no doubt Porte and Froome are the riders with access to the best doping and resources. 
Then, there's the PR question, the image side of it, where there's a vested interest in not rocking the boat with any doping scandal (at least for now), especially after the Lance debacle. There's so much money and sponsorships at stake. Let's not forget grand tours and classic races are big money makers.


inrng: doping and the myth of a level playing field


"Win the Tour de France and big prizes, a large salary, product endorsements and more await whilst the combined income of the other two riders on the podium is probably less than the winner. The same logic means the top-10 earn far more than those outside the top-100. I’ve seen it said that Armstrong has a net worth of $125 million. Ignore the exact number but it means riders and teams with more money can afford more sophisticated and comprehensive pharmaceutical advice, creating a circle where more money funds more sophisticated doping which brings more rewards and so on. Armstrong kept Michele Ferrari was kept on an expensive and exclusive retainer. Other teams also had big schemes but as we saw over the years they were eventually caught. Similarly the UCI has worried about prosecuting big name riders in the past. When the UCI launched prosecutions with its bio-passport scheme it first went after shrimp-sized riders like Pietro Caucchioli and Tadej Valjavec to establish the precedent before tackling a potential millionaire like Franco Pellizotti. Like it or not the UCI has been cautious about tackling the biggest names, if only to take extra care before launching a prosecution.

Similarly money doesn’t just buy better drugs, it funds evasive techniques and supports subversion. A well-resourced team can hire lookouts to check for visiting doping controllers. It can fly riders to remote training camps where the testers can’t reach. It can use undetectable methods, “investing” in techniques at the cutting edge of doping. For example the logistics of transporting blood bags around Europe require significant funding; Tyler Hamilton recounts US Postal used a private jet; this gets more complicated and expensive if riders need to maintain a complex schedule of EPO microdosing, blood banking and infusion so that they can trick the UCI’s bio-passport with the illusion of stable values all year long. It’s not uncommon to see people refer to anti-doping controls as IQ tests, if people follow advice then they never get caught; meanwhile the little guys get rousted for bungling amateurism.

Also money helps you squash any critics. Cheating your way to vast fortune gives you wealth and legal firepower. As we’ve seen Armstrong has been able to deploy legions of lawyers and a spokesman previous infamous for helping scandal-hit Bill Clinton and Goldman Sachs shape the message in their hour of need. So the more money you make, the more you can squash any accusers, the more you can control the message.

The story of doping is not simply a tale of pharmacology, it is also one of resources, planning and deceit and we can see these cannot be equal. With Armstrong and US Postal and his subsequent teams the vast sums of money cited by USADA show a doping programme on a scale that few other teams could match. It was therefore an unequal contest."


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Fireform said:


> The SRM files would be a red herring? You are arguing as if you know he's clean. The track record of that position is not that hot.


I'm not arguing either way, simply pointing out which arguments have merit.

But for one moment, let's hypothetically say we have all the power data and it's accurate. What now?

What does it add to our knowledge of whether or not a rider is doping? 
Will it identify those that should be subject to additional scrutiny (above and beyond those we already know are winning/climb fast)? 
What power level = doping? 
How would you determine that? (The science is not equivocal on this point)
Is it the same number for Froome as for Cavendish? 
On a hot day versus a cold one? 
On a 20-min climb versus an hour?
Does power < an arbitrary limit = not doping?

It's a red herring.



Fireform said:


> Also, the climb of the Alpe is one of the best documented in world. You're brushing that aside too.


I would say that I have modelled the ADH climb to a greater level of sophistication than most, as well as plotted the historical data about climb times.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Corsaire said:


> I've said this before in other forums, scientific FACT: there's no way a pro cyclist can perform at the level they do during three weeks without any chemical/drug help. Lance himself, from the very horse's mouth, has said it: "You can't win a Tour without doping."


When quoting, it helps to get the full quote and in context, because it significantly changes the meaning. This is the context of what was asked and said:



> AAP: "*When you raced*, was it possible to perform without doping?"
> 
> LA: "That depends on which races you wanted to win. The Tour de France? No. Impossible to win without doping. Because the Tour is a test of endurance where oxygen is decisive,"


Now the tour is still a test where oxygen is decisive, but that in and of itself is not proof that doping is, does or has occurred. It's a non-sequitur.

Also, this is not a scientific fact. Claiming so is an offence to science.

It's also no proof that it isn't happening. IOW it adds nothing.


----------



## Corsaire

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> When quoting, it helps to get the full quote and in context, because it significantly changes the meaning. This is the context of what was asked and said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now the tour is still a test where oxygen is decisive, but that in and of itself is not proof that doping is, does or has occurred. It's a non-sequitur.
> 
> Also, this is not a scientific fact. Claiming so is an offence to science.
> 
> It's also no proof that it isn't happening. IOW it adds nothing.


This is a sequitur you did not follow: "Hematocrits blood levels naturally get lower as the days of riding go on, no matter how fit, how naturally strong or super gifted of a rider you are, you can't eat and rest fast enough to recover and keep performing at those top level of performance." And that's a scientific fact. You can discuss power meters, how fast he climb or not, and you'd still not be addressing the core issue.


----------



## stevesbike

could you provide a hypothetical scenario for how a rider should dope during the Tour when they are tested 6 or more times for their biopassport along with 13 standard tests plus another 29 times this year? Even the 'horse's mouth' said the biopassport changed things. 

Can you also point to any evidence that Froome got stronger over the course of the Tour. Even the power/dopeometer advocates say his performances declined over the course of the Tour.



Corsaire said:


> This is a sequitur you did not follow: "Hematocrits blood levels naturally get lower as the days of riding go on, no matter how fit, how naturally strong or super gifted of a rider you are, you can't eat and rest fast enough to recover and keep performing at those top level of performance." And that's a scientific fact. You can discuss power meters, how fast he climb or not, and you'd still not be addressing the core issue.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Corsaire said:


> This is a sequitur you did not follow: "Hematocrits blood levels naturally get lower as the days of riding go on, no matter how fit, how naturally strong or super gifted of a rider you are, you can't eat and rest fast enough to recover and keep performing at those top level of performance." And that's a scientific fact. You can discuss power meters, how fast he climb or not, and you'd still not be addressing the core issue.


Short-term effects of prolonged strenuous e... [Int J Sports Med. 2002] - PubMed - NCBI

HCT % may decrease but that does not necessarily mean a reduction of RBC or O2 carrying capacity, but simply due to an increase in blood plasma volume. HCT% can also go up due to dehydration, but that won't result in an improved performance either.

Haemorheology in exercise and training. [Sports Med. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI

But even if you mean O2 carrying/processing capacity declines, do you have the data to prove this is what actually happened to the riders in this tour? If not, then where is the science you are claiming as fact? A: there isn't any, and so it's just guess work and a pre-conceived bias.

You have your conclusion and are looking for things to confirm it. Classic confirmation bias. How about examining what actual evidence exists, and then drawing a sound conclusion from that? A novel approach for some I know.


----------



## robdamanii

stevesbike said:


> could you provide a hypothetical scenario for how a rider should dope during the Tour when they are tested 6 or more times for their biopassport along with 13 standard tests plus another 29 times this year? Even the 'horse's mouth' said the biopassport changed things.
> 
> Can you also point to any evidence that Froome got stronger over the course of the Tour. Even the power/dopeometer advocates say his performances declined over the course of the Tour.


Did his power decline because of fatigue or because he was tactically defensive as opposed to offensive? 

He still shattered Ventoux and continued to attack on Semnoz and Alpe. However he overall rode more defensively after Ventoux.


----------



## pedalruns

Corsaire said:


> To me Sky is the US Postal revisited, with the most power, money and therefore connections, no doubt Porte and Froome are the riders with access to the best doping and resources.
> 
> Then, there's the PR question, the image side of it, where there's a vested interest in not rocking the boat with any doping scandal (at least for now), especially after the Lance debacle. There's so much money and sponsorships at stake. Let's not forget grand tours and classic races are big money makers.


Exactly... And Team Sky has so much $ and power with ties to Rupert Murdoch. I think the secret will be safe for a long time...


----------



## Full_Spectrum

You know what I am having a difficult time understanding?

How it is possible to have such a massive depth of knowledge on a subject, while at the same time having the free time to argue over semantics on the internet.

Seriously, guys- go cure cancer or solve the worlds energy problems with all of your intellectual acumen. You guys are arguing about doping in pro cycling on the internet.


----------



## PaxRomana

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Because firstly I looked at the course layout, and also looked up the reported weather conditions for the time and day of the ascent. Wind from the NNW at 8-10km/h. The Semnoz climb heads SSE mostly, not much in the way of switchbacks as you can see from the course layout (the climb is the last section).
> 
> View attachment 284658
> 
> 
> Secondly, I watched and rewatched the climb footage, and spectator flags were either showing tailwind, or not much at all in the more sheltered sections.
> 
> Now anyone who understands the speed-power relationship will know that it doesn't take much wind at all to make power estimates from speed very unreliable.
> 
> If you can see flags being fluttered by the wind, then forget about making a sensible W/kg estimate.
> 
> 
> I am fully aware of switchbacks, and all that does is emphasise my point further - in that without decent segmented wind vectors, power estimations necessarily have wide error bars. Wind is not a zero sum game.
> 
> 
> 
> But does it though? Just because your W/kg is less than some arbitrary number does not mean you are not doping. It might mean, for hypothetical instance, that your doping improves your performance but not enough to be a grand tour GC candidate.
> 
> Just to be clear - I am not suggesting you dope, just pointing out the fallacy of the argument, and one clear flaw in the use of power data as a dopeometer.


First, the wind would affect all the top contenders equally. So, there is still no explanation why a relative nobody (Froome) and a decent domestique (Porte) would crush some of the top climbers on the planet on Ax3D, at least none that does not involved PEDs. 

Second, I have not seen any comparison of wind speed/direction on Froome's climb of Ventoux vs. other previous climbs. .

Third, I'm certainly not saying that W/kg are the definitive test against which cleanliness in cycling is determined. There is no question that wind speed, as well as other factors (interference from spectators, etc.) could affect the climbing speed. However, we can judge these figures relative to other top riders. When I see the likes of Ritchie Porte destroying guys like Contador, Rodriguez, Valverde, and Quintana, then I start to ask, WTF is going on. I don't need to see a power meter to notice the obvious.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

PaxRomana said:


> First, the wind would affect all the top contenders equally. So, there is still no explanation why a relative nobody (Froome) and a decent domestique (Porte) would crush some of the top climbers on the planet on Ax3D, at least none that does not involved PEDs.


You mean the nobody that came second in the 2012 TdF?

It is also plausible he was better than his opposition. Someone has to be. It still doesn't inform us on doping though.



PaxRomana said:


> Second, I have not seen any comparison of wind speed/direction on Froome's climb of Ventoux vs. other previous climbs.


Exactly. So how can anyone validly claim anything wrt climb times?
Indeed what's worse is that such data on the climb doesn't exist! Yet people are happy to cherry pick data when it suits their position.

But if you want to talk relativities, well the top 25 on Ventoux this year were within ~5%. Doesn't sound to me like an outrageous difference.



PaxRomana said:


> Third, I'm certainly not saying that W/kg are the definitive test against which cleanliness in cycling is determined.


OK, that's good.



PaxRomana said:


> However, we can judge these figures relative to other top riders. When I see the likes of Ritchie Porte destroying guys like Contador, Rodriguez, Valverde, and Quintana, then I start to ask, WTF is going on. I don't need to see a power meter to notice the obvious.


Who destroyed whom?

1	Christopher Froome (GBr) Sky Procycling	83:56:40 
2	Nairo Alexander Quintana Rojas (Col) Movistar Team	0:04:20 
3	Joaquim Rodriguez Oliver (Spa) Katusha	0:05:04 
4	Alberto Contador Velasco (Spa) Team Saxo-Tinkoff	0:06:27 
5	Roman Kreuziger (Cze) Team Saxo-Tinkoff	0:07:27 
6	Bauke Mollema (Ned) Belkin Pro Cycling Team	0:11:42 
7	Jakob Fuglsang (Den) Astana Pro Team	0:12:17 
8	Alejandro Valverde Belmonte (Spa) Movistar Team	0:15:26 
9	Daniel Navarro Garcia (Spa) Cofidis, Solutions Credits	0:15:52 
10	Andrew Talansky (USA) Garmin-Sharp	0 : 17 : 39 
11	Michal Kwiatkowski (Pol) Omega Pharma-Quick Step	0:18:59 
12	Mikel Nieve Ituralde (Spa) Euskaltel-Euskadi	0:20:01 
13	Laurens Ten Dam (Ned) Belkin Pro Cycling Team	0:21:39 
14	Maxime Monfort (Bel) RadioShack Leopard	0 : 23 : 38 
15	Romain Bardet (Fra) AG2R La Mondiale	0:26:42 
16	Michael Rogers (Aus) Team Saxo-Tinkoff	0:26:51 
17	Daniel Moreno Fernandez (Spa) Katusha	0:32:34 
18	Jan Bakelants (Bel) RadioShack Leopard	0:35:51 
19	Richie Porte (Aus) Sky Procycling	0:39:41 
20	Andy Schleck (Lux) RadioShack Leopard	0:41:46


----------



## PaxRomana

Alex, your post is nonsense and you know it. 

Yes, Froome was the nobody who finished 2nd last year. The guy came from absolutely zero palmares to finishing 2nd at the Vuelta in 2011, a time when he didn't even have a contract for 2012 from Sky. So, that tells you what Sky thought of his abilities before his "transformation".

Yes, Porte destroyed everyone except Froome on Ax3D. What happened the next day when Porte was "dropped" was total nonsense. Porte then went on to drop everyone except Contador while launching Froome on Ventoux. He dropped climber after climber. 

Please stop obfuscating. It cheapens your other opinions, which appear to at least have some rigor behind them. 

I do think that climb times are at least relatively informative. The fact that all the best times were set during the full on EPO era is not a coincidence, unless you have some evidence that these guys were being pushed along by gale force winds that were always at their backs even when the road turned in different directions.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

I'm obfuscating? Where? Thought all I was doing was to present factual information, and not opinion dressed up as fact. e.g. the results are factual, the reasons for the results are opinion. Please make a distinction between them.

But if you can point to any factual data I've presented that is not correct, please do. I'm happy to be corrected.

Remember, we are all entitled to our opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts.

I have no idea what Sky thought of him, do you? Have you asked them? Riders finish contracts all the time, what's so remarkable about that? Since they signed a contract, presumably they felt he was worthy of keeping on the squad.

As far as I can tell, this was his Palmares.

Ventoux and only Contador?
1 Christopher Froome (GBr) Team Sky Procycling 05:48:45 
2 Nairo Alexander Quintana Rojas (Col) Movistar Team 0:00:29 
3 Mikel Nieve Ituralde (Spa) Euskaltel-Euskadi 0:01:23 
4 Joaquim Rodriguez Oliver (Spa) Katusha 
5 Roman Kreuziger (Cze) Team Saxo-Tinkoff 0:01:40 
6 Alberto Contador Velasco (Spa) Team Saxo-Tinkoff 
7 Jakob Fuglsang (Den) Astana Pro Team 0:01:43 
8 Bauke Mollema (Ned) Belkin Pro Cycling Team 0:01:46 
9 Laurens Ten Dam (Ned) Belkin Pro Cycling Team 0:01:53 
10 Jean-Christophe Peraud (Fra) AG2R La Mondiale 0:02:08 
11 Bart De Clercq (Bel) Lotto Belisol 0:02:12 
12 Michael Rogers (Aus) Team Saxo-Tinkoff 0:02:26 
13 Alejandro Valverde Belmonte (Spa) Movistar Team 0:02:32 
14 Daniel Martin (Irl) Team Garmin-Sharp 0:02:36 
15 Richie Porte (Aus) Sky Procycling 0:02:49 


I agree that climb times are helpful in a relative sense, _provided you consider the data in a trend analysis_, e.g. such as I show with the trends in Alpe d'Huez climbing speeds. 

For context, the top 5's ADH average speed from this year was 20.4km/h. Only major doping era years that were slower were the 1999 post-Festina year and 2003. The other seven O2 vector doping years had faster average ascent speeds.

Cherry picking one data point as proof of something other than the speed itself is just really poor science. But if you must know, Froome's ADH time ranks 92nd on the all time list of fastest ascent times. can your see how that is just as useless as a data point as the Ventoux time?

I have no opinion of the doping status of this year's podium. And if by presenting factual information, that somehow cheapens other information I present, well that's a clear logical fallacy.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Full_Spectrum said:


> You know what I am having a difficult time understanding?
> 
> How it is possible to have such a massive depth of knowledge on a subject, while at the same time having the free time to argue over semantics on the internet.
> 
> Seriously, guys- go cure cancer or solve the worlds energy problems with all of your intellectual acumen. You guys are arguing about doping in pro cycling on the internet.


Oh, no this isn't an argument - this is nothing more than chewing the fat over a beer at the local pub. It's light comic relief.


----------



## PaxRomana

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> I'm obfuscating? Where? Thought all I was doing was to present factual information, and not opinion dressed up as fact. e.g. the results are factual, the reasons for the results are opinion. Please make a distinction between them.
> 
> But if you can point to any factual data I've presented that is not correct, please do. I'm happy to be corrected.
> 
> Remember, we are all entitled to our opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts.
> 
> I have no idea what Sky thought of him, do you? Have you asked them? Riders finish contracts all the time, what's so remarkable about that? Since they signed a contract, presumably they felt he was worthy of keeping on the squad.
> 
> As far as I can tell, this was his Palmares.


No, you're not presenting "factual" information. You're selectively presenting facts and drawing a conclusion. The facts are that Porte destroyed everyone on Ax3D with the exception of Froome. Guys like Quintana, Rodriguez, Contador, Kreuziger, Mollema, etc. were all off the back. Same thing again on Ventoux. The reason Porte finished so far back is because of an inexplicable "bad day" following Ax3D. Make of that what you will. I find it very suspicious.

Yes, I can draw some conclusions of what Sky thought of Froome in 2011, since he had not even been extended a contract until his "revelation" at the Vuelta. If he were such a "diamond", they would have made sure to re-sign him much earlier. I think that much is pretty clear.

Not sure what you cannot understand about Ventoux. When Porte took over, he shelled everyone. Contador was barely able to stay with Froome for a few seconds, before Froome destroyed him. Wherever needed, Porte demolished the top climbers. I find that incredibly suspicious. 

I can understand you don't have an opinion about doping, but I'm wondering what use coaches are at this point. None of you can say anything about a) cycling speed, b) w/kg, c) Vo2 max. Why would anyone hire you guys to do an analysis of power outside the lab, since there are so many factors, like wind, etc. that affect the power?


----------



## stevesbike

maybe the question you should be asking is why are these riders now able to beat formerly dominant riders like Contador. You're conflating relative performance with absolute performance - it's Contador's absolute performance that has declined, skewing these relative performances. 

The emergence of riders like Froome and Porte is also exactly what you'd expect if these races are now selecting riders on the basis of their response to training rather than response to doping, which is what selected riders like Contador and Armstrong previously.

As for the vacuousness of inferences based on performance without context, if you want to pull out performances solely on the basis of performance, don't forget Lemond rode the fastest time trial in history in 1989 - on the last day of the Tour. Of course, the context provides the explanation for why he did - riding at his limit with no information about time splits, etc. But if I am just eyeballing points on a plot and saying here's an outlier, therefore, it must be a doped performance, it's not particularly revealing on its own.



PaxRomana said:


> Alex, your post is nonsense and you know it.
> 
> Yes, Froome was the nobody who finished 2nd last year. The guy came from absolutely zero palmares to finishing 2nd at the Vuelta in 2011, a time when he didn't even have a contract for 2012 from Sky. So, that tells you what Sky thought of his abilities before his "transformation".
> 
> Yes, Porte destroyed everyone except Froome on Ax3D. What happened the next day when Porte was "dropped" was total nonsense. Porte then went on to drop everyone except Contador while launching Froome on Ventoux. He dropped climber after climber.
> 
> Please stop obfuscating. It cheapens your other opinions, which appear to at least have some rigor behind them.
> 
> I do think that climb times are at least relatively informative. The fact that all the best times were set during the full on EPO era is not a coincidence, unless you have some evidence that these guys were being pushed along by gale force winds that were always at their backs even when the road turned in different directions.


----------



## Corsaire

stevesbike said:


> could you provide a hypothetical scenario for how a rider should dope during the Tour when they are tested 6 or more times for their biopassport along with 13 standard tests plus another 29 times this year? Even the 'horse's mouth' said the biopassport changed things.


Well financed top teams like US Postals was, and now Sky Team for example have the money and power to resource themselves with the best possible means to accomplish their doping programs, this is not news, that's how things really work in the bigger world. Pro cycling is just a micro cosmos of that bigger reality. Read the article I posted above: "....money doesn’t just buy better drugs, it funds evasive techniques and supports subversion. A well-resourced team can hire lookouts to check for visiting doping controllers. It can fly riders to remote training camps where the testers can’t reach. It can use undetectable methods, “investing” in techniques at the cutting edge of doping. For example the logistics of transporting blood bags around Europe require significant funding; Tyler Hamilton recounts US Postal used a private jet; this gets more complicated and expensive if riders need to maintain a complex schedule of EPO microdosing, blood banking and infusion so that they can trick the UCI’s bio-passport with the illusion of stable values all year long. It’s not uncommon to see people refer to anti-doping controls as IQ tests, if people follow advice then they never get caught; meanwhile the little guys get rousted for bungling amateurism."



stevesbike said:


> Can you also point to any evidence that Froome got stronger over the course of the Tour. Even the power/dopeometer advocates say his performances declined over the course of the Tour.


There's no need to point out to any "evidence", as I stated before, the real evidence is in the fact that is physically impossible, scientifically proven, for any pro athlete to perform at that very top level of the sport, day after day, during three weeks without any chemical help, it's IMPOSSIBLE. This is not to take away rider's prowess and gifted talents, they still do train very hard, of course. Again, they can't rest and eat fast enough to sustain that kind of performance. It's an oxymoron, when they claim to get stronger as the race progresses. Under normal (no doping) circumstances just two weeks would be pushing it. They can say whatever they want about Froome's "declining power" in the third week, it's just PR and smoke and mirrors, Froome could've won the last stage mountain, that was obvious but he realized didn't need to, he held back given his very ample buffer. I suggest to read "The Secret Race" by Tyler Hamilton, it explains the science behind doping, very revealing, and dispel many myths and misconceptions.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

PaxRomana said:


> I can understand you don't have an opinion about doping, but I'm wondering what use coaches are at this point.


I can understand your suspicions, but the results data is what it is.

Just to clarify so there can be no misunderstanding:

I have very strong opinions about doping and am fervently anti-doping. 

I just don't have an opinion with respect to doping status of the podium place getters at this year's tour.

I fail to see what relevance that has with respect to coaching.



PaxRomana said:


> None of you can say anything about a) cycling speed, b) w/kg, c) Vo2 max. Why would anyone hire you guys to do an analysis of power outside the lab, since there are so many factors, like wind, etc. that affect the power?


You are confusing the difference between estimating power based on speed (which has low precision and is of limited value from a coaching perspective) and actually measuring power with a power meter (which has a high level of precision). My clients use power meters, meaning we have no need to guess the impacts of things like wind etc or do much in the way of lab tests since we directly measure performance on the bike, where it is most relevant.

VO2max isn't particularly relevant for a coach in setting training prescription for a rider using a power meter. It's not all that helpful in any case and it's not particularly good as a predictive tool either. But that's by the by and not particularly relevant to this discussion.

If you want to know why, well it comes down to VO2 being only one of three important underpinning physiological factors in someone's aerobic capabilities, and it's a factor that, while partially trainable, isn't nearly as trainable/variable as one's fractional utilisation of VO2max at threshold. The other factor is gross mechanical efficiency. Power measurement accounts for all three factors, which is why it's far more useful than any VO2 number will be.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Corsaire said:


> There's no need to point out to any "evidence", as I stated before, the real evidence is in the fact that is physically impossible, scientifically proven, for any pro athlete to perform at that very top level of the sport, day after day, during three weeks without any chemical help, it's IMPOSSIBLE.


That is not scientifically proven. It's a non-science and a nonsense statement. If it were science, then you will be able to provide us with the link to the science. Looking forward to reading it when you do.

If you want to convince us of a rider's (or riders') doping, then you'll need something better than this nonsense.


----------



## Local Hero

robdamanii said:


> Did his power decline because of fatigue or because he was tactically defensive as opposed to offensive?
> 
> He still shattered Ventoux and continued to attack on Semnoz and Alpe. However he overall rode more defensively after Ventoux.


If that line of reasoning works, can we say that Quintana and others rode more offensively towards the end of the tour?


----------



## biker jk

stevesbike said:


> could you provide a hypothetical scenario for how a rider should dope during the Tour when they are tested 6 or more times for their biopassport along with 13 standard tests plus another 29 times this year? Even the 'horse's mouth' said the biopassport changed things.


You can micro dose EPO and the biological passport won't show a red flag. In short, the biological passport doesn't work. See the Abstract below from a research paper by Ashenden, et al. 

Abstract
The Athlete Blood Passport is the most recent tool adopted by anti-doping authorities to detect athletes using performance-enhancing drugs such as recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO). This strategy relies on detecting abnormal variations in haematological variables caused by doping, against a background of biological and analytical variability. Ten subjects were given twice weekly intravenous injections of rhEPO for up to 12 weeks. Full blood counts were measured using a Sysmex XE-2100 automated haematology analyser, and total haemoglobin mass via a carbon monoxide rebreathing test. The sensitivity of the passport to flag abnormal deviations in blood values was evaluated using dedicated Athlete Blood Passport software. Our treatment regimen elicited a 10% increase in total haemoglobin mass equivalent to approximately two bags of reinfused blood. The passport software did not flag any subjects as being suspicious of doping whilst they were receiving rhEPO. We conclude that it is possible for athletes to use rhEPO without eliciting abnormal changes in the blood variables currently monitored by the Athlete Blood Passport.

Current markers of the Athlete Blood Pass... [Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

PaxRomana said:


> No, you're not presenting "factual" information. You're selectively presenting facts and drawing a conclusion. The facts are that Porte destroyed everyone on Ax3D with the exception of Froome. Guys like Quintana, Rodriguez, Contador, Kreuziger, Mollema, etc. were all off the back. *Same thing again on Ventoux. The reason Porte finished so far back is because of an inexplicable "bad day" following Ax3D. Make of that what you will. I find it very suspicious.*
> 
> Yes, I can draw some conclusions of what Sky thought of Froome in 2011, since he had not even been extended a contract until his "revelation" at the Vuelta. If he were such a "diamond", they would have made sure to re-sign him much earlier. I think that much is pretty clear.
> 
> Not sure what you cannot understand about Ventoux. When Porte took over, he shelled everyone. Contador was barely able to stay with Froome for a few seconds, before Froome destroyed him. Wherever needed, Porte demolished the top climbers. I find that incredibly suspicious.
> 
> I can understand you don't have an opinion about doping, but I'm wondering what use coaches are at this point. None of you can say anything about a) cycling speed, b) w/kg, c) Vo2 max. Why would anyone hire you guys to do an analysis of power outside the lab, since there are so many factors, like wind, etc. that affect the power?


*If you find that suspicious, god knows what you'd have thought if Porte managed to avoid his off-days*

Its just mental.. seems to me like you believe the following;

Sky have a good day = doping
Sky have a bad day = doping
Sky don't even do anything = doping

?!

Also RE: Froome beating Contador & other contenders point:










Contador doesn't look very lean does he? Perhaps what I've been suggesting all along is true.. and it might actually be possible that a GT contender could be off-form? 

beating an off-form Contador isn't particularly impressive.. neither is beating a 23 year old, or perpetual 2nd/3rd place man J-rod...


----------



## Local Hero

PaxRomana said:


> The facts are that Porte destroyed everyone on Ax3D with the exception of Froome. Guys like Quintana, Rodriguez, Contador, Kreuziger, Mollema, etc. were all off the back.


Quintana went on a prolonged solo attack earlier in the stage. He attacked over an hour earlier on a climb and spent a lot of time in the wind. 

Of course the Sky Train worked to run Quintana down. Both Froome and Porte were protected on that first climb. Porte was protected for some of Ax3D. Froome was protected for nearly half of Ax3D. 

What do you make of my argument that Quintana would have finished better (either with Froome or defeated Froome) had he sat in on that first climb and saved it for Ax3D?


----------



## Corsaire

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> That is not scientifically proven. It's a non-science and a nonsense statement. If it were science, then you will be able to provide us with the link to the science. Looking forward to reading it when you do.
> 
> If you want to convince us of a rider's (or riders') doping, then you'll need something better than this nonsense.


I don't have the book and links off hand but I strongly recommend you read " The Secret Race" by Taylor Hamilton, it is explained in there how the whole doping system works, the science behind stamina, EPO, blood transfusion, testosterone and all kind of drug performance enhancements available to pro cyclists, insofar as grand tour and other minor races. There are links provided at the end of the book as well. 

Let's not forget that this sport, like I said before, it's also about money and power. Money talks. There's no way they can perform at those speeds and levels of stamina/endurance they do for 3 weeks, day after day, on pasta and electrolyte drinks. The shame is that pro riders train longer and harder than most athletes, but it is not just the fear of what the other guy may be doing that drives them to dope, but also their fear to lose their livelihoods. their lifestyle, many of these riders have family, kids, etc. Sponsors expect stage wins, yet distance themselves when victory is tainted by drugs. As much as we understand doping is wrong at some moral level, it needs to be understood that we are dealing with a corrupt system which encourages such abhorrent behavior in the first place. At the end of the day, it's an industry, not a sport.


----------



## roddjbrown

Corsaire said:


> I don't have the book and links off hand but I strongly recommend you read " The Secret Race" by Taylor Hamilton, it is explained in there how the whole doping system works, the science behind stamina, EPO, blood transfusion, testosterone and all kind of drug performance enhancements available to pro cyclists, insofar as grand tour and other minor races. There are links provided at the end of the book as well.
> 
> Let's not forget that this sport, like I said before, it's also about money and power. Money talks. There's no way they can perform at those speeds and levels of stamina/endurance they do for 3 weeks, day after day, on pasta and electrolyte drinks. The shame is that pro riders train longer and harder than most athletes, but it is not just the fear of what the other guy may be doing that drives them to dope, but also their fear to lose their livelihoods. their lifestyle, many of these riders have family, kids, etc. Sponsors expect stage wins, yet distance themselves when victory is tainted by drugs. As much as we understand doping is wrong at some moral level, it needs to be understood that we are dealing with a corrupt system which encourages such abhorrent behavior in the first place. At the end of the day, it's an industry, not a sport.


Jesus, my feeling is that Froome is dirty but you can't just claim The Secret Race provides scientific evidence it is impossible to ride at a set speed for 3 weeks!

What are these maximum levels, what was the humanly possible speed for this parcours, who produced beyond those levels, quote something. You're giving doubters a bad name


----------



## Cableguy

If you're a team with enormous funding competing at the highest level in the Tour de France, you will take just about every possible advantage you can get your hands on. If I had no idea who was even on team Sky or what their results were, I would tell you they were cheating. Think about this for a moment... if you knew with near certainty that other riders and teams in the race were utilizing at least some form of illegal PEDs, and you could also get away with it too if so desired, would you actually not do it?

Another way to put it, let's say there's a rule that you cannot inflate your tires above 80 PSI. But the official don't, or should I say can't, check. You know other teams are riding above 80 PSI to get an advatange.. at the very least everyone is inflating to 85-90 under the guise of human error. Now would you actually make sure no one on your team goes above 80 PSI? 

Really the question isn't whether Froome is doping, it's how much. How far did Sky take it, and how much farther was it than the other teams.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Corsaire said:


> I don't have the book and links off hand but I strongly recommend you read " The Secret Race" by Taylor Hamilton, it is explained in there how the whole doping system works, the science behind stamina, EPO, blood transfusion, testosterone and all kind of drug performance enhancements available to pro cyclists, insofar as grand tour and other minor races. There are links provided at the end of the book as well.
> 
> Let's not forget that this sport, like I said before, it's also about money and power. Money talks. There's no way they can perform at those speeds and levels of stamina/endurance they do for 3 weeks, day after day, on pasta and electrolyte drinks. The shame is that pro riders train longer and harder than most athletes, but it is not just the fear of what the other guy may be doing that drives them to dope, but also their fear to lose their livelihoods. their lifestyle, many of these riders have family, kids, etc. Sponsors expect stage wins, yet distance themselves when victory is tainted by drugs. As much as we understand doping is wrong at some moral level, it needs to be understood that we are dealing with a corrupt system which encourages such abhorrent behavior in the first place. At the end of the day, it's an industry, not a sport.


I'm in the business of applying sports science to help develop the performance of my athletes. I have a pretty decent understanding of such matters. But that's not particularly relevant.

Hamilton's book is interesting for sure but it is not a scientific proof of what was claimed.

Essentially what you are saying is that every rider that has finished a TDF is doping.


----------



## stevesbike

you should read the entire study - their protocol involved no washout phase:

"We assume this signature would have held also in our subjects, whose OFF-hr scores would have increased markedly and most likely been ﬂagged by the software as
being abnormal during the weeks after injections ceased"

And their testing wasn't done in conjunction with urinalyses, which are collected along with blood samples for the biopassport. When these are done together, it will be more difficult for a cyclist who would have to microdose twice a week for months, which they also say may be disputed. 

A rider also couldn't race during this protocol where urine controls were collected.

More generally, their protocol worked because the threshold is 99.9%. There are some statements where this can been lowered to 99.5% if there are suspicions for 'intelligent testing' which is basically targeted testing.





biker jk said:


> You can micro dose EPO and the biological passport won't show a red flag. In short, the biological passport doesn't work. See the Abstract below from a research paper by Ashenden, et al.
> 
> Abstract
> The Athlete Blood Passport is the most recent tool adopted by anti-doping authorities to detect athletes using performance-enhancing drugs such as recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO). This strategy relies on detecting abnormal variations in haematological variables caused by doping, against a background of biological and analytical variability. Ten subjects were given twice weekly intravenous injections of rhEPO for up to 12 weeks. Full blood counts were measured using a Sysmex XE-2100 automated haematology analyser, and total haemoglobin mass via a carbon monoxide rebreathing test. The sensitivity of the passport to flag abnormal deviations in blood values was evaluated using dedicated Athlete Blood Passport software. Our treatment regimen elicited a 10% increase in total haemoglobin mass equivalent to approximately two bags of reinfused blood. The passport software did not flag any subjects as being suspicious of doping whilst they were receiving rhEPO. We conclude that it is possible for athletes to use rhEPO without eliciting abnormal changes in the blood variables currently monitored by the Athlete Blood Passport.
> 
> Current markers of the Athlete Blood Pass... [Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI


----------



## DrSmile

stevesbike said:


> you should read the entire study - their protocol involved no washout phase:
> 
> "We assume this signature would have held also in our subjects, whose OFF-hr scores would have increased markedly and most likely been ﬂagged by the software as
> being abnormal during the weeks after injections ceased"
> 
> And their testing wasn't done in conjunction with urinalyses, which are collected along with blood samples for the biopassport. When these are done together, it will be more difficult for a cyclist who would have to microdose twice a week for months, which they also say may be disputed.
> 
> A rider also couldn't race during this protocol where urine controls were collected.
> 
> More generally, their protocol worked because the threshold is 99.9%. There are some statements where this can been lowered to 99.5% if there are suspicions for 'intelligent testing' which is basically targeted testing.


This is a GROSS misrepresentation of the article's limitation section. I can't stand it when an excellent scientific article (which this certainly is) is improperly maligned by selective quotation. Here is the complete Limitations section (my emphasis in bold):

"Limitations

One limitation of the present study was the absence of urinalyses to assess the presence of rhEPO in urine samples. Ideally, any blood sample collected for the ABP programme would be accompanied by a corresponding urine sample and isoelectric focussing test (Lasne 2001). However, during out of competition testing in 2009, the UCIs Biological Passport programme collected 6,165 blood samples but only 2,165 accompanying urine samples were tested for rhEPO (Zorzoli and Rossi 2010), dictating that *in many circumstances blood values must be interpreted in isolation*. It was this latter reality we sought to reproduce in the current study. We are mindful that the IEF sensitivity depends on factors including the dosage used and the interval between injection and sample collection. However, some insight can be gleaned from a previous publication where a cohort of eight healthy subjects were given subcutaneous injections of 5,000 IU (Lundby et al. 2008), which elicited an overall increase in haemoglobin mass of 92 g (compared to our increase of 113 g). All urine samples collected 2 days post-injection were positive when injections were given every second day, whilst one quarter of samples collected during the maintenance phase (i.e., one injection per week) were declared positive (it is noteworthy that a second laboratory analysing duplicate samples yielded no positive results during either phase). An imperfect bookend for Lundby’s study may be the research reported previously where an (undisclosed) microdose of rhEPO was not detectable via IEF analyses 12–18 h post-injection (Ashenden et al. 2006), however, it is noteworthy that study utilised ‘first generation’ positivity criteria, which have since been modified to yield better sensitivity. In summary, *we would speculate that the likely sensitivity of urinalyses to detect our protocol of once weekly injections of 1,500–6,000 IU per week, assuming samples were collected 2 days post-injection, would probably range between 0 and 25%* (i.e., a continuum correlated with the dosage used). Incidentally, our blood passport findings do not affirm Lundby’s prediction that longitudinal monitoring of blood variables would surpass urinalyses’ lack of sensitivity (Lundby et al. 2008).

Another limitation of the current protocol was the absence of a washout period. Extending the protocol by a further 3–4 weeks was deemed to place an unwarranted burden on participants, and primacy was instead given to extending the treatment phase for as long as possible. This trade-off almost certainly diminished the sensitivity of the ABP component monitoring OFF-hr score, since it has been well-documented that a nadir in OFF-hr score is reached 10–14 days after rhEPO injections cease (Gore et al. 2003). We assume this signature would have held also in our subjects, whose OFF-hr scores would have increased markedly and most likely been flagged by the software as being abnormal during the weeks after injections ceased. Similarly, we speculate that the sequence analysis used by the ABP software, which explicitly evaluates variations in the data, would have yielded greater sensitivity if washout data had been included as these data would have varied substantially from both baseline and treatment phases. Finally, an inevitable limitation when structured laboratory studies seek to mimic how athletes dope ‘in the field’ is the inability to faithfully replicate that setting. For example, our protocol incorporated regular twice weekly injections over a three month period. It could be disputed whether an athlete would adhere to that regimen, and less consistent dosing could result in larger fluctuations in blood variables.

One implication of this study is that careful attention should be paid to when and how unannounced urine controls are collected from high risk groups. Given that at least one microdosing strategy can be utilised without being flagged by the ABP software, conventional urinalyses will remain a crucial and perhaps the only avenue open to authorities to remedy microdosing. However, this observation should only temper, not redact, implementation of the Athlete Biological Passport: sport federations or national anti-doping agencies without a coherent blood testing strategy may well house a population of athletes whose blood values resemble cycling and cross-country skiing circa 1997 (i.e., unsophisticated doping regimens with commensurately extreme blood values). In that environment we speculate the ABP software would wield an unprecedented deterrent/detection effect (at least until the athletes revised their doping strategies).

The passport’s utility as an intelligence-gathering tool should not be understated. Perhaps additional biomarkers, with increased sensitivity but reduced specificity, might be introduced to magnify the passport’s utility as a targeting strategy (low specificity in this setting is immaterial when the data are used only for intelligence gathering)."

Regarding washout and nadir in OFF-hr scores, Tyler's book covers a multitude of ways of getting out of and manipulating non-competition WADA testing.


----------



## stevesbike

first of all, I wasn't maligning the article - I was responding to the simplistic claim that the passport system 'doesn't work.' I didn't quote the entire excerpt, as you did, because that's a violation of fair use and copyright policy. In any case, I have no idea what you think I am misrepresenting. The statement that blood values must be understood in isolation is true, but the article has no information regarding when urine samples were collected in conjunction with blood samples. We're only given the percentage (about 1/3 of the time). Clearly, what matters is the target testing that underlies this decision. 

The paper shows there exists micro-dosing protocols that are not detected (at 99,9% threshold). That in no way suggests the program doesn't work, for a variety of reasons, ranging from real protocols straying from such a protocol, the use of varying thresholds in intelligent testing (which Rossi says is done), traditional detection, etc;
Zorzoli and Rossi, for example, show that in practice the program has been used to target and result in positives. 

The original issue was also to press those who charge Froome with doping to make that claim plausible in light of the testing he has had this year (50+ such tests) and during the Tour (where microdosing obviously wouldn't work). 



DrSmile said:


> This is a GROSS misrepresentation of the article's limitation section. I can't stand it when an excellent scientific article (which this certainly is) is improperly maligned by selective quotation. Here is the complete Limitations section (my emphasis in bold):
> 
> "Limitations
> 
> One limitation of the present study was the absence of urinalyses to assess the presence of rhEPO in urine samples. Ideally, any blood sample collected for the ABP programme would be accompanied by a corresponding urine sample and isoelectric focussing test (Lasne 2001). However, during out of competition testing in 2009, the UCIs Biological Passport programme collected 6,165 blood samples but only 2,165 accompanying urine samples were tested for rhEPO (Zorzoli and Rossi 2010), dictating that *in many circumstances blood values must be interpreted in isolation*. It was this latter reality we sought to reproduce in the current study. We are mindful that the IEF sensitivity depends on factors including the dosage used and the interval between injection and sample collection. However, some insight can be gleaned from a previous publication where a cohort of eight healthy subjects were given subcutaneous injections of 5,000 IU (Lundby et al. 2008), which elicited an overall increase in haemoglobin mass of 92 g (compared to our increase of 113 g). All urine samples collected 2 days post-injection were positive when injections were given every second day, whilst one quarter of samples collected during the maintenance phase (i.e., one injection per week) were declared positive (it is noteworthy that a second laboratory analysing duplicate samples yielded no positive results during either phase). An imperfect bookend for Lundby’s study may be the research reported previously where an (undisclosed) microdose of rhEPO was not detectable via IEF analyses 12–18 h post-injection (Ashenden et al. 2006), however, it is noteworthy that study utilised ‘first generation’ positivity criteria, which have since been modified to yield better sensitivity. In summary, *we would speculate that the likely sensitivity of urinalyses to detect our protocol of once weekly injections of 1,500–6,000 IU per week, assuming samples were collected 2 days post-injection, would probably range between 0 and 25%* (i.e., a continuum correlated with the dosage used). Incidentally, our blood passport findings do not affirm Lundby’s prediction that longitudinal monitoring of blood variables would surpass urinalyses’ lack of sensitivity (Lundby et al. 2008).
> 
> Another limitation of the current protocol was the absence of a washout period. Extending the protocol by a further 3–4 weeks was deemed to place an unwarranted burden on participants, and primacy was instead given to extending the treatment phase for as long as possible. This trade-off almost certainly diminished the sensitivity of the ABP component monitoring OFF-hr score, since it has been well-documented that a nadir in OFF-hr score is reached 10–14 days after rhEPO injections cease (Gore et al. 2003). We assume this signature would have held also in our subjects, whose OFF-hr scores would have increased markedly and most likely been flagged by the software as being abnormal during the weeks after injections ceased. Similarly, we speculate that the sequence analysis used by the ABP software, which explicitly evaluates variations in the data, would have yielded greater sensitivity if washout data had been included as these data would have varied substantially from both baseline and treatment phases. Finally, an inevitable limitation when structured laboratory studies seek to mimic how athletes dope ‘in the field’ is the inability to faithfully replicate that setting. For example, our protocol incorporated regular twice weekly injections over a three month period. It could be disputed whether an athlete would adhere to that regimen, and less consistent dosing could result in larger fluctuations in blood variables.
> 
> One implication of this study is that careful attention should be paid to when and how unannounced urine controls are collected from high risk groups. Given that at least one microdosing strategy can be utilised without being flagged by the ABP software, conventional urinalyses will remain a crucial and perhaps the only avenue open to authorities to remedy microdosing. However, this observation should only temper, not redact, implementation of the Athlete Biological Passport: sport federations or national anti-doping agencies without a coherent blood testing strategy may well house a population of athletes whose blood values resemble cycling and cross-country skiing circa 1997 (i.e., unsophisticated doping regimens with commensurately extreme blood values). In that environment we speculate the ABP software would wield an unprecedented deterrent/detection effect (at least until the athletes revised their doping strategies).
> 
> The passport’s utility as an intelligence-gathering tool should not be understated. Perhaps additional biomarkers, with increased sensitivity but reduced specificity, might be introduced to magnify the passport’s utility as a targeting strategy (low specificity in this setting is immaterial when the data are used only for intelligence gathering)."
> 
> Regarding washout and nadir in OFF-hr scores, Tyler's book covers a multitude of ways of getting out of and manipulating non-competition WADA testing.


----------



## DIRT BOY

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> I'm in the business of applying sports science to help develop the performance of my athletes. I have a pretty decent understanding of such matters. But that's not particularly relevant.
> 
> Hamilton's book is interesting for sure but it is not a scientific proof of what was claimed.
> 
> Essentially what you are saying is that every rider that has finished a TDF is doping.


I would basically yes. The top 75% times of riders. The TDF has become a HUGE. Longer and faster race then the very old days. Riders have a longer calendar of races and some do 3 GT a year.
yes, you can't handle todays racing calendar with out some form and small amounts of doping. Training, supplements and equipment wont do it.

It always respected your posts and comments on this subject. But if you cant accept the reality or what these are doing, then you must look at your self and the understanding or sports and science. PEROID, thats a fact.
I not talking about cycling, I am talking about SPORTS in general and the tool that it takes on all athletes and the money behind everything. Their schedules, play, power, etc, etc.

I don't think athletes can perform at the top of their games in TODAYS sports at an elite level without Doping.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

DIRT BOY said:


> I would basically yes. The top 75% times of riders. The TDF has become a HUGE. Longer and faster race then the very old days. Riders have a longer calendar of races and some do 3 GT a year.
> yes, you can't handle todays racing calendar with out some form and small amounts of doping. Training, supplements and equipment wont do it.
> 
> It always respected your posts and comments on this subject. But if you cant accept the reality or what these are doing, then you must look at your self and the understanding or sports and science. PEROID, thats a fact.
> I not talking about cycling, I am talking about SPORTS in general and the tool that it takes on all athletes and the money behind everything. Their schedules, play, power, etc, etc.
> 
> I don't think athletes can perform at the top of their games in TODAYS sports at an elite level without Doping.


I guess I get your drift but your message is confusing. You say they all are, then say most, then say it's only the top guys in all sports. Those statements are conflicting, so which is it? (rhetorical).

My real point is that yours is a statement of _opinion_, and is not _science_. That's not to say your opinion is wrong, or that my opinion is right (and I haven't really expressed an opinion) but neither of them is established science or fact.

What we do know as fact thanks to the research collated and published by dopeology.org (although for real science an additional verification process would be needed) is the proportion of riders that have had a doping infraction of some kind and have attained a podium position (or top 20 GC placing in grand tours) in the last 33 years of professional European racing is approximately 50%. That ratio has fallen for the most recent few years.

That does not mean the other 50% of podium place getters did not dope, but we have not established as fact that 100% of those podium place getters did dope, nor has it been established as fact that _every_ rider that participated in professional races doped.

Given the history of the sport it is reasonable to assume there are a proportion of the balance of professional riders that do not have a known doping infraction that did also dope, but we have no evidence to tell us what that proportion actually is.

So what can be reasonably concluded from what we do know?

To achieve podium place for most of the major European professional races since 1980, there is at least a 50% chance that you had also doped at some time in your career. It's quite possible the chance is much higher, but we cannot actually say by how much with any factual certainty.

But much beyond that we are speculating. A claim of 100% of all professional riders would be extraordinary, and as such requires extraordinary evidence. Such evidence does not and will most likely never exist.

I am in total agreement that the numbers of known dopers quoted is awful but it is not proof that a rider requires doping in order to compete in a grand tour (which was the original claim of "scientific proof").


----------



## ALIHISGREAT

Cableguy said:


> If you're a team with enormous funding competing at the highest level in the Tour de France, you will take just about every possible advantage you can get your hands on. If I had no idea who was even on team Sky or what their results were, I would tell you they were cheating. Think about this for a moment... if you knew with near certainty that other riders and teams in the race were utilizing at least some form of illegal PEDs, and you could also get away with it too if so desired, would you actually not do it?
> 
> Another way to put it, let's say there's a rule that you cannot inflate your tires above 80 PSI. But the official don't, or should I say can't, check. You know other teams are riding above 80 PSI to get an advatange.. at the very least everyone is inflating to 85-90 under the guise of human error. Now would you actually make sure no one on your team goes above 80 PSI?
> 
> Really the question isn't whether Froome is doping, it's how much. How far did Sky take it, and how much farther was it than the other teams.


Are you serious?

So you've somehow decided that Froome is doping because you've decided that the rest of the peloton is also doping..

and yet you have no evidence for either conclusion.

Seems reasonable!


----------



## trailrunner68

ALIHISGREAT said:


> Are you serious?
> 
> So you've somehow decided that Froome is doping because you've decided that the rest of the peloton is also doping..
> 
> and yet you have no evidence for either conclusion.


Just twenty years of evidence that the sport is dopefest, but I guess if you want to ignore that and pretend it is different this time and the unicorns are real this time around...


----------



## cda 455

trailrunner68 said:


> Just twenty years of evidence that the sport is dopefest, but I guess if you want to ignore that and pretend it is different this time and the unicorns are real this time around...




Stop. Feeding. The. Troll.


----------



## Slartibartfast

cda 455 said:


> Stop. Feeding. The. Troll.


Pssst... Not a troll. It's a jingoistic Sky shill instead... :wink:


----------



## robdamanii

ALIHISGREAT said:


> Are you serious?
> 
> So you've somehow decided that Froome is doping because you've decided that the rest of the peloton is also doping..
> 
> and yet you have no evidence for either conclusion.
> 
> Seems reasonable!


Yep, you must be new to this...


----------



## DrSmile

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> I guess I get your drift but your message is confusing. You say they all are, then say most, then say it's only the top guys in all sports. Those statements are conflicting, so which is it? (rhetorical).
> 
> My real point is that yours is a statement of _opinion_, and is not _science_. That's not to say your opinion is wrong, or that my opinion is right (and I haven't really expressed an opinion) but neither of them is established science or fact.
> 
> What we do know as fact thanks to the research collated and published by dopeology.org (although for real science an additional verification process would be needed) is the proportion of riders that have had a doping infraction of some kind and have attained a podium position (or top 20 GC placing in grand tours) in the last 33 years of professional European racing is approximately 50%. That ratio has fallen for the most recent few years.
> 
> That does not mean the other 50% of podium place getters did not dope, but we have not established as fact that 100% of those podium place getters did dope, nor has it been established as fact that _every_ rider that participated in professional races doped.
> 
> Given the history of the sport it is reasonable to assume there are a proportion of the balance of professional riders that do not have a known doping infraction that did also dope, but we have no evidence to tell us what that proportion actually is.
> 
> So what can be reasonably concluded from what we do know?
> 
> To achieve podium place for most of the major European professional races since 1980, there is at least a 50% chance that you had also doped at some time in your career. It's quite possible the chance is much higher, but we cannot actually say by how much with any factual certainty.
> 
> But much beyond that we are speculating. A claim of 100% of all professional riders would be extraordinary, and as such requires extraordinary evidence. Such evidence does not and will most likely never exist.
> 
> I am in total agreement that the numbers of known dopers quoted is awful but it is not proof that a rider requires doping in order to compete in a grand tour (which was the original claim of "scientific proof").


I think you are confusing scientific evidence with mathematical proofs. 

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation."

The body of knowledge (repeatedly confirmed) in professional cycling is pretty unequivocal with regards to doping.


----------



## stevesbike

I agree that there's no such thing as 'scientific proof' since a proof requires a deductive argument and science is an inductive enterprise. That said, it's a fallacy to infer from 'all winners in the past doped' to 'Chris Froome doped.' Even if the claim 'all winners..." were true (it's not), it is an obvious inductive fallacy to conclude that anything about Chris Froome (there are black swans for those who know the history of inductive inference), a sample of coin tosses may all be tails but that doesn't mean the next toss will be tails, etc. 

The history of the tour gives you a base rate, that's all. 






DrSmile said:


> I think you are confusing scientific evidence with mathematical proofs.
> 
> "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation."
> 
> The body of knowledge (repeatedly confirmed) in professional cycling is pretty unequivocal with regards to doping.


----------



## DrSmile

stevesbike said:


> I agree that there's no such thing as 'scientific proof' since a proof requires a deductive argument and science is an inductive enterprise. That said, it's a fallacy to infer from 'all winners in the past doped' to 'Chris Froome doped.' Even if the claim 'all winners..." were true (it's not), it is an obvious inductive fallacy to conclude that anything about Chris Froome (there are black swans for those who know the history of inductive inference), a sample of coin tosses may all be tails but that doesn't mean the next toss will be tails, etc.
> 
> The history of the tour gives you a base rate, that's all.


Well, I guess if you equate Froome with a black Swan I can agree with that. Now what are the odds of finding three black swans (Wiggo, Froome, now maybe Porte)? I find it beyond naive to think this is some sort of incredible circumstance. The odds have to be one in a billion.


----------



## pedalruns

DrSmile said:


> Well, I guess if you equate Froome with a black Swan I can agree with that. Now what are the odds of finding three black swans (Wiggo, Froome, now maybe Porte)? I find it beyond naive to think this is some sort of incredible circumstance. The odds have to be one in a billion.


Exactly... And IMO 3 black swams coming from a beginning that didn't show future results like TDF champions in 2 of the cases thus far.. (gifted riders, yes but...)

Now some will mention Bernard Hinault & Greg Lemond on the same team.. but in both cases these guys showed INCREDIBLE EARLY talent.


----------



## stevesbike

The point is, performance does not provide any evidence to reject the one in a billion hypothesis, which is Simmons, Coggans, etc. point. So, they do 6.3 watts for an hour (which none in fact did, but for the sake of argument...). It provides no evidence for or against the hypothesis. Nor does it provide any evidence for or against the doping hypothesis.

FWIW, finding a rider from Europe (Wiggis), from Africa (Froome) and Australasia (Porte) there is literally nothing extraordinary about the one in a billion black swan hypothesis. 







DrSmile said:


> Well, I guess if you equate Froome with a black Swan I can agree with that. Now what are the odds of finding three black swans (Wiggo, Froome, now maybe Porte)? I find it beyond naive to think this is some sort of incredible circumstance. The odds have to be one in a billion.


----------



## Fireform

I guess I'm the only one experiencing déjà vu over the fact that these exact same arguments were advanced for years to support the idea that Lance et al were riding clean.


----------



## spade2you

Fireform said:


> I guess I'm the only one experiencing déjà vu over the fact that these exact same arguments were advanced for years to support the idea that Lance et al were riding clean.


I think everyone on this side of the pond realizes that there's entirely too much déjà vu going on.


----------



## AJL

stevesbike said:


> The point is, performance does not provide any evidence to reject the one in a billion hypothesis, which is Simmons, Coggans, etc. point. So, they do 6.3 watts for an hour (which none in fact did, but for the sake of argument...). It provides no evidence for or against the hypothesis. Nor does it provide any evidence for or against the doping hypothesis.
> 
> FWIW, finding a rider from Europe (Wiggis), from Africa (Froome) and Australasia (Porte) there is literally nothing extraordinary about the one in a billion black swan hypothesis.


Well the problem isn't their birthplace. The problem is find three black swans out of the European Pro peleton - so three black swans out from some 600 Pro Tour riders? 1 in 200 or 0.5% over the course of just a few years. Oh and what was that bit about Sky not testing Froome's power numbers and whatnot when signing him - I guess they found some other secret formula for finding talent ala Moneyball?

Sky is being as transparent as a lampshade "clearly there is a bright light in there". While waving their hands and telling us another "compelling" story just like LA did. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice - yeah, the burden of proof is on you. Sorry, but that's just solid reasoning - science in vacuum is not applicable, no control data are available (perhaps aside from doping controls, but we already know that that can be beat).


----------



## trailrunner68

You have to love those black swans that spent the first half of their careers as turkeys.


----------



## Corsaire

Fireform said:


> I guess I'm the only one experiencing déjà vu over the fact that these exact same arguments were advanced for years to support the idea that Lance et al were riding clean.


That's because part of the problem is culture, more specifically Western culture, where most people through TV, movies and stupefying entertainment have been brought up to look up to and believe in "super heroes", celebrities, the cult of the "sensational", "extravagant" and the "extraordinary". This translates into the perception through which we see sports, in this case: pro-cycling - people crave to see "champions", not any champion but a "super hero", they want to see "superman" going uphill or destroying the field for that matter. It really becomes a self- fulfilling prophecy where the spectator is also part of the problem....this explains why in spite of the facts about the history of doping and the fact that grand tours cannot be won without some sort of chemical or artificial help some people still remain delusional, they want to believe "their hero" of the moment, be it Lance, Pantani or Froome as of late, are what they purport to be. One just needs to read "Empire of Illusion" by Chris Hedges to understand this phenomenon and how it plays out in our society. And the pathetic example of the Lance cult wasn't even enough for some people, because they need their dose of "hero" delusion.

Like I said before, is physically impossible, scientifically proven, for any pro athlete to perform at that very top level of the sport, day after day, during three weeks without any chemical help, it's IMPOSSIBLE.

This is not to take away rider's prowess and gifted talents, they still do train very hard, of course. Again, they can't rest and eat fast enough to sustain that kind of performance. It's an oxymoron, when they claim to get stronger as the race progresses. Under normal (no doping) circumstances just two weeks would be pushing it. 
Of course, any well trained pro cyclist can finish a grand tour, perhaps any of you with enough time in your hands and rigorous training can finish a 21 stage tour, but to win it the way our "heroes" do it is a total different story. 

Another part of the problem is when we look at pro-cycling as just a sport, it is in reality much more than that, it is a BUSINESS, a big industry at that, and all that implies. As long as the sport remains a business (money talks and therefore power walks) doping will always be a decisive factor. Well financed top teams like US Postals was, and now Sky Team for example have the money and power to resource themselves with the best possible means to accomplish their doping programs, this is not news, that's how things really work in the bigger world. Pro cycling is just a micro cosmos of that bigger reality. Money doesn’t just buy better drugs, it funds evasive techniques and supports subversion. A well-resourced team can hire lookouts to check for visiting doping controllers. It can fly riders to remote training camps where the testers can’t reach. It can use undetectable methods, “investing” in techniques at the cutting edge of doping. For example the logistics of transporting blood bags around Europe require significant funding; Tyler Hamilton recounts US Postal used a private jet; this gets more complicated and expensive if riders need to maintain a complex schedule of EPO microdosing, blood banking and infusion so that they can trick the UCI’s bio-passport with the illusion of stable values all year long. It’s not uncommon to see people refer to anti-doping controls as IQ tests, if people follow advice then they never get caught; meanwhile the little guys get rousted for bungling amateurism." 

Many pro-riders have been outspoken about the fact that a grand tour, tough and so demanding as is the Tour de France cannot be won w/o some sort of artificial help. It can't be won on pasta and electrolytes only, not withstanding the cyclist's well trained body and natural prowess. This has been said also by Lance and outspoken in Tyler Hamilton's book. A Colombian friend who owns two bike shops in NJ and used to race in the Tour de Colombia is friends with Santiago Botero, who admittedly has been a doper and acknowledge this fact, that a grand tour cannot be competed and/or won "pan y agua".

*Hemoglobin and hematocrit during an 8 day mountainbike race: A field study 
*
"In contrast to acute exercise it has been well documented as a long term adaptation that regular endurance training over long term periods or re-peated bouts of strenuous exercise, e. g. repetitive cycling races or cycling stage races over several consecutive days, lead to a fall in both Hb and Hct levels due to a progressive enlargement in particular in PV. Changes in hemato-logical parameters are known to considerably influence physical performance,especially in aerobic endurance sports such as mountainbiking. An increase in PV nor-mally results in enhanced aerobic performance due to reduced blood viscosity, thereby optimized microcircula-tion and improved oxygen delivery capacity to the work- ing muscle (Schumacher et. al., 2000). Hematological 
parameters Hb and Hct are highly sensible to acute effects. The effects of prolonged exercise on hematological status are mainly dependent on total load (mode and duration) of exercise, as well as thermal stress (temperature and humidity) and fluid intake (FI)(Convertino, 1991; Fellmann et. al., 1999; Neumay
r et. al., 2002; Sawka et. 
al., 2000; Schumacher et. al.,
2000). The Transalp Challenge (TAC) is one of the hardest MTB marathon races in the world (besides Cape Epic/SA and Transrockies/USA), covering eight consecutive st
ages. The key data of TAC 2004 are: 22.500 m (altitude difference), 662 km (distance), which reflects a daily average of 2.812,5 m along 
with 82.75 km. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine development and changes in hematological variables Hb, Hct and PV during this MTB stage race. 

Until E4 of the TAC 2004 Hb and Hct show a continuous and pronounced fall while PV expansion is pronounced. 
Hb and Hct readings remained nearly at this lower level 
while PV remained narrow to this higher level until the 
end of this MTB race.This field study was done under 
authentic conditions of the TAC 2004"

Read more: http://www.jssm.org/vol6/n2/16/v6n2-16pdf.pdf


----------



## stevesbike

Nice slippery slope - from declining blood parameters to the claim that it is impossible to win a grand tour without doping. Winning the Tour is about relative performance, so winning means beating the second fastest person. If that person is not doping, then it is obviously possible to beat them without doping. If that person is doping, as in the case of the cyclists you mention, then it may still be possible to beat them depending on one's physiological status (a true outlier). Lance, Botero, Hamilton, all part of a doping cohort yet you take their quotes out of that context. 








Corsaire said:


> That's because...


----------



## Corsaire

stevesbike said:


> Nice slippery slope - from declining blood parameters to the claim that it is impossible to win a grand tour without doping. Winning the Tour is about relative performance, so winning means beating the second fastest person. If that person is not doping, then it is obviously possible to beat them without doping. If that person is doping, as in the case of the cyclists you mention, then it may still be possible to beat them depending on one's physiological status (a true outlier). Lance, Botero, Hamilton, all part of a doping cohort yet you take their quotes out of that context.


Perhaps in a fictitious, delusional view of a grand tour, but not in the reality of grand tours as they are won in present times.


----------



## captain stubbing

wow....you people are harsh! the majority of you are probably the same people that had greg lemond nailed as a’ doper’ for all those years. 

love all the circumstantial evidence posed....how about this circumstantial counter-argument:

average age of TDF winner: 28 (froome is 28)

his main contenders:
Contador - has had a dog of a season and was seriously out of form, nearly upstaged by his support in Kreziger and looked very B grade (see below);
Cadel Evans – is 36yo and rode the Giro;
ValVerde – 33 yo, and past his prime;
Rodriquez – 34 yo, and past his prime;
Schleck – no comment required;
Quintana – a 23 yo newb in his first tour, funny how no one even mentioned his name prior to the tour and was there to support VV, and now people are outraged that Froome beat him!

Others – Tan Dam, Mollema, Kreziger, Fuglsang.....really are all B grade riders with little grand tour history.

Not sure why you are all surprised that Froome won.


----------



## Slartibartfast

captain stubbing said:


> wow....you people are harsh! the majority of you are probably the same people that had greg lemond nailed as a’ doper’ for all those years.
> 
> love all the circumstantial evidence posed....how about this circumstantial counter-argument:
> 
> average age of TDF winner: 28 (froome is 28)
> 
> his main contenders:
> Contador - has had a dog of a season and was seriously out of form, nearly upstaged by his support in Kreziger and looked very B grade (see below);
> Cadel Evans – is 36yo and rode the Giro;
> ValVerde – 33 yo, and past his prime;
> Rodriquez – 34 yo, and past his prime;
> Schleck – no comment required;
> Quintana – a 23 yo newb in his first tour, funny how no one even mentioned his name prior to the tour and was there to support VV, and now people are outraged that Froome beat him!
> 
> Others – Tan Dam, Mollema, Kreziger, Fuglsang.....really are all B grade riders with little grand tour history.
> 
> Not sure why you are all surprised that Froome won.


To me, this ^^^^ is the most convincing argument for Froome's cleanliness. The performances of all the other favorites besides Froome were pretty underwhelming. Someone had to win -- the pick of a bad litter? 

BUT, those guys wouldn't have been as fried if the whole Sky team hadn't been drilling it for 80 miles on all but one of the mountain stages. And let's face it, Froome himself looked freakish on Ventoux and Ax3. Not just compared to the others, but freakish period.


----------



## Fireform

I wasn't the only one who had Quintana as a strong contender this year b4 the tour started. A bunch of my TdF fantasy league buddies picked him, as did I. 

I also said right after the Giro that Cadel had no shot in the tour. Was surprised by Teejay and Kittel though.


----------



## Local Hero

Corsaire said:


> Like I said before, is physically impossible, scientifically proven, for any pro athlete to perform at that very top level of the sport, day after day, during three weeks without any chemical help, it's IMPOSSIBLE.
> 
> This is not to take away rider's prowess and gifted talents, they still do train very hard, of course. Again, they can't rest and eat fast enough to sustain that kind of performance. It's an oxymoron, when they claim to get stronger as the race progresses. Under normal (no doping) circumstances just two weeks would be pushing it.
> Of course, any well trained pro cyclist can finish a grand tour, perhaps any of you with enough time in your hands and rigorous training can finish a 21 stage tour, but to win it the way our "heroes" do it is a total different story.


There was a noticable performances fade during the tour. And Froome's blood values mirrored that same fall off. 

Riders even faded during the season. Some riders were beat up from the Giro. 



Quick question: 
Are you presuming that there is doping to prove that there is doping?


----------



## Atty

Fireform said:


> I wasn't the only one who had Quintana as a strong contender this year b4 the tour started. A bunch of my TdF fantasy league buddies picked him, as did I.


I think a lot more people had Froome as an even stronger contender though.


----------



## captain stubbing

well u and your buddies were one of the few.....but.......have a look at the TDF predictions thread:
96 posts - one person mentions him as a possible podium spot, the other mention is runner up for the white jersey haha!


----------



## Corsaire

Local Hero said:


> There was a noticable performances fade during the tour. And Froome's blood values mirrored that same fall off.
> Riders even faded during the season. Some riders were beat up from the Giro.
> Quick question:
> Are you presuming that there is doping to prove that there is doping?


And he kept on winning only hours after the TDF celebrations and hang over:

Chris Froome continues winning ways in Belgium ? hours after all-night Tour de France party | Metro News

"Chris Froome shrugged off three weeks’ fatigue and a distinct lack of sleep to continue his winning ways in Belgium on Monday night- just 24 hours after his Tour de France triumph."

"Briton’s latest Tour champion joined many of the other riders who completed in the race at the Natourcriterium van Aalst, a city-centre criterium race which allows cycling-mad Belgian fans to get up close to their heroes."

”After the official celebrations on the Champs-Elysees, I firmly celebrated my Tour victory. It was a great party with the whole Sky team. I was only in my bed at 5.30am,’ revealed the Kenyan-born rider.

Tasmanian Porte, famed for his straight-talking, was slightly more frank.
‘I still had a headache when I got up,’ he admitted."

How much more delusional people can be, if Froome and Porte were to be poked with a needle, not blood but "juice" would've squirted out, NOT NORMAL, period.


----------



## fezi

Corsaire said:


> And he kept on winning only hours after the TDF celebrations and hang over:
> 
> Chris Froome continues winning ways in Belgium ? hours after all-night Tour de France party | Metro News
> 
> "Chris Froome shrugged off three weeks’ fatigue and a distinct lack of sleep to continue his winning ways in Belgium on Monday night- just 24 hours after his Tour de France triumph."
> 
> "Briton’s latest Tour champion joined many of the other riders who completed in the race at the Natourcriterium van Aalst, a city-centre criterium race which allows cycling-mad Belgian fans to get up close to their heroes."
> 
> ”After the official celebrations on the Champs-Elysees, I firmly celebrated my Tour victory. It was a great party with the whole Sky team. I was only in my bed at 5.30am,’ revealed the Kenyan-born rider.
> 
> Tasmanian Porte, famed for his straight-talking, was slightly more frank.
> ‘I still had a headache when I got up,’ he admitted."
> 
> How much more delusional people can be, if Froome and Porte were to be poked with a needle, not blood but "juice" would've squirted out, NOT NORMAL, period.



Pretty sure the post tour crits are fixed.


----------



## Corsaire

fezi said:


> pretty sure the post tour crits are fixed.


lol!!!!!


----------



## sir duke

trailrunner68 said:


> You have to love those black swans that spent the first half of their careers as turkeys.


What's so hard to believe? You believed in a turkey with cancer once, didn't you? What other athlete in the history of sport came back from their deathbed to be better than they were before? Froome leaves me with doubts but his performance is way more credible than an Armstrong or a Riis. 'They all doped, so he must be doping' is just the tired rallying call of the butthurt chamois-sniffer.


----------



## Fireform

captain stubbing said:


> well u and your buddies were one of the few.....but.......have a look at the TDF predictions thread:
> 96 posts - one person mentions him as a possible podium spot, the other mention is runner up for the white jersey haha!


Quintana was given the 4th best odds of winning the GC by sbsnation.com, 5th by theweek.com, and was the favorite for the white jersey in a few previews I saw.


----------



## trailrunner68

sir duke said:


> What's so hard to believe? You believed in a turkey with cancer once, didn't you? What other athlete in the history of sport came back from their deathbed to be better than they were before? Froome leaves me with doubts but his performance is way more credible than an Armstrong or a Riis. 'They all doped, so he must be doping' is just the tired rallying call of the butthurt chamois-sniffer.


Pull your head out. I never believed in Armstrong because I have an IQ over 80. Armstrong had a good amateur career. He was the favorite to win the Olympic road race. Froome was nothing. Nobody who could cleanly ride at the level Froome is riding at could have an amateur and early pro career as a schmuck like Froome. Just as the fools believed in Armstrong, the even bigger fools believe in Froome.


----------



## sir duke

trailrunner68 said:


> Pull your head out. I never believed in Armstrong because I have an IQ over 80. Armstrong had a good amateur career. He was the favorite to win the Olympic road race. Froome was nothing. Nobody who could cleanly ride at the level Froome is riding at could have an amateur and early pro career as a schmuck like Froome. Just as the fools believed in Armstrong, the even bigger fools believe in Froome.


Just a little evasive. The point I make is that of LA's performance post-cancer. Emphasis on _cancer_, and his complete transformation from a classics contender into a Tour winner. If Froome (or anyone else) had won after similar life-threatening illness they would be laughed at. (Armstrong was laughed at but it didn't suit the purposes of the sport's sponsors or administrators to take action post-Festina.)
Froome completed his first attempt at the TdF, using your highly questionable logic that would make him a better bet as a future Tour winner than Armstrong, who came nowhere near despite his other early successes. Either way, it doesn't shed any light on whether or not Froome won this year using PEDs. It doesn't take an IQ much over 80 to work that one out.


----------



## trailrunner68

sir duke said:


> Just a little evasive. The point I make is that of LA's performance post-cancer. Emphasis on _cancer_, and his complete transformation from a classics contender into a Tour winner. If Froome (or anyone else) had won after similar life-threatening illness they would be laughed at. (Armstrong was laughed at but it didn't suit the purposes of the sport's sponsors or administrators to take action post-Festina.)
> Froome completed his first attempt at the TdF, using your highly questionable logic that would make him a better bet as a future Tour winner than Armstrong, who came nowhere near despite his other early successes. Either way, it doesn't shed any light on whether or not Froome won this year using PEDs. It doesn't take an IQ much over 80 to work that one out.


Completely inane assertions. Armstrong had a decent career before he transformed into a TdF winner. He never showed he could climb in the high mountains or time trial at the elite level, but he had a great record in single day races. He won the world road race championship, San Sebastion, Flèche-Wallone, stages in the Tour, and short stage races. He won triathlons versus the likes of Mike Pigg and Scott Molina. Froome, on the other hand, won the Anatomic Jock Race. He was literally nothing. While Armstrong's vault to the top of grand tour racing was implausible to anyone who had a clue about racing or raced himself, Froome's giant leap is far far more ridiculousness. Trying to equate Froome to Armstrog is fatuous at best, just plain freaking stupid at worst.


----------



## sir duke

> Armstrong had a decent career before he transformed into a TdF winner. He never showed he could climb in the high mountains or time trial at the elite level, but he had a great record in single day races.


Couldn't climb, couldn't time trial but... The very point I made, from classics contender to Tour winner. Froome started out as a climber, never was going to be a one day racer. Not much hope for you if you can't see that I'm not comparing Armstrong's specialisms with Froome's. You've failed to address or rebutt my point about LA _post cancer_ choosing the much more easily defensible option of comparing their palmares in their early years. Apropos of what?



> Froome, on the other hand, won the Anatomic Jock Race


Silliness like that does little to bolster your credibility.


----------



## captain stubbing

Fireform said:


> Quintana was given the 4th best odds of winning the GC by sbsnation.com, 5th by theweek.com, and was the favorite for the white jersey in a few previews I saw.


all besides the point, which is no one really expected him to beat froome.


----------



## Fireform

Whatever. The people who took Quintana lightly were the ones who didn't know about him. That group did not include Froome or Contador, I guarantee you that.


----------



## stevesbike

actually, inferring Froome is doping because he had poor placings for the first 2 years of his pro career is fatuous in itself. There are many more plausible alternative explanations that have been vetted. Ironically, Quintana is being accused of doping in this same thread because he is too successful in his early career. When doping is inferred from A and not-A, there's a problem with the inference...

It is interesting to see more and more riders come out in support of Froome - the latest being Fuglsang, who also cites Sky's structure as a reason for success (and asks himself whether he is as dedicated to success as Froome). Having vocal support of people like Vaughters, Millar, etc. is to me a much better indicator of Froome's status than an empty inference based on his early career. 






trailrunner68 said:


> Completely inane assertions. Armstrong had a decent career before he transformed into a TdF winner. He never showed he could climb in the high mountains or time trial at the elite level, but he had a great record in single day races. He won the world road race championship, San Sebastion, Flèche-Wallone, stages in the Tour, and short stage races. He won triathlons versus the likes of Mike Pigg and Scott Molina. Froome, on the other hand, won the Anatomic Jock Race. He was literally nothing. While Armstrong's vault to the top of grand tour racing was implausible to anyone who had a clue about racing or raced himself, Froome's giant leap is far far more ridiculousness. Trying to equate Froome to Armstrog is fatuous at best, just plain freaking stupid at worst.


----------



## The Tedinator

stevesbike said:


> actually, inferring Froome is doping because he had poor placings for the first 2 years of his pro career is fatuous in itself. There are many more plausible alternative explanations that have been vetted. Ironically, Quintana is being accused of doping in this same thread because he is too successful in his early career. When doping is inferred from A and not-A, there's a problem with the inference...
> 
> It is interesting to see more and more riders come out in support of Froome - the latest being Fuglsang, who also cites Sky's structure as a reason for success (and asks himself whether he is as dedicated to success as Froome). Having vocal support of people like Vaughters, Millar, etc. is to me a much better indicator of Froome's status than an empty inference based on his early career.


Why is that? Miller (heck even Sir Bradley) use to be vociferous in their praise of Armstrong. Vaughters openly was shocked and muted in his response to Froome's performance on Ax-3-Domaines. Surely, if you are going to discount past performances as doping indicators, you are not going to turn around and parade the endorsements of ex-dopers as "proof", are you?


----------



## stevesbike

For one, the list of people I've mentioned in this thread defending Froome are more than ex-dopers. It includes Lemond, David Walsh, riders such as Fuglsang, and specific riders who have doped in the past and now have a stake in clean cycling (dismissing Vaughters as an 'ex-doper' is a smear and you know it). 

In Armstrong's case, its clear that the positive things said about him were in part because of his ability to intimidate others and much of the praise was inspired by an underlying fear of him. That's not the case with Froome. People like Walsh, Vaughters, etc. put their credibility on the line when they defend Froome. They have no vested interest in defending him. Walsh would sell more papers if he found something incriminating against Froome (as he did against Armstrong). It's not proof, but it is more informed and invested opinion than anonymous posters who incriminate Froome via the sloppy thinking here. 



The Tedinator said:


> Why is that? Miller (heck even Sir Bradley) use to be vociferous in their praise of Armstrong. Vaughters openly was shocked and muted in his response to Froome's performance on Ax-3-Domaines. Surely, if you are going to discount past performances as doping indicators, you are not going to turn around and parade the endorsements of ex-dopers as "proof", are you?


----------



## The Tedinator

stevesbike said:


> For one, the list of people I've mentioned in this thread defending Froome are more than ex-dopers. It includes Lemond, David Walsh, riders such as Fuglsang, and specific riders who have doped in the past and now have a stake in clean cycling (dismissing Vaughters as an 'ex-doper' is a smear and you know it).
> 
> In Armstrong's case, its clear that the positive things said about him were in part because of his ability to intimidate others and much of the praise was inspired by an underlying fear of him. That's not the case with Froome. People like Walsh, Vaughters, etc. put their credibility on the line when they defend Froome. They have no vested interest in defending him. Walsh would sell more papers if he found something incriminating against Froome (as he did against Armstrong). It's not proof, but it is more informed and invested opinion than anonymous posters who incriminate Froome via the sloppy thinking here.


Let me start out by saying that I have gone from "sure Froome is doping" to "maybe, maybe not. Time will tell."

But you are being slightly disingenuous, in my opinion. Vaughters, according to his twitter account, was very suspicious of Froome's and Porte's performance on Ax-3-Domaines. I wouldn't say Vaughters has unequivocally claimed Froome clean. Lemond either. He said Froome should publish his numbers to "prove" it. Sky won't do that. He DID say that his performance in his opinion was not "proof" of doping.

Walsh has been thru this war once before. But to be honest, he is now a paid employee of Sky News. He would require concrete proof of Froome's doping to dare accuse him now. And to be honest, there is at this time no concrete proof that he is doping. On the flip side, Kimmage is still to this day sceptical. 

I am not "smearing" Vaughters. He IS an ex-doper; and like Lance, Levi, Danielson, Hincapie, et al, have defrauded clean riders their rewards both monetarily and in fame. It is in his best continued interest for cycling to be clean, and he does pronounce it "clean-er".

Edit: I would be suspicious of most any rider like Fuglsang. He rides for Astana after leaving Riis.


----------



## ghost6

Some of you sound like standardized test-prep instructors with your silly (and oversimplified) references to problems about inductive/deductive arguments.


----------



## spade2you

ghost6 said:


> Some of you sound like standardized test-prep instructors with your silly (and oversimplified) references to problems about inductive/deductive arguments.


Middle aged men arguing about arguing is 90% of the interw3b.


----------



## ghost6

spade2you said:


> Middle aged men arguing about arguing is 90% of the interw3b.


:thumbsup:


----------



## The Tedinator

spade2you said:


> Middle aged men arguing about arguing is 90% of the interw3b.


I would argue with that!


----------



## spade2you

The Tedinator said:


> I would argue with that!


Nice straw man, man. ...er wait, ad hominem....NEG REP'D!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111


----------



## The Tedinator

Actually, I am really flattered to be called "middle aged"!


----------



## trailrunner68

sir duke said:


> Silliness like that does little to bolster your credibility.


You mean the Anatomic Jock Race is not a sure indicator of future TdF domination? Armstrong beating pro triathletes when he was seventeen is less of an indication of elite capability than Froome's mother asking if Froome had any talent as a cyclist as she watched him get shelled by amateur pelotons? Yeah, your argument sounds legit.


----------



## stevesbike

better than sounding like the people who failed those tests...



ghost6 said:


> Some of you sound like standardized test-prep instructors with your silly (and oversimplified) references to problems about inductive/deductive arguments.


----------



## The Tedinator

Pow! Pow!


----------



## nocker

Slartibartfast said:


> To me, this ^^^^ is the most convincing argument for Froome's cleanliness. The performances of all the other favorites besides Froome were pretty underwhelming. Someone had to win -- the pick of a bad litter?
> 
> BUT, those guys wouldn't have been as fried if the whole Sky team hadn't been drilling it for 80 miles on all but one of the mountain stages. And let's face it, Froome himself looked freakish on Ventoux and Ax3. Not just compared to the others, but freakish period.


^^^ this

..although the naive in me wants to believe a corner's been turned.

What I would say is the whole Sky thing, if they are clean, the 'supposed' methodical training of specific riders to do specific jobs/turns at certain w/kg in order to 'nullify' the opposition from sustaining attacks, rather forces the other teams to look at doping in order to beat them in an odd roundabout way.. if you want to beat a team who between them can pull themselves and the main group up at 6w/kg for most of the climb before setting their best guys off, you've got to be running at 6.3/6.4 just to get up the road

..and frankly that kind of boring 'lock down' could be more damaging for the sport in the long run


----------



## The Tedinator

This. Is. Awesome.!

Chris Froome Looking at Stems


----------



## David Loving

What a website!!!


----------



## brianmcg

The Tedinator said:


> This. Is. Awesome.!
> 
> Chris Froome Looking at Stems


"Missing the Stem", my favorite. HA.


----------



## Slartibartfast

The Tedinator said:


> This. Is. Awesome.!
> 
> Chris Froome Looking at Stems


Yes, yes it is. Funniest thing I've ever seen on these boards. :lol::biggrin5::smilewinkgrin::cornut:


----------



## love4himies

The Tedinator said:


> This. Is. Awesome.!
> 
> Chris Froome Looking at Stems


I had to suppress my urge to burst out laughing as I'm in my office and my coworkers would call the loony bin. That was hilarious, thanks for sharing it.

BTW does not making eye contact with anybody mean you are feeling guilty about something?????


----------



## DasBoost

brianmcg said:


> "Missing the Stem", my favorite. HA.


QFT. The 1000 yard, 'Stem Withdrawal' stare. :thumbsup:


----------



## sir duke

Eyes off my stem! LOL. Bloody brilliant!


----------



## c_h_i_n_a_m_a_n

Isn't that position more aerodynamic?


----------



## The Tedinator

I am still skeptical, but heck; other than retroactive testing or someone coming clean......

No Positive Doping Tests At 2013 Tour De France | Cyclingnews.com

what can a poor boy do, 'cept to sing in a rock and roll band?


----------



## love4himies

The Tedinator said:


> I am still skeptical, but heck; other than retroactive testing or someone coming clean......
> 
> No Positive Doping Tests At 2013 Tour De France | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> what can a poor boy do, 'cept to sing in a rock and roll band?





> During the Tour, 198 biological passport tests were carried out. However, there were only 18 tests for human growth hormone and just two for human blood transfusions.
> 
> From the urine samples, of which there were 179, 113 were tested for EPO.


Not good enough for me to believe in a clean peloton.


----------



## spade2you

love4himies said:


> Not good enough for me to believe in a clean peloton.


Froome and Lemond are the only clean GC riders in the history of man.


----------



## DrSmile

spade2you said:


> Froome and Lemond are the only clean GC riders in the history of man.


Lemond was doping with shotgun pellets.


----------



## love4himies

DrSmile said:


> Lemond was doping with shotgun pellets.


And iron injections.


----------



## Oldermileeater

I really don't know what to believe anymore. I gave Lance Armstrong the benefit of the doubt for a long time based on the drug screenings he 'passed'. His tumble from glory really ruined my faith in competitive riding, along with this guy doped, and that guy also doped......

I am NOT a pro rider - never have been. But I do the miles many pro riders do. I know a few things about endurance. To this day, cyclists (or those who call themselves cyclists) half my age can't keep up with me - especially when it comes to long distance and endurance riding. I do not dope. I can't afford it. I do not know how to get the stuff. I am NOT interested in doing so.

I am a roadie. Last year, I rode round trip across the U.S.. I did it each way in three weeks. I often ride 450 mile rides (each way) in two days each direction. Where my cross country trips are concerned: I will admit to holding back a bit, and could have done it much faster, but there are things that go beyond what would seem to be reasonable physical capabilities to even top athletes.

Doing the TDF and averaging 25+ MPH (even though they only ride in stages of 100 or so miles each stage, that is fast), and riders crossing the U.S. in under 9 days - Sometimes I just don't know anymore.

With all the new techniques in doping, and sometimes taking years to be 'found out', I really don't know what to believe in anymore.

To a large extent, I have become disallusioned.


----------



## DrSmile

Oldermileeater said:


> To a large extent, I have become disallusioned.


I know right, it's hard to reference anyone with so much media content!


----------



## timtak

*bags under the eyes*



Oldermileeater said:


> I have become disallusioned.


A while ago a BBC program alleged the great British Sprinter, Alan Wells took drugs prior to his Olympic medal win. I have no idea whether that is true or not, but I must say he had big upper body muscles. Looking at photos of Alan Wells I noticed something else about him, and others that have been accused of, or known to have been, taking steroids and that is noticeably large bags under the eyes. I only mean to suggest that there may be a covariance, a bit like the "lantern jaw" that may covary with the use of human growth hormone. 

Here is a Google image search of Chris Froome's face and Nairo Quintan's face.

Here is a Google image search of male thin faces for comparison. Some of them, especially the actors and beefed up models, may be juiced but it would be interesting to see if TDF riders have bigger bags under their eyes than other thin people.


----------



## DrSmile

timtak said:


> and that is noticeably large bags under the eyes.


I must be taking a sh!tload of steroids...


----------



## Celesteplastic

Have to agree with David! "You do not win the tour on water and spaghetti" according to Mario Cipollini.......


----------



## DrSmile

Froome's TUEs have been leaked. Not anything earth shattering, he takes Prednisolone.

Fancy Bears' - Hack Team


----------



## coldash

DrSmile said:


> Froome's TUEs have been leaked. Not anything earth shattering, he takes Prednisolone.
> 
> Fancy Bears' - Hack Team


..... and the leaks confirm what he has already told the media. Not exactly the scoop of the century.


----------



## MMsRepBike

Agreed that the leaks don't show anything special at all.

Inhalers? Allergy stuff? We all knew that already.

I think it's funny that USADA and WADA are "...calling for the international community to condemn these attacks..." I, for one welcome it. Why are TUEs so confidential? We can see them puffing on the inhalers... Hello? Why is the piece of paper or the existence of one so confidential?

What was leaked should be semi-public anyway. I think most can agree that more transparency is good in these sorts of things.


----------



## coldash

MMsRepBike said:


> Agreed that the leaks don't show anything special at all.
> 
> Inhalers? Allergy stuff? We all knew that already.
> 
> I think it's funny that USADA and WADA are "...calling for the international community to condemn these attacks..." I, for one welcome it. Why are TUEs so confidential? We can see them puffing on the inhalers... Hello? Why is the piece of paper or the existence of one so confidential?
> 
> What was leaked should be semi-public anyway. I think most can agree that more transparency is good in these sorts of things.


Agreed. I think all TUEs required for what could be described as physical issues should be in the public domain. I am not so sure about this for people taking recognized but banned treatments for what could be described as mental issues. I think that one needs a bit of thought. 

Much more worrying for me is that the hackers appear to have access to the "whereabouts list", especially considering the plight of the Russian whistleblowers currently registered on the database but in hiding for their supposed safety.


----------



## Alaska Mike

There are medical confidentially issues regarding many national laws that keep unapproved release of this data from happening (e.g. HIPPA). Even "public" personalities should have some expectation of privacy.


----------



## aclinjury

Froome's leaked TUEs may not be as exciting, but Wiggin's TUEs are definitely something "what's up!". Corticosteroid injection for exercise induced asthma??? Like Tom Dumoulin said, "They don't give this injection for normal asthma patients". So, can we say that Brailsford's "no needle" policy was just all talk?


----------



## jacksdad

so my old asthmatic ass would need all manner of drugs to compete with any ranked cyclist and as such I won't get to try since i'd be cheating...yes?

it's just what I was born with. sad but true.

so, if that's the case how is it a guy who drew the 'exercise induced asthma' card is allowed to do this? how is working around a genetic deficiency with drugs acceptable for this guy but other genetic deficiencies, at least as cycling goes, are not allowed to be addressed?

in both cases aren't we addressing the bodies ability to deliver oxygen?


----------



## atpjunkie

my daughter and I both suffer from EIB when conditions are right. Last weekend on a 30 mile ride she had an episode. Not fun.
Asthma / EIB and/or Allergies all run on the same gene. I am not shocked at all how common it is.


----------



## cda 455

Bringing this back to the top with stage 9 happening in the morrow  .


Supposedly; stage 9 is the most difficult stage of The Tour having 3 HC climbs.

It'll be interesting to see how Froome does.


----------



## Eretz

cda 455 said:


> Bringing this back to the top with stage 9 happening in the morrow  .
> 
> 
> Supposedly; stage 9 is the most difficult stage of The Tour having 3 HC climbs.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see how Froome does.


 I probably will not sleep this evening.


----------



## love4himies

I just read he is excited for the Vuelta. I always thought a clean rider had a hard enough time winning 1 GT, let alone 2 in a year.

You'd have to be some type of special person who can keep up the training it takes to be better than everybody else to win the TdF year after year without drugs.


----------



## cda 455

This year's TDF was nothing more than a rerun of the 1999/2000/2001/2002/2003/2004/2005 TDFs.

And the _behind-the-scenes_ stories of both US Postal and UK Postal reads like the same script :mad2: !!


It's just a matter of time before the UK Postal lie will be exposed. 

And 4+ TDFs will have no winners. Again.......


----------



## Rashadabd

The more he wins, the harder it is to believe. He also rarely has an off day in a major race, which is also unusual, but seems to frequently happen with them. While it's impossible to say they are cheating for sure as a fan, there are lots of reasons to be suspicious. Great Britain hadn't had a TdF or grand tour winner in how long before Braislford shows up and now all they do is win...every....single...year??? Hmmm. 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/jun/28/dave-brailsford-team-sky-dismisses-questions


----------



## bike981

Rashadabd said:


> The more he wins, the harder it is to believe. He also rarely has an off day in a major race, which is also unusual, but seems to frequently happen with them. While it's impossible to say they are cheating for sure as a fan, there are lots of reasons to be suspicious. Great Britain hadn't had a TdF or grand tour winner in how long before Braislford shows up and now all they do is win...every....single...year??? Hmmm.


The counterargument is that if your team has something like a $20M+ budget and you've thus got 8 top tier teammates to drag your around France for 3 weeks, the effort is quite a bit easier. Rarely did Bardet, much less Uran, have the number or quality of teammates around as did Froome.


----------



## Rashadabd

bike981 said:


> The counterargument is that if your team has something like a $20M+ budget and you've thus got 8 top tier teammates to drag your around France for 3 weeks, the effort is quite a bit easier. Rarely did Bardet, much less Uran, have the number or quality of teammates around as did Froome.


That's definitely the counter, that they are simply better. I guess the question we have to ask ourselves is can anyone truly be that much better and be clean? It's tough to say, but I don't think it's crazy to ask the question anymore. They have dominated the Tour for the last 5-6 years with two different riders and a bunch of changes in support personnel. Maybe they just happened upon two once in a generation leaders at the same time, but maybe not....


----------



## cda 455

bike981 said:


> The counterargument is that if your team has something like a $20M+ budget and you've thus got 8 top tier _*doping*_ teammates to drag your around France for 3 weeks, the effort is quite a bit easier. Rarely did Bardet, much less Uran, have the number or quality of teammates around as did Froome.


There; FIFY


----------



## love4himies

Rashadabd said:


> That's definitely the counter, that they are simply better. I guess the question we have to ask ourselves is can anyone truly be that much better and be clean? It's tough to say, but I don't think it's crazy to ask the question anymore. They have dominated the Tour for the last 5-6 years with two different riders and a bunch of changes in support personnel. Maybe they just happened upon two once in a generation leaders at the same time, but maybe not....


What was USPS team's budget? Weren't the the ones that had a sophisticated doping program that was able to do it so much better than anybody else?

I just see too much Lance (without the more exciting attacks) in Froome. I just don't believe somebody can train that hard to beat all the other great racers.


----------



## Marc

love4himies said:


> What was USPS team's budget? Weren't the the ones that had a sophisticated doping program that was able to do it so much better than anybody else?
> 
> I just see too much Lance (without the more exciting attacks) in Froome. I just don't believe somebody can train that hard to beat all the other great racers.


The one thing about Froome versus Lance....Froome manages to not come across as a total jagoff, he leaves that duty to his DS.


----------



## cda 455

Marc said:


> The one thing about Froome versus Lance....Froome manages to not come across as a total jagoff, he leaves that duty to his DS.


Excellent point.


----------



## cda 455

love4himies said:


> What was USPS team's budget? Weren't the the ones that had a sophisticated doping program that was able to do it so much better than anybody else?
> 
> I just see too much Lance (without the more exciting attacks) in Froome. I just don't believe somebody can train that hard to beat all the other great racers.


I wholeheartedly agree.


As Sir Elton John would sing, "...I've seen that movie too."


----------



## coldash

Well, it is the same old same old with Sky. Who knows but there seems to be a remarkable lack of comment about how well Cannondale (now, there is a team with a history of "interesting" riders) have performed recently e.g. a surprise Green jersey, a second place on the TdF and even Rolland getting the occasional result and all on a budget of 2 cents

Maybe in a couple of years we'll find out the secret of their success


----------



## love4himies

Marc said:


> The one thing about Froome versus Lance....Froome manages to not come across as a total jagoff, he leaves that duty to his DS.


That is so true.


----------



## coldash

love4himies said:


> I just read he is excited for the Vuelta. I always thought a clean rider had a hard enough time winning 1 GT, let alone 2 in a year.
> 
> You'd have to be some type of special person who can keep up the training it takes to be better than everybody else to win the TdF year after year without drugs.


IIRC, so far we have the following who are going to contest the Vuelta as well as the TdF
Froome
Chaves, Yates
Majka
Aru
Bardet
Uran
Bennett
Contador

So competing in both at a high level isn't exactly unique

Plus some others who did the Giro
Nibali
Jungles (?)
Zakarin
Kruisjiwijk (?)
Costa


----------



## love4himies

coldash said:


> IIRC, so far we have the following who are going to contest the Vuelta as well as the TdF
> Froome
> Chaves, Yates
> Majka
> Aru
> Bardet
> Uran
> Bennett
> Contador
> 
> So competing in both at a high level isn't exactly unique
> 
> Plus some others who did the Giro
> Nibali
> Jungles (?)
> Zakarin
> Kruisjiwijk (?)
> Costa


I think JV stated Uran was coming to Montreal in Sept

https://cyclingtips.com/2017/07/qa-...lled-off-something-incredible-tour-de-france/



> What’s next for Uran? Is he doing the Vuelta?
> 
> No. He is doing San Sebastian, Colorado Classic, and Montreal.


----------



## coldash

love4himies said:


> I think JV stated Uran was coming to Montreal in Sept
> 
> https://cyclingtips.com/2017/07/qa-...lled-off-something-incredible-tour-de-france/


Ah, could be! I know that list is provisional and I guess we'll see a few added and dropped as they assess their fitness / recovery over the incoming weeks.


----------



## love4himies

coldash said:


> Ah, could be! I know that list is provisional and I guess we'll see a few added and dropped as they assess their fitness / recovery over the incoming weeks.


For sure. Some will just not be ready.


----------



## Rashadabd

coldash said:


> Well, it is the same old same old with Sky. Who knows but there seems to be a remarkable lack of comment about how well Cannondale (now, there is a team with a history of "interesting" riders) have performed recently e.g. a surprise Green jersey, a second place on the TdF and even Rolland getting the occasional result and all on a budget of 2 cents
> 
> Maybe in a couple of years we'll find out the secret of their success


Jonathan Vaughters said he wants you to meet him at the flagpole after school so he can take your lunch money for talking smack about his team.....

https://cyclingtips.com/2017/07/qa-...lled-off-something-incredible-tour-de-france/


----------



## cda 455

Rashadabd said:


> Jonathan Vaughters said he wants you to meet him at the flagpole after school so he can take your lunch money for talking smack about his team.....
> 
> https://cyclingtips.com/2017/07/qa-...lled-off-something-incredible-tour-de-france/


:lol:


----------



## coldash

Rashadabd said:


> Jonathan Vaughters said he wants you to meet him at the flagpole after school so he can take your lunch money for talking smack about his team.....
> 
> https://cyclingtips.com/2017/07/qa-...lled-off-something-incredible-tour-de-france/


Well he would say that wouldn't he. 

All teams face the same problem of proving that they are clean. The point I was making is that there are all sorts of great performances from teams and individuals that should be celebrated, yet only Sky seem to get the heat. I understand why people don't like Sky's style of racing but some people seem to have a fetish about it and get off on making unsubstantiated accusations about doping


----------



## Rashadabd

coldash said:


> Well he would say that wouldn't he.
> 
> All teams face the same problem of proving that they are clean. The point I was making is that there are all sorts of great performances from teams and individuals that should be celebrated, yet only Sky seem to get the heat. I understand why people don't like Sky's style of racing but some people seem to have a fetish about it and get off on making unsubstantiated accusations about doping


I knew what you were implying and I was kind of just messin' with ya. Regarding the previous post though, fair enough, but I can only think of one team that has won 5 of the last 6 Tour de Frances with two different riders and a bunch of personnel changes that has recently had questions raised about vials of drugs being delivered to one of those riders via a zip lock baggie. If you are able to look the other way on all of that, fine, but I and others don't feel the same. I now have questions and I don't think that's crazy....

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-team-sky-dave-brailsford-credibility-tatters

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/oct/16/dave-brailsford-team-sky-bag-bradley-wiggins


----------



## Rashadabd

Provide more evidence of why I am suspicious you say, well ok:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/apr/13/ukad-team-sky-breached-no-needles-allegation

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...gedly-sent-banned-testosterone-patches-doping

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/mar/03/cycling-tue-bradley-wiggins-richard-freeman

World Anti-Doping Agency considers ban on drug used by Sir Bradley Wiggins before Tour de France win

Nicole Cooke 'sceptical' of Team Sky and Sir Bradley Wiggins - BBC Sport

Oh by the way, this isn't currently happening over at Cannondale or any other World Tour team I am aware of, but then again none of those teams are winning the TdF almost every year are they? I don't know if they are cheating for sure, but like I said before, I am suspicious and I think for good reason.


----------



## coldash

Rashadabd said:


> I knew what you were implying and I was kind of just messin' with ya.


I understand that and your subsequent links . I discount all of the Guardian stuff because it is an avowed enemy of the Murdoch empire and hence doesn't miss any chance to try and discredit it, however tenuous the "evidence". Same applies to the Daily Mail. The UK journalists who have headlined this stuff have no problems in ignoring drug misuse in rugby and soccer, both of which lavish great amounts on "hospitality " for the press. 

I can only think of one team that has won 5 out of the last 6 TdFs as well. Maybe we'll be able to share the ensuing Nobel prize


----------



## DaveG

Rashadabd said:


> Provide more evidence of why I am suspicious you say, well ok:
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/apr/13/ukad-team-sky-breached-no-needles-allegation
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...gedly-sent-banned-testosterone-patches-doping
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/mar/03/cycling-tue-bradley-wiggins-richard-freeman
> 
> World Anti-Doping Agency considers ban on drug used by Sir Bradley Wiggins before Tour de France win
> 
> Nicole Cooke 'sceptical' of Team Sky and Sir Bradley Wiggins - BBC Sport
> 
> Oh by the way, this isn't currently happening over at Cannondale or any other World Tour team I am aware of, but then again none of those teams are winning the TdF almost every year are they? I don't know if they are cheating for sure, but like I said before, I am suspicious and I think for good reason.


Personally I find it inspiring that people with these sort of medical ailments can rise the the top levels of a endurance sport like cycling


----------



## Rashadabd

coldash said:


> I understand that and your subsequent links . I discount all of the Guardian stuff because it is an avowed enemy of the Murdoch empire and hence doesn't miss any chance to try and discredit it, however tenuous the "evidence". Same applies to the Daily Mail. The UK journalists who have headlined this stuff have no problems in ignoring drug misuse in rugby and soccer, both of which lavish great amounts on "hospitality " for the press.
> 
> I can only think of one team that has won 5 out of the last 6 TdFs as well. Maybe we'll be able to share the ensuing Nobel prize


When the facts don't fit your paradigm, blame/shoot the messenger, sure, I have seen that one before. I get it, it's all you have at this point. You do know there are 30-40 more articles out there from all over the globe though highlighting this though right? It actually happened. Investigations have occurred, Brailsford almost lost his job, questions still haven't been answered??? Again, if it doesn't bother you though, fine. It bothers me (and others). I just wanted to point out that we all aren't delusional for questioning Sky. Do you though.

Exclusive: Team Sky riders consider asking Brailsford to resign | Cyclingnews.com

Dave Brailsford and Team Sky dodging the press does nothing for a team trying to emphasise their transparency | The Independent

I am sure Lemond is on their payroll too:

Tour de France 2017 - Greg LeMond: I am still sceptical of Team Sky and Dave Brailsford

If you are more comfortable with U.S. based publications, there are plenty of these out there too. 

UK Anti-Doping boss critical of Team Sky | VeloNews.com


----------



## coldash

Rashadabd said:


> When the facts don't fit your paradigm, blame/shoot the messenger, sure, I have seen that one before. I get it, it's all you have at this point. You do know there are 30-40 more articles out there from all over the globe though highlighting this though right? It actually happened. Investigations have occurred, Brailsford almost lost his job, questions still haven't been answered??? Again, if it doesn't bother you though, fine. It bothers me (and others). I just wanted to point out that we all aren't delusional for questioning Sky. Do you though.
> 
> Exclusive: Team Sky riders consider asking Brailsford to resign | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> Dave Brailsford and Team Sky dodging the press does nothing for a team trying to emphasise their transparency | The Independent
> 
> I am sure Lemond is on their payroll too:
> 
> Cycling: All is not well at Team Sky, says LeMond | Reuters
> 
> If you are more comfortable with U.S. based publications, there are plenty of these out there too.
> 
> UK Anti-Doping boss critical of Team Sky | VeloNews.com


Good try but what you fail to realise is that all of these accusations essentially come from a common source. Reheating the same story and republishing it doesn't add anything to its credibility. The leaked investigation was essentially the prosecution case. The subsequent report exonerated most but not all of the accusations and one of the most vocal was found to have been a "trouble maker and a ring leader". People who were dropped were found to have been excluded solely on performance terms. There was no "vendetta". 

As covered elsewhere, maybe even earlier in this thread, UKAD got their ass handed to them by BC after they screwed up the Lizzie Armistead, as she as then, 3rd test. The head of UKAD, in addition to a bit of payback, was using all of this to get more funding and to increase their profile. Nothing wrong with that but there were many agendas in play.

IMV, Brailsford should have lost his job at BC but he had left by then. How anyone with his supposed management skills thought that it was appropriate to put Sutton in charge of an operation is beyond me. Sutton might be a great coach but he is no manager


----------



## Rashadabd

coldash said:


> Good try but what you fail to realise is that all of these accusations essentially come from a common source. Reheating the same story and republishing it doesn't add anything to its credibility. The leaked investigation was essentially the prosecution case. The subsequent report exonerated most but not all of the accusations and one of the most vocal was found to have been a "trouble maker and a ring leader". People who were dropped were found to have been excluded solely on performance terms. There was no "vendetta".
> 
> As covered elsewhere, maybe even earlier in this thread, UKAD got their ass handed to them by BC after they screwed up the Lizzie Armistead, as she as then, 3rd test. The head of UKAD, in addition to a bit of payback, was using all of this to get more funding and to increase their profile. Nothing wrong with that but there were many agendas in play.
> 
> IMV, Brailsford should have lost his job at BC but he had left by then. How anyone with his supposed management skills thought that it was appropriate to put Sutton in charge of an operation is beyond me. Sutton might be a great coach but he is no manager


Ok bro, nothing to see here, just a big misunderstanding. What was in that baggie addressed to Wiggins though. Oh never mind, that was all just some crazy UFO theory cooked up by a bunch of conspiracy theorists I'm sure. Hey look, Sky just won another TdF! So cool..... 

Again, your blame the accuser tactic leaves me wanting something more, but hey, it is what it is. Agree on Brailsford and on Sutton. Someone needs to explain what was going on with those deliveries and all of the extra drugs that were ordered though before I can even start to trust what is going on at Sky. Happy for you though. Carry on....


----------



## cda 455

Rashadabd said:


> Ok bro, nothing to see here, just a big misunderstanding. What was in that baggie addressed to Wiggins though. Oh never mind, nothing to see here, that was all just some crazy UFO theory cooked up by a bunch of conspiracy theorists I'm sure. Hey look, Sky just won another TdF! So cool.....
> 
> Again, your blame the accuser tactic leaves me wanting something more, but hey, it is what it is. Agree on Brailsford and on Sutton. Someone needs to explain what was going on with those deliveries and all of the extra drugs that were ordered though before I can even start to trust what is going on at Sky. Happy for you though. Carry on....


Like Pharmstrong; time will expose the dopers for who they are.


And another 4+ TDFs will not have winners.

Just. Like. Before. 

It's the same old movie being played out again.


----------



## coldash

Rashadabd said:


> Ok bro, nothing to see here, just a big misunderstanding. What was in that baggie addressed to Wiggins though. Oh never mind, nothing to see here, that was all just some crazy UFO theory cooked up by a bunch of conspiracy theorists I'm sure. Hey look, Sky just won another TdF! So cool.....
> 
> Again, your blame the accuser tactic leaves me wanting something more, but hey, it is what it is. Agree on Brailsford and on Sutton. Someone needs to explain what was going on with those deliveries and all of the extra drugs that were ordered though before I can even start to trust what is going on at Sky. Happy for you though. Carry on....


Note that I didn't blame the accuser. In the BC case, it was what the report, not me, that stated that. The forensic problem with the Jiffy bag is that there is no evidence. That is a huge problem for BC/Sky (always an unsatisfactory pairing) because it is at best a controls , procedures and audit failure. This is a boring but potentially fatal point for those involved which has been lost in all of the other headline grabbing stuff which has not been proved one way or another


----------



## Rashadabd

coldash said:


> Note that I didn't blame the accuser. In the BC case, it was what the report, not me, that stated that. The forensic problem with the Jiffy bag is that there is no evidence. That is a huge problem for BC/Sky (always an unsatisfactory pairing) because it is at best a controls , procedures and audit failure. This is a boring but potentially fatal point for those involved which has been lost in all of the other headline grabbing stuff which has not been proved one way or another


"I discount all of the Guardian stuff because it is an avowed enemy of the Murdoch empire and hence doesn't miss any chance to try and discredit it, however tenuous the "evidence". Same applies to the Daily Mail. The UK journalists who have headlined this stuff have no problems in ignoring drug misuse in rugby and soccer, both of which lavish great amounts on "hospitality " for the press. I discount all of the Guardian stuff because it is an avowed enemy of the Murdoch empire and hence doesn't miss any chance to try and discredit it, however tenuous the "evidence". Same applies to the Daily Mail. The UK journalists who have headlined this stuff have no problems in ignoring drug misuse in rugby and soccer, both of which lavish great amounts on "hospitality " for the press."

"all of these accusations essentially come from a common source. Reheating the same story and republishing it doesn't add anything to its credibility."

You didn't blame the accuser multiple times (including reporting news agencies and everyone that raised these issues)?  As you have conceded, NONE of that addresses what was in the baggie meant for Wiggins, why all of the extra drugs were ordered and/or where they went. 

I feel how I feel about all of that, but hey, like I said, whatever helps you sleep at night my man. Do you.


----------



## coldash

Rashadabd said:


> "I discount all of the Guardian stuff because it is an avowed enemy of the Murdoch empire and hence doesn't miss any chance to try and discredit it, however tenuous the "evidence". Same applies to the Daily Mail. The UK journalists who have headlined this stuff have no problems in ignoring drug misuse in rugby and soccer, both of which lavish great amounts on "hospitality " for the press. I discount all of the Guardian stuff because it is an avowed enemy of the Murdoch empire and hence doesn't miss any chance to try and discredit it, however tenuous the "evidence". Same applies to the Daily Mail. The UK journalists who have headlined this stuff have no problems in ignoring drug misuse in rugby and soccer, both of which lavish great amounts on "hospitality " for the press."
> 
> "all of these accusations essentially come from a common source. Reheating the same story and republishing it doesn't add anything to its credibility."
> 
> You didn't blame the accuser multiple times (including reporting news agencies and everyone that raised these issues)?  As you have conceded, NONE of that addresses what was in the baggie meant for Wiggins, why all of the extra drugs were ordered and/or where they went.
> 
> I feel how I feel about all of that, but hey, like I said, whatever helps you sleep at night my man. Do you.


Ah I see my mistake. I was trying to have a rational conversation and I can't argue with your feelings or prejudices 

Have a good sleep in your comfort zone


----------



## Rashadabd

coldash said:


> Ah I see my mistake. I was trying to have a rational conversation and I can't argue with your feelings or prejudices
> 
> Have a good sleep in your comfort zone


Zzzzzzzz..... sleeping like a baby over here. We just say no to doping. That's comical to here you mention biases, prejudices, and being rational. Tootles.


----------



## coldash

Rashadabd said:


> just say no to doping.


.... and on that we agree


----------



## SwiftSolo

Relying on media stories as your source of information may be a bit foolish.

Listen to any political speech that doesn't follow the PC police rules and then follow up by listening to or reading the media narrative. By omitting some key words they can change the context of a story dramatically. The omissions most often become uniform and pervasive among opposition outlets.


coldash said:


> Ah I see my mistake. I was trying to have a rational conversation and I can't argue with your feelings or prejudices
> 
> Have a good sleep in your comfort zone


----------



## Rashadabd

SwiftSolo said:


> Relying on media stories as your source of information may be a bit foolish.
> 
> Listen to any political speech that doesn't follow the PC police rules and then follow up by listening to or reading the media narrative. By omitting some key words they can change the context of a story dramatically. The omissions most often become uniform and pervasive among opposition outlets.


Abosultely, we should rely on Team Sky to tell us the truth. That makes a lot more sense and helps us avoid all of those lying journalists. I'm with ya 100%. #Libel #Defamation 

Libel | Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

https://injury-law.freeadvice.com/injury-law/libel_and_slander/statement_protect_reporter.htm


----------



## SwiftSolo

Actually, we should believe neither. The need to form opinions about illegal activity without irrefutable evidence is a sickness that has reduced many to ignorant lynch mobs.

There is often wisdom in not having an opinion. Having one without clear evidence, even one that eventually proves to be correct, is not the mark of genius but rather the lucky guess of imbeciles!


Rashadabd said:


> Abosultely, we should rely on Team Sky to tell us the truth. That makes a lot more sense and helps us avoid all of those lying journalists. I'm with ya 100%. #Libel #Defamation
> 
> Libel | Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
> 
> https://injury-law.freeadvice.com/injury-law/libel_and_slander/statement_protect_reporter.htm


----------



## Rashadabd

SwiftSolo said:


> Actually, we should believe neither. The need to form opinions about illegal activity without irrefutable evidence is a sickness that has reduced many to ignorant lynch mobs.
> 
> There is often wisdom in not having an opinion. Having one without clear evidence, even one that eventually proves to be correct, is not the mark of genius but rather the lucky guess of imbeciles!


Beautiful poem you've written to yourself there. I was almost moved, almost. It also makes complete sense for a cycling forum. Let's all come on here and discuss how we all have no opinions about what's going on in the cycling world. I bet that would be so much fun. 

Maybe you missed my point. If the press was lying about the issues with Team Sky, the team or their sponsors would file suit. You see, there's actually a couple of legal remedies for lying journalists. I highly doubt the UKAd would be investigating the issue either if there wasn't a little something to it. So please forgive me for giving a little more credence to the actual facts than I give to your beautiful prose. Again, my point is not that Sky is definitely doping. I have said that multiple times. My point is that there are legitimate reasons to be suspicious or have questions and I stand by that despite the riveting discussion we've had here. Carry on gentlemen.


----------



## coldash

SwiftSolo said:


> Actually, we should believe neither. The need to form opinions about illegal activity without irrefutable evidence is a sickness that has reduced many to ignorant lynch mobs.
> 
> There is often wisdom in not having an opinion. Having one without clear evidence, even one that eventually proves to be correct, is not the mark of genius but rather the lucky guess of imbeciles!


I agree with this and as for Sky, I just don’t know and neither can anyone else on this forum. The one this that I do know is that there was a governance failure and I know this because it has been investigated, agreed and documented by independent third parties.

As for the Press and I posted elsewhere on this forum last year



> It's not so much lying but more giving a false impression e.g. In the case of Cope, it has been reported several times that he made a special journey from his home in the south of England to Manchester in the north. In fact Cope was domiciled in the South of England and commuted to Manchester every Monday and returned every Friday. His "special" journey was in fact routine.


and



> This has all moved on a bit. I'm traveling right now but AIUI, the Flumicil that is reported to be in the package was a formulation sourced from Munich in Germany and held in store in Manchester. It is not the same as the stuff available from your regular French drug store. Make of that what you will.
> 
> The other aspect that the media report is that a special journey was made to France via Switzerland with an implication that this is an unusual route to take. They don't report that Geneva airport is on the Swiss / French border and has an exit to each country. Geneva is the normal access point to the French alps. None of this poor reporting helps


No matter how often this poor journalism is published, rehashed and linked to, it doesn’t alter the fact that it is poor journalism and of little value. In addition, the usual suspects in the Press were quick to publish the BC allegations (essentially the prosecution case) but barely, if at all published the final, balanced, report. IIRC, in the case of Sutton, only one of the plethora of accusations was found to be substantiated.

PS. As for the Guardian being the bastion of ethicacy, they were sued successfully for accusing a UK retailer, Tesco, of washing its accounts through the Cayman Islands. 

Guardian settles Tesco libel battle with front-page apology â€“ Press Gazette



> A longer apology inside the paper on its corrections and clarifications column said: ‘We now accept that these damaging allegations were unfounded and should not have been published.
> ‘We accept that Tesco was not hypocritical in its corporation tax planning of these transactions having regard to its public stance on social responsibility and has a legitimate interest in seeing facts about its tax arrangements fairly and accurately reported.”


but guess what
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-guardian-now-investigate-its-own-tax-arrangements/



> First, they either didn’t know or had forgotten about the Guardian Media Group’s use of a tax-exempt shell company in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying corporation tax when it sold its 50 per cent holding in*Auto Trader*to Apax Partners in 2008 (hat tip to Guido Fawkes). Further, they were similarly ignorant about the hundreds of millions GMG has invested in offshore hedge funds over the years.


So, I take all Press references, especially the Guardian and the Daily Mail with a pinch of salt. BTW, the Times, a Murdoch owned paper had been very critical of Sky’s transparency 

PS I see you’ve been credited with writing poetry and prose simultaneously. Although, there can be overlaps, it is a neat trick. Well done.


----------



## coldash

edit to above.


> The one this that I do know is that there was a governance failure and I know this because it has been investigated, agreed and documented by independent third parties


 should be
The one thing that I do know is that there was a serious governance failure and I know this because it has been investigated, agreed and documented by independent third parties


----------



## Rashadabd

coldash said:


> I agree with this and as for Sky, I just don’t know and neither can anyone else on this forum. The one this that I do know is that there was a governance failure and I know this because it has been investigated, agreed and documented by independent third parties.
> 
> As for the Press and I posted elsewhere on this forum last year
> 
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how often this poor journalism is published, rehashed and linked to, it doesn’t alter the fact that it is poor journalism and of little value. In addition, the usual suspects in the Press were quick to publish the BC allegations (essentially the prosecution case) but barely, if at all published the final, balanced, report. IIRC, in the case of Sutton, only one of the plethora of accusations was found to be substantiated.
> 
> PS. As for the Guardian being the bastion of ethicacy, they were sued successfully for accusing a UK retailer, Tesco, of washing its accounts through the Cayman Islands.
> 
> Guardian settles Tesco libel battle with front-page apology â€“ Press Gazette
> 
> 
> 
> but guess what
> https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-guardian-now-investigate-its-own-tax-arrangements/
> 
> 
> 
> So, I take all Press references, especially the Guardian and the Daily Mail with a pinch of salt. BTW, the Times, a Murdoch owned paper had been very critical of Sky’s transparency
> 
> PS I see you’ve been credited with writing poetry and prose simultaneously. Although, there can be overlaps, it is a neat trick. Well done.


My goodness that was a lot of mental gymnastics to get to the final point of "no matter what lingering questions and suspicious circumstances out there, I rebuke any of you that questions my beloved Team Sky." Boy, I'm tired.... 

Despite all that you have said (articulately and convincingly I might add), you still have a couple of major problems bro. 

#1 You can't explain what was in that baggie and Wiggins and Team Sky aren't willing to. They can remember everything else about the delivery, but everyone seems to have amnesia when it comes to that little nuance. 

#2 You can't explain why those extra drugs were ordered and where they went and Team Sky has been unwilling to. 

#3 You can't explain why testosterone was ordered by a doctor affiliated with the team and all Team Sky has been willing to say is that it was a "mistake." Apparently there is nothing suspicious about a pro cycling team that has won five of the last six TdFs ordering a bunch of testosterone. 

#4 you are undermining your own argument here by pointing out other lawsuits companies have filed against the guardian and other papers. What that does is draw attention to the fact that, despite all of your suggestions and conspiracy theories, Team Sky HAS NOT filed anything alleging that even one paper, source, or governing body has lied, have they? Nobody cares what the Guardian was wrong about in other cases, you need to establish that they are wrong in THIS one and you can't/haven't. 

#5 You cannot produce Wiggins, Brailsford, and the doctor and have them help us make sense of all of this. Until you or someone else does that, people will have questions that I personally view as legitimate under the circumstances given pro cycling's history.

Now, despite all you fella's cute posts containing assertions to the contrary, questioning something that looks suspicious can be a appropriate and intelligent thing to do. If blind loyalty is your thing though, knock yourselves out. That being said, drawing the conclusion that Team Sky absolutely has cheated or is cheating really isn't warranted here, but I maintain that questioning the circumstances and acknowledging that this looks eerily similar to things that have happened in the past in pro cycling is simply completely rational. Say what you what, do what you like, but the facts are what they are. People are going to feel how they want to about it and some them might say, "hey, this looks suspicious," or "man, team sky might be manipulating the TUE process to dope their way to these wins, etc." and that is not lunacy here. 

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/learn/glossary-terms/prose-poem


----------



## coldash

Rashadabd said:


> My goodness that was a lot of mental gymnastics to get to the final point of "no matter what lingering questions and suspicious circumstances out there, I rebuke any of you that questions my beloved Team Sky." Boy, I'm tired....


You have hit the nail on the point, not the head. Sky is not my beloved team and I don't like their admittedly effective style of riding in GTs, though they have been better, albeit not as successful in the classics. The issue that I have with all of this is that it will be impossible to answer any of these 7+ year old questions because there is no audit trail, as I have repeatedly pointed out. That IMV is why Brailsford should go. The rest of it is not proven. If that's good enough for you to form a lynch party then......

As for Press litigation, AIUI, there are several levels of defamation and damages involved and a high level of proof required wrt the financial aspects of the damage rather than the veracity of the accusations. Tesco clearly thought it was worth pursuing but others don't and this whole area is under review right now. The point in raising the Guardian example is that just because they are smug and self-righteous doesn't meant that they are not following their own agenda. In a way, they are quite similar to the "lynch mob" posters on this forum. 

And in case you didn't get for the "n"th time. I am not pro Sky but do like to see due process followed and the riders remain innocent until proven guilty, IMV. Just like in most countries' law.


----------



## Rashadabd

" If that's good enough for you to form a lynch party then....."

You either don't read carefully or you work for the Guardian and like to make things up. Can't tell which.... 

I have made it clear that I don't think ANYONE can say for certain that Sky has cheated. For the final time, my point is that you have no grounds to suggest that people are being irrational by being suspicious given all of the facts and everything that has happened. What you creatively color as procedural errors, others see as potential evidence of organized doping. To suggest that they are being unfair for raising those questions or being suspicious is hilarious. 

Regarding the rest, I actually practiced law for about a decade before moving on to a career in HR, so I definitely get the nuances of what goes into a decision to file a complaint alleging libel or defamation, etc. My guess is you are pretty much wrong on why Sky isn't moving on this one, but whatever floats your boat and leaves you at peace. Moving on....


----------



## coldash

Rashadabd said:


> I have made it clear that I don't think ANYONE can say for certain that Sky has cheated.


 Fine. That is a clear statement 



> Regarding the rest, I actually practiced law for about a decade


So you will understand the burden of proof and the lack of value of hearsay


----------



## Rashadabd

coldash said:


> Fine. That is a clear statement
> 
> 
> So you will understand the burden of proof and the lack of value of hearsay


Regarding burden of proof, for a libel or defamation lawsuit, absolutely. For generally having questions or being suspicious, there isn't one (not for news agencies or folks roaming around cycling forums). Whaaaaat?????? Furthermore, I don't see anyone relying on hearsay here? The points I enumerated above are actual facts. (Again, with the not reading carefully thing, my friend.) We just see this one differently and you may have to live with it. Sorry, but I hope that helps.


----------



## Rashadabd

coldash said:


> Fine. That is a clear statement


Dude, I hope so, since I have said it like 4-5 times, lol.


----------



## coldash

Rashadabd said:


> Regarding burden of proof, for a libel or defamation lawsuit, absolutely. For generally having questions or being suspicious, there isn't one (not for news agencies or folks roaming around cycling forums). Whaaaaat?????? Furthermore, I don't see anyone relying on hearsay here? The points I enumerated above are actual facts. (Again, with the not reading carefully thing, my friend.) We just see this one differently and you may have to live with it. Sorry, but I hope that helps.


I agree that we will probably see this differently and will both have to live with it.

Of course, I can't explain the "enumerated actual facts" (btw what is an un-actual fact) such as "You can't produce Wiggins" blah blah blah. I confess that I can't, neither can I move the Earth 10 miles out of its orbit. Some of these points have been explained, and you can do your own research here, but with some of them the remaining problem is one of corroboration 

I have no agenda on this other that to establish the facts (or if you prefer, actual facts) and on that I suspect we are not too far apart, unlikely as it may seem.


----------



## Rashadabd

coldash said:


> I agree that we will probably see this differently and will both have to live with it.
> 
> Of course, I can't explain the "enumerated actual facts" (btw what is an un-actual fact) such as "You can't produce Wiggins" blah blah blah. I confess that I can't, neither can I move the Earth 10 miles out of its orbit. Some of these points have been explained, and you can do your own research here, but with some of them the remaining problem is one of corroboration
> 
> I have no agenda on this other that to establish the facts (or if you prefer, actual facts) and on that I suspect we are not too far apart, unlikely as it may seem.


You got me, you win, I surrender.... Feel better now??? Sky is clean everyone! There is nothing to see here, nothing to be suspicious of. Just listen to our friend Coldash here and you will see the light. Did I get it right? Happy now? Ok, seriously moving on now......


----------



## coldash

Rashadabd said:


> You got me, you win, I surrender.... Feel better now??? Sky is clean everyone! There is nothing to see here, nothing to be suspicious of. * Just listen to our friend Coldash here and you will see the light. Did I get it right? Happy *now? Ok, seriously moving on now......


That is a crude misrepresentation of what I've said. At no point have I said that Sky is clean (and nobody can say that about any team with a 100% confidence level). 

I have said that the, in particular Wiggins era, historic stuff is probably unprovable one way or another

Wrt to Sky, I can only think of one current or past rider who hads proved to be a doper (maybe 2 if you don't accept the UCI pardon and that was after he left Sky in any case. I can think of many current teams and riders whose record is much more questionable or indeed not at all questionable because they still employ proven (hopefully ex) dopers


----------



## SwiftSolo

I'm not sure if you're trying to be humorous or have had your head in the sand? 

Unidentified witnesses can report having seen anything (the witnesses themselves are often a figment of a reporters imagination). Reporting half of someone's statement while leaving out the portion that provides context has become pervasive in journalism to the point it has become standard.

If you fail to listen to a speakers actual speech, the probability of the media reporting the context of what was said is nonexistent on any subject that does not fit the journalists biases. I can't think of any other profession that has allowed its' principles to degenerate as much in the past 15 years.

Even one of the worst offenders (CBS) cites a report from Pew Research that shows the loss of trust in the media http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-news-medias-credibility-plunges/ 

Finally, it's one thing to speculate about whether hearsay has merit, but quite another to paint the alleged offender(s) negatively until all facts are known.

What is happening now attempts to denigrate winners and winning. That may or may not prove to be deserved but people that matter (those who are rational) will wait until all evidence is presented in a court of law.


Rashadabd said:


> Beautiful poem you've written to yourself there. I was almost moved, almost. It also makes complete sense for a cycling forum. Let's all come on here and discuss how we all have no opinions about what's going on in the cycling world. I bet that would be so much fun.
> 
> Maybe you missed my point. If the press was lying about the issues with Team Sky, the team or their sponsors would file suit. You see, there's actually a couple of legal remedies for lying journalists. I highly doubt the UKAd would be investigating the issue either if there wasn't a little something to it. So please forgive me for giving a little more credence to the actual facts than I give to your beautiful prose. Again, my point is not that Sky is definitely doping. I have said that multiple times. My point is that there are legitimate reasons to be suspicious or have questions and I stand by that despite the riveting discussion we've had here. Carry on gentlemen.


----------



## brianmcg

Whats the British equivalent of Oprah?

I think in about 10 years after Wiggins comes clean, the house of cards will all fall around Team Sky. Then I guess Froome will be on with Piers Morgan or something.


----------



## BCSaltchucker

SwiftSolo said:


> Actually, we should believe neither. The need to form opinions about illegal activity without irrefutable evidence is a sickness that has reduced many to ignorant lynch mobs.
> 
> There is often wisdom in not having an opinion. Having one without clear evidence, even one that eventually proves to be correct, is not the mark of genius but rather the lucky guess of imbeciles!


well said! This thread is laughable trolling, or perhaps hatemongering.

I don't begrudge the media for being sensationalist, as I think they play an important role in investigating wrongdoing and bringing it to light. They haven't unearthed a smoking gun on Sky or Froome yet. For now I give Froome benefit of the doubt and will be as disappointed if he is found to be cheating, which is how I felt about every rider who came before, clean or not. I like the man, his personality and his showmanship . However like it or not sports is merely entertainment, it is not some lofty important endeavour for the benefit of society. Thus I find it too tiresome to be engaged in either fanboism or even the greater ugliness of trolling-of-fanboys.

Time will tell, though it may be that if he is not cheating the suspicions and rumour will continue no matter what and be an annoyance in perpetuity. However if he is found to be cheating then everything will be resolved and concluded overnight like it was with Lance. So it seems if Froome is innocent, he gets punished anyways and that punishment and annoyance is not what I want to be a part of.


----------



## Eretz

BCSaltchucker said:


> ......However if he is found to be cheating *then everything will be resolved and concluded overnight like it was with Lance.* So it seems if Froome is innocent, he gets punished anyways and that punishment and annoyance is not what I want to be a part of.


How many careers did Lance destroy and how many of HIS FUND RAISERS were extorted over his lies? Nothing was fast enough in my book to have his last ball bearing hang in the gallows. Froome should have been banned for life. It's really about who has the best pharmacy behind them. IMHO. All mileage may vary.

Doping. Sad state of affairs.


----------



## BCSaltchucker

Eretz said:


> How many careers did Lance destroy and how many of HIS FUND RAISERS were extorted over his lies? Nothing was fast enough in my book to have his last ball bearing hang in the gallows. Froome should have been banned for life. It's really about who has the best pharmacy behind them. IMHO. All mileage may vary.
> 
> Doping. Sad state of affairs.


You mean Lance banned for life? Yeah he is a piece of work indeed. But once his team broke down and went on the record revealing his doping, it was all over, the benefit of the doubt was forfeited instantly. No one had reason to believe he was clean from that moment forward. And I agree he scrued a lot of more deserving folks from their potential. It was very unfair to a lot of people, I agree, and also the lie was really well hidden for a long time.

I fail to see why you think Froome should be punished for anything. He's been flawless, no innuendo, no suspicions on this guy to date. He is as likely to be doping as anyone else in the peleton, no more no less. Given cycling's history, there is plenty of reason to think there is still a lot of doping going on, but it if it is going on, it remains hidden from our view and we don't know teh real story at all enough to be making accusations (nor proclaiming total and complete innocence). For now it is just humane to give the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Rashadabd

I highly recommend you watch this before making up your mind about anything. 

Netflix documentary 'Icarus:' How the filmmaker uncovered the biggest doping scandal in Olympics history - Business Insider


----------



## coldash

Rashadabd said:


> I highly recommend you watch this before making up your mind about anything.
> 
> Netflix documentary 'Icarus:' How the filmmaker uncovered the biggest doping scandal in Olympics history - Business Insider


I'm not entirely sure why this appears in a Froome thread.

As for the documentary which develops into an investigation of state sponsored doping in particular, I think that it is best addressed in the relevant thread


----------

