UKC

Froome

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Al Evans 22 Jul 2015
Talk aDavid Walsh - Sunday Times chief sports writer
"I've also spent a lot of time looking at the people around Chris Froome, looking at what's going on in Team Sky. We're now three years into the Froome story. At the three-year point into my investigation into Lance Armstrong I had six people in his team who told me he doped.
"I haven't had one person, who works with Sky now or who was sacked by Sky, who has given me anything to go on or investigate. In fairness to Chris Froome my conclusion has to be that I've seen nothing that indicates he dopes and I'm inclined to believe him when he says he doesn't. It doesn't mean I know, but I certainly believe his claims."
Walsh, who was a key journalist in uncovering Lance Armstrong's doping regime, was speaking on BBC Radio 5 live's Victoria Derbyshire programme.bout finding somebody guilty before a trial. Poor Chis, what else can he and Sky do to prove he is clean.

'
1
 blurty 22 Jul 2015
In reply to Al Evans:

It's a tough one for Sky - proving the negative. The power data they released (+ what was hacked) proves little I'm told.

I gather ITV challenged Jalabert over the inuendo/ fomenting he is doing - didn't see it though. He's behaving quite badly I think/ playing to the French audience.

It's going to take a long time to rebuild the public's trust in cycling.
 Greasy Prusiks 22 Jul 2015
In reply to Al Evans:

I think froome has done enough to prove he's clean. I'm willing to believe him.
 Rampikino 22 Jul 2015
In reply to Al Evans:

As someone who does a fair amout of statistical analysis I can tell you that we always hit a brick wall when trying to prove "non events". It's very tough to draw definite conclusions from a lack of data or from data that fails support a hypothesis.

In this event Sky can release all the data they like, but as they cannot definitely prove that something did not happen then there will always be people who jump on that and say "ahhh yes but..."


Put it this way, given the rhetoric and the bold claims by Sky and Froome, it would be an enormous fall from grace if they had been doping and one that the sport in the UK would struggle to recover from - so it's either an enormous, clever, sophisticated cover up, or they are clean. I'm happy to trust the latter.
 Tyler 22 Jul 2015
In reply to Rampikino:

What was the power data supposed to prove? That what he was doing was within expected norms?
 Chris the Tall 22 Jul 2015
In reply to Al Evans:

Believe it or not, various people (e.g. Paul Kimmage) think Walsh has blown his credibility by backing Froome, and point out that they both have the same paymaster - Rupert Murdoch.

No I am suspicious of everything that Murdoch has his hands in, never buy his papers or TV channels, but even so it's getting a bit ridiculous to think that this is all a conspiracy. Basically, it's become like a religion to some people, and no matter what evidence you produce they'll still believe what they want to believe.

Watch the race - the next few days could be thrilling (or not)
 kipper12 22 Jul 2015
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

How long have biological passports been mandatory? The data held on Frooms should go some way to giving us a clue. If he is using EPO, we might expect some anomolies in the haematological data.
 Matt250 22 Jul 2015

I find the quote from Walsh reassuring, he's a great journalist and I find it very hard to believe he'd not act with integrity. I'm starting to think Froome is clean based on the amont of scrutiny he has been under for a number of years and the fact that no evidence has come out about him doping. I didn't think he was doping before, just a healthy skepticism.

There's two scenarios under which he could be doping, one is that team Sky are institutionally doping which would call into question all of their riders wins and all of team GBs wins over the last 15 years or so. That would be a conspiracy on a greater scale than Armstrong et al, and it would have been covered up for longer and far more effectively. I find this unlikely and hard to believe, but if it was true I'd stop watching cycling and the olympics all together!

The second is that Froome is doping individually without the knowledge of Sky. I think this would be hard, but if you read about micro-dosing etc it does seem plausible. I think this would be more likely as the whole team Sky/GB conspiracy would be so hard to hide, but this would be less so. It would mean he'd still have to conceal it from Sky + WADA etc, which would be very tricky, so again I think it's unlikely. If he is doing this I think he'd get caught eventually. But again I think he's clean.

The main reason I think he's clean and that cycling is cleaner is the racing looks so different. He's put in one attack to gain a minute so far, and then has looked weaker on subsequent mountain stages. If you watch any similar stages from a tour around 10 years ago or so the attacks are on another level. There are way more of them and the accelerations are massive, and they do the attacks on every mountain stage. It's well worth looking up some of the older mountain stages on youtube and comparing them.

FWIW I think Mo Farahs juiced up to his eyeballs.
Post edited at 13:18
 ti_pin_man 22 Jul 2015
In reply to Al Evans:
I want to believe, I sort of mostly do. I did believe armstrong was totally clean for years. Armstrong's lies leaves me a certain wariness to believe in Froome. I think most are people are the same.
cb294 22 Jul 2015
In reply to Tyler:

> What was the power data supposed to prove? That what he was doing was within expected norms?

Yes, although the data set presented by Sky was clearly cherry picked and everything done to minimize the actual values used for the comparisons. Does anyone really believe they don´t know EXACTLY how much difference an oval chain ring makes? Margins separating the elite riders are in the fractions of 1%, and we are supposed to buy a measurement inaccuracy of up to 6%? Maybe if it were confirmed by Father Christmas...

I can´t see why Sky are put on such a pedestal in the UK, as many things they did are clearly dodgy (sponsor aside...)

- At the time of Wiggins´ first tour victory they still employed Dr. Geert Leinders, who is now banned for doping activities before his time with Sky. Unlikely he forgot everthing he knew when switching employers, so what is the exact, other expertise he had been hired for?

- Same with Servais Knaven, convicted by a French court in 2001 as a doper. Why did Sky go through the farce of having these court documents reexamined by some shady, ill defined "expert gremium" that absolved Knaven from the same accusations? Why him, what does he know/do?

- Why have Peter Verbeken (ex US postal) as a physio? According to Brailsford, Verbeken never knew anything about doping in the Armstrong years, which is either a lie or proves blatant incompetence.

- Why do the Sky riders look as if they were anorexic, without apparently losing either stamina or power? As one German newspaper put it, the other teams also don´t serve pork knuckles and dumplings for breakfast, so what is the supposed difference in diet that gives the Sky riders their power / weight advantage?

Years ago riders were experimenting with drugs like AICAR and GW 1516. Both drugs are ridiculously dangerous, especially the latter, and IIRC banned since 2008/9. My suspicion would rather be that they found a novel way to adjust bodyweight that will probably not even be banned yet.

- And finally, two missed doping tests with excuses that very much sound like the dog ate my homework....

Call me cynical but the entire testing charade proves nothing at all. How often was Armstrong tested negative, never mind the disappeared positive tests?

CB

PS: No one commenting on testicular cancer and cycling?


3
 GrahamD 22 Jul 2015
In reply to blurty:

I cant see where Pierre Sallet gets his 7W/kg from and, given that Quintana wasn't that far behind, what his output was by the same reckoning.
 Greasy Prusiks 22 Jul 2015
In reply to kipper12:

I think 2008? That'd be worth checking though. It'd certainly be nice to see in the interests of transparency. I'm sure the drug analysis is very thorough but it's generally accepted that Armstrong slipped a transfusion through in 09 tour de france.
 Tom Valentine 22 Jul 2015
In reply to Matt250:

People who eat Quorn are always suspect, in my eyes.
 JLS 22 Jul 2015
In reply to cb294:

>"we are supposed to buy a measurement inaccuracy of up to 6%?"

Sky didn't say 6% "inaccuracy". They said there is a difference (over estimation) of around* 6% between round rings and oval rings.
They are pointing out just one of the variables that might lead to an interpretation of the numbers by others that paints a very inaccurate picture of Froome athletic capacity.

* I'm sure they know the number to umpteen decimals for 36 tooth rings and the slightly diffrent number for 37 tooth rings etc etc
 Chris the Tall 22 Jul 2015
In reply to cb294:
> - At the time of Wiggins´ first tour victory they still employed Dr. Geert Leinders, who is now banned for doping activities before his time with Sky. Unlikely he forgot everthing he knew when switching employers, so what is the exact, other expertise he had been hired for?

As I understand it, Sky did try to employ people from outside cycling, given how dirty cycling was in the preceding years.

Then this happened:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/7981534/Vuelta-a-Espan...

Which made them realise that there were certain factors in cycling medicine that you might not encounter elsewhere.
Leinders was hired soon after, and his contract wasn't renewed after the revelations about him came out.

Brailsford admitted he'd made a mistake. Which is more than Contador has done over Puerto or his Clenbutrol positive, likewise Valverde. Nibbles employs Pantani's doctor and where do you start with Astana. And never mind employing someone who was briefly a USPS masseur, TJvG trains with Armstrong !
Post edited at 14:51
 kipper12 22 Jul 2015
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

Apparently haematology anmomolies exposed in a biological passport have been used by the cycling authorities to take action. Personally, unexplained haematology anomolies in combination with other odd events, such as unusualy high power output might be cause for concern. We are a long way from that stage.
 Sam Ash 22 Jul 2015
In reply to cb294:
> ... and we are supposed to buy a measurement inaccuracy of up to 6%?

The manufacturer state that it overestimates by around 4-5 %, and if you use those numbers, rather than the 6 % Sky used, you get around 6 W/kg, which is a perfectly reasonable value.
Post edited at 15:21
In reply to Tom Valentine:

I just hope his thyroid problem and asthma clear up soon, poor sausage
 WB 22 Jul 2015
If you make a ridiculous comparison of the tour and the hundred meters. The lead Froome has over Quintana is the equivalent of less than 1 hundredth of a second. Except Froome has had 70 hours cycling, 2 and half thousand miles, 17 days and a team to build up this difference. I don’t really think you need drugs to manage that.

 Mutl3y 22 Jul 2015
In reply to ti_pin_man:

How long did you believe in lance? When did you see through the spin?
Or did you believe all the way to opera like some folk?
Lusk 22 Jul 2015
In reply to WB:

It wasn't though.
Froome got his lead on one ascent, about a week in.
 andy 22 Jul 2015
In reply to Lusk:
n

> It wasn't though.

> Froome got his lead on one ascent, about a week in.

no, he took about a minute out of Quintana on 'that stage' - he's 3:10 up from time bonuses, TTT and other bits and bobs.

edit: 1:04
Post edited at 16:54
andymac 22 Jul 2015
In reply to Al Evans:

Froome is clean.imo.

More than anyone in that team (obviously) ,Sir Dave will have had Froome watched like a hawk since he joined Sky.

Sir Dave ,I would imagine,likes being Sir Dave very much .

And would just not allow himself to be put in a position where he's been caught presiding over a doping culture.a very clever doping culture.

Best cartoon I seen in the last while,was an Aussie take on Team Sky; 7 Terminator type cyborgs being recharged in their chambers in the Team Bus.

These guys are really starting to be beyond human.and one wonders where it will all end.how much evolving and modifying can the human body take before it stops working?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...