In reply to Moorside Mo and Chris the Tall:
Aarrgghh, typed a long reply only for it to disappear.
First off, I don´t believe that I have been arguing at tabloid level, but then again I have called some of you Sky worshippers, so fair enough. Maybe some reasonable debate can be had somewhere in between.
I agree that Sky (or any other pro cycling team for that matter) is not per se the problem. I don´t even care if they hire staff with a doping background, or even if some of their riders (or GC riders of other teams) are doping. Indeed, I assume that most GC riders are on something or other, legal or not, maybe just more intelligently than in the 90s. We don´t want to go back to the situation of 1996, when riders spent the night before the mountain time trial walking their hotel corridors, as lying down would have presented a lethal stroke risk. Incidentally, I knew a participant in that tour who is now in permanent care after suffering a stroke on his home trainer.
What I object to is the way Sky´s line about zero tolerance towards doping history is uncritically bought by some of their fans (which would not matter) and large parts of the press, despite being patently untrue. This matter very much, as the press must not buy the spin of one team and give them a blank pass, otherwise we are back to the Armstrong years, where the collusion between a criminal team and the anti doping agencies almost killed off the competition. Similarly now, if there is no scrutiny of the dominant team by the press, do you guys expect it to come from WADA or UCI?
As to the power meter issue, they are mainly used for riders to pace themselves during training and racing. I agree that for this relative consistency for the readings of one rider are essential, while absolute values are merely nice to have. However, I don´t believe for a moment that the pro teams don´t precisely establish parameters like power output and oxygen consumption in a lab setting, and then calibrate the mobile units to a high degree of precision.
Anyway, regardless of whether your theory (power meters only give relative data) or mine (teams know the exact values but will keep the secret) is true, such numbers cannot invalidate the calculations from weight and rate of ascent that put Froome´s performance even above that of Pantani. Thus, I call their publication a cheap PR stunt.
As for Knaven, your link seems to support my reading, in that they knew about his back story (of course they did, that is why they hired him!) and then cleared them in a staged exercise. Again, I don´t mind Knaven working in cycling, but object to the uncritical treatment by the press.
CB