This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Started a new thread to avoid polluting the other tdf discussion...
Did anyone else find froomes performance a bit suspect? I mean he was riding like a motorcycle, as was the rest of his team. I vividly remember watching Armstrong and US postal racing just like that and being completely taken in by it, even though looking back it was blatantly obvious what was happening. Someone reassure me please!
Did anyone else find froomes performance a bit suspect? I mean he was riding like a motorcycle, as was the rest of his team. I vividly remember watching Armstrong and US postal racing just like that and being completely taken in by it, even though looking back it was blatantly obvious what was happening. Someone reassure me please!
1
4
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
any links? Worrying indeed? how do the times in the hill compare previous ? any articles from David Walsh?
any links? Worrying indeed? how do the times in the hill compare previous ? any articles from David Walsh?
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
Yawn.
It's sad that we've reached the point where for some, every good performance is a suspect performance.
I like to give everyone the benefit ofthe doubt and wait for evidence before pointing fingers.
Yawn.
It's sad that we've reached the point where for some, every good performance is a suspect performance.
I like to give everyone the benefit ofthe doubt and wait for evidence before pointing fingers.
Post edited at 22:13
3
In reply to DaveHK:
He's doping, of coarse he is. Ever since he got on the scene with his first good performance in the giro where he dropped wigo who he was supporting.
If it's too good to be true, then it is.
Everyone whose ever won anything has doped. Just look at nadal
He's doping, of coarse he is. Ever since he got on the scene with his first good performance in the giro where he dropped wigo who he was supporting.
If it's too good to be true, then it is.
Everyone whose ever won anything has doped. Just look at nadal
Post edited at 22:19
1
5
In reply to DaveHK:
I desperately hope he's not, today's performance (and 2013 Ventoux) are the stuff of sporting legend. But given the history, I think it's right that questions are asked.
> Yawn.
> It's sad that we've reached the point where for some, every good performance is a suspect performance.
I desperately hope he's not, today's performance (and 2013 Ventoux) are the stuff of sporting legend. But given the history, I think it's right that questions are asked.
1
1
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
Given the recent report of his leaked/stolen data and the knowledge that he'd be under the spotlight... he didn't exactly ride today's stage like he had something to hide.
Given the recent report of his leaked/stolen data and the knowledge that he'd be under the spotlight... he didn't exactly ride today's stage like he had something to hide.
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
It is quite right that Froome and sky should face hard scrutiny but I always feel people should also direct this sort of questioning at the likes of Contador, the convicted and un-repentant serial doper. Are you still doping Alberto? You claim to have stopped, what brought this about? Was it being caught? If Froome or Wiggins doped that would be the end of their careers. It seems that doping is not a level playing field in more ways than one.
My general view is I'll enjoy the apple until I find a maggot 😃
Cheers
Toby
It is quite right that Froome and sky should face hard scrutiny but I always feel people should also direct this sort of questioning at the likes of Contador, the convicted and un-repentant serial doper. Are you still doping Alberto? You claim to have stopped, what brought this about? Was it being caught? If Froome or Wiggins doped that would be the end of their careers. It seems that doping is not a level playing field in more ways than one.
My general view is I'll enjoy the apple until I find a maggot 😃
Cheers
Toby
1
1
In reply to zimpara:
But as BMC won the TTT on Sunday, beating Sky, they must be doping too. Or do BMC's drugs only work on the flats and Sky's drugs work in the mountains?
But as BMC won the TTT on Sunday, beating Sky, they must be doping too. Or do BMC's drugs only work on the flats and Sky's drugs work in the mountains?
4
1
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
I found today's performance incredibly hard to believe. Analysis of his climb today is showing a probable power output of 6.1W/Kg for 40 minutes. Which is well beyond what sports scientists believe is possible without doping. In the case of Sky I believe there is a good chance that they are exploiting a breakthrough in sports science which may not be mainstream or even currently illegal. But something seems awry in the way they make riders turn huge corners in their career. Historically it has nearly always proved dodgy when riders manage to be world class climbers and TT'ers at the same time, Sky churn these riders out.
I found today's performance incredibly hard to believe. Analysis of his climb today is showing a probable power output of 6.1W/Kg for 40 minutes. Which is well beyond what sports scientists believe is possible without doping. In the case of Sky I believe there is a good chance that they are exploiting a breakthrough in sports science which may not be mainstream or even currently illegal. But something seems awry in the way they make riders turn huge corners in their career. Historically it has nearly always proved dodgy when riders manage to be world class climbers and TT'ers at the same time, Sky churn these riders out.
Post edited at 22:44
3
5
In reply to Sir Chasm:
There's a difference between winning a TTT and winning the TDF several times. But to answer your question, yes they are.
There's a difference between winning a TTT and winning the TDF several times. But to answer your question, yes they are.
1
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
Sorry, but the only evidence of doping is that his performance is better than anyone else - but that's the whole point of sport. There's no point in watching it if you are going to shout 'cheat' at every winner.
One thing you may have noticed- as soon as he finished, he was on the rollers warming down. This was unheard of a few years ago, even now very few teams do it. Only a small thing, but it's part of the different approach of the team - something that goes back to the GB track cycling whose Olympic success also raised suspicions because of their dominance. The prevalence of drugs in cycling made coaches lazy - they were years behind other sports in terms of legitimate science.
Of course there are some unethical aspects - abuse of TUEs for example. There is also the so called "financial doping" - apparently a few teams are getting pissed off at how many vehicles Sky have - 30 trucks, buses, cars and motor homes
Sorry, but the only evidence of doping is that his performance is better than anyone else - but that's the whole point of sport. There's no point in watching it if you are going to shout 'cheat' at every winner.
One thing you may have noticed- as soon as he finished, he was on the rollers warming down. This was unheard of a few years ago, even now very few teams do it. Only a small thing, but it's part of the different approach of the team - something that goes back to the GB track cycling whose Olympic success also raised suspicions because of their dominance. The prevalence of drugs in cycling made coaches lazy - they were years behind other sports in terms of legitimate science.
Of course there are some unethical aspects - abuse of TUEs for example. There is also the so called "financial doping" - apparently a few teams are getting pissed off at how many vehicles Sky have - 30 trucks, buses, cars and motor homes
6
In reply to Sir Chasm: They'd have won that too if Nicholas Roche hadn't blown up, with Froome doing the majority of the legwork.
2
In reply to zimpara:
Which of today's riders has won the TdF several times? But ignoring that, if you're right and they're all doping then it's a level playing field and Sky are still pure dead brilliant.
> There's a difference between winning a TTT and winning the TDF several times. But to answer your question, yes they are.
Which of today's riders has won the TdF several times? But ignoring that, if you're right and they're all doping then it's a level playing field and Sky are still pure dead brilliant.
1
In reply to thermal_t:
Well beyond what one sports scientist - a DS with festina in the 90s - believes. Seems odd to me that anyone would declare an arbitrary limit on human performance, let alone every scientist in the field.
>Historically it has nearly always proved dodgy when riders manage to be world class climbers and TT'ers at the same time, Sky churn these riders out.
Paul Kimmage - arch sceptic of cycling - questioned why Froome and Contador did so poorly in the TT. Froome responded that with so little TTing in the race there was no point of training for it this year. His performance certainly wasn't world class.
> Which is well beyond what sports scientists believe is possible without doping.
Well beyond what one sports scientist - a DS with festina in the 90s - believes. Seems odd to me that anyone would declare an arbitrary limit on human performance, let alone every scientist in the field.
>Historically it has nearly always proved dodgy when riders manage to be world class climbers and TT'ers at the same time, Sky churn these riders out.
Paul Kimmage - arch sceptic of cycling - questioned why Froome and Contador did so poorly in the TT. Froome responded that with so little TTing in the race there was no point of training for it this year. His performance certainly wasn't world class.
1
1
Also the 6.1 w/kg is based on some pseudo calculations and there was a tailwind up the climb today which skews the numbers too. Ironic that the leaked data last night showed Froome with a number more like 5.9 on Ventoux in 2013. Doesn't fit with the narrative though of some of those above and the twitter loonies. Almost as bad as the Froome climbed faster than Pantani or Hamilton doped despite this being the first time it was a climb to the finish rather than mid finish. Far too much repeating of crap science and analysis without checking facts or looking at the context. I really feel so much of it is people just don't like Froome, bordering on bullying behaviour. Some of the journos doing it should be ashamed. Sure ask the questions but back it up with facts not conspiracy theories.
5
In reply to Chris the Tall:
He wasn't far wrong though was he.
I wasn't referring to this tour in isolation, in the tour he won and in the tour Wiggins won he was climbing and TTing with the best.
I used to be in the camp that thought the likes of Kimmage were a***holes and that cycling was cleaning up. But your faith gets tested when you see the likes of unfancied riders like Froome becoming the greatest ever ***undoped*** cyclists.
> Paul Kimmage - arch sceptic of cycling -
He wasn't far wrong though was he.
> His performance certainly wasn't world class.
I wasn't referring to this tour in isolation, in the tour he won and in the tour Wiggins won he was climbing and TTing with the best.
I used to be in the camp that thought the likes of Kimmage were a***holes and that cycling was cleaning up. But your faith gets tested when you see the likes of unfancied riders like Froome becoming the greatest ever ***undoped*** cyclists.
Post edited at 23:39
1
2
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
Thomas and Porte put in a cracking shift today as they have every other day. Sky were pounding it out in front as a team today while Quintana and van garderen were on their own. High morale after a rest day, a good week and a good dauphine? They've hit the ground running!
Thomas and Porte put in a cracking shift today as they have every other day. Sky were pounding it out in front as a team today while Quintana and van garderen were on their own. High morale after a rest day, a good week and a good dauphine? They've hit the ground running!
In reply to SteveoS:
I thought with the biological passport system, its almost impossible to cheat as it would show as an unnatural spike in your baseline performance levels
so Froome is either constantly doping, or not at all. Saying that, in pursuit of marginal gains, I assume SKY will be filling the whole team with every LEGAL supplement going.
I thought with the biological passport system, its almost impossible to cheat as it would show as an unnatural spike in your baseline performance levels
so Froome is either constantly doping, or not at all. Saying that, in pursuit of marginal gains, I assume SKY will be filling the whole team with every LEGAL supplement going.
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
Why not just watch the cycling if you enjoy it,don't bother if any one riding well is automatically suspected of visiting a chemist.
Bit boring now all these false accusations
Why not just watch the cycling if you enjoy it,don't bother if any one riding well is automatically suspected of visiting a chemist.
Bit boring now all these false accusations
1
In reply to SteveoS:
Not only that Movi Star led them onto the climb perfectly meaning non of the strong Sky riders had had to go up front until Valverde attacked relatively late on. Once that attack had failed Quintana was basically on his own while Froome still had G and Porte pulling. Couldn't have been set up better for Froome and he finished it off in style.
Other GCs had effectively gone by then
> Thomas and Porte put in a cracking shift today as they have every other day. Sky were pounding it out in front as a team today while Quintana and van garderen were on their own. High morale after a rest day, a good week and a good dauphine? They've hit the ground running!
Not only that Movi Star led them onto the climb perfectly meaning non of the strong Sky riders had had to go up front until Valverde attacked relatively late on. Once that attack had failed Quintana was basically on his own while Froome still had G and Porte pulling. Couldn't have been set up better for Froome and he finished it off in style.
Other GCs had effectively gone by then
3
In reply to mark s:
The same thing was said about LA.
Its hard given the (recent) History to watch cycling without being paranoid. Especially given the level of performance seen yesterday.
The same thing was said about LA.
Its hard given the (recent) History to watch cycling without being paranoid. Especially given the level of performance seen yesterday.
In reply to goldmember:
Which was what ? what level of performance did we see ? you can't compare with Nibali or Contador who are both clearly having a bad tour. Or Quintana who burned his team early and gave Sky an easy (!) ride to the foot of the climb.
> Its hard given the (recent) History to watch cycling without being paranoid. Especially given the level of performance seen yesterday.
Which was what ? what level of performance did we see ? you can't compare with Nibali or Contador who are both clearly having a bad tour. Or Quintana who burned his team early and gave Sky an easy (!) ride to the foot of the climb.
In reply to GrahamD:
Were you watching? He rode away from them and teammates like he was on a flat, the power outputs seem high too. I'm not comparing CF to any of them. At the started I asked, where his time fits in the in the history of times for this hill. I'm still interested.
Were you watching? He rode away from them and teammates like he was on a flat, the power outputs seem high too. I'm not comparing CF to any of them. At the started I asked, where his time fits in the in the history of times for this hill. I'm still interested.
In reply to GrahamD:
I agree, I think yesterday was about other favourites dropping the ball just as much as Sky shone. Look at Nibbles - he couldn't keep up with his team, TJ was exactly where you would expect him. Quintana and Movistar massively screwed up their tactics - lead sky into the climb and did most of the usual "sky train" job, dropped all their riders and delivers Sky 5K up the mountain with 4 men on the front. Bertie just looked tired, but dug deep and I suspect will improve as he gets back to race fitness
I agree, I think yesterday was about other favourites dropping the ball just as much as Sky shone. Look at Nibbles - he couldn't keep up with his team, TJ was exactly where you would expect him. Quintana and Movistar massively screwed up their tactics - lead sky into the climb and did most of the usual "sky train" job, dropped all their riders and delivers Sky 5K up the mountain with 4 men on the front. Bertie just looked tired, but dug deep and I suspect will improve as he gets back to race fitness
1
In reply to GrahamD:
Agree with you - everyone is disappointed that the expected battle between the fab four or the big 5 hasn't happened, but you can't simply blame or accuse Froome.
Look at yesterdays top 10. The strongest rider in the race won - quell suprise. 2 of his team mates were also there, because they had been given the day off from their usual work thanks to a bad gamble by Movistar, and yet Valverde still made 5th. But Gesink, Yates, Rolland and Gallopin were all as close to Froome as you'd expect. Contador is tired - again no suprise.
So the most anomalous performance belongs not to Froome, Thomas or even Yates, but Nibali. Already as far off the lead as he won it by last year
Agree with you - everyone is disappointed that the expected battle between the fab four or the big 5 hasn't happened, but you can't simply blame or accuse Froome.
Look at yesterdays top 10. The strongest rider in the race won - quell suprise. 2 of his team mates were also there, because they had been given the day off from their usual work thanks to a bad gamble by Movistar, and yet Valverde still made 5th. But Gesink, Yates, Rolland and Gallopin were all as close to Froome as you'd expect. Contador is tired - again no suprise.
So the most anomalous performance belongs not to Froome, Thomas or even Yates, but Nibali. Already as far off the lead as he won it by last year
In reply to Removed User:
In that case i look forward to the Tourmalet today
In that case i look forward to the Tourmalet today
In reply to goldmember:
so who was on drugs yesterday who you were comparing him to?
the tests he will be having now will be constant and dont bring up the 'lance armstrong took tests' bollocks.
things are different now
reading some of the replies on here is like looking at the comments on youtube about 9-11. full of 'experts' who know all the inside info and can prove things without anything to back them up.
so who was on drugs yesterday who you were comparing him to?
the tests he will be having now will be constant and dont bring up the 'lance armstrong took tests' bollocks.
things are different now
reading some of the replies on here is like looking at the comments on youtube about 9-11. full of 'experts' who know all the inside info and can prove things without anything to back them up.
In reply to mark s:
I think the question should be asked, given the history of the sport.
Things aren't that different and money still talks and sky have buckets of it.
I hope he is clean
I think the question should be asked, given the history of the sport.
Things aren't that different and money still talks and sky have buckets of it.
I hope he is clean
In reply to goldmember:
The question is being asked. Repeatedly. Hopefully in the background its also being asked by the right people who know what they are obout
> I think the question should be asked, given the history of the sport.
The question is being asked. Repeatedly. Hopefully in the background its also being asked by the right people who know what they are obout
In reply to goldmember:
And obviously the best people to do that are random punters on the web with no evidence apart from a good performance and some back of a fag packet power calculations.
Lets wait till theres some evidence (proper evidence that is) before we start pointing fingers.
> (In reply to mark s)
>
> I think the question should be asked, given the history of the sport.
>
> I think the question should be asked, given the history of the sport.
And obviously the best people to do that are random punters on the web with no evidence apart from a good performance and some back of a fag packet power calculations.
Lets wait till theres some evidence (proper evidence that is) before we start pointing fingers.
2
In reply to DaveHK:
I'm not pointing fingers, just querying the performance. As said i'm interested to see his time on the tourmalet
I'm not pointing fingers, just querying the performance. As said i'm interested to see his time on the tourmalet
In reply to goldmember:
So Dave Brailsford and the whole of team Sky are lying cheats, so using that logic, Wiggins is a lying cheat and the whole of the British track cycling team are lying cheating dopers, do you honestly believe this, with all the testing, you think there is no integrity in British cycling, what would it take to convince you?
So Dave Brailsford and the whole of team Sky are lying cheats, so using that logic, Wiggins is a lying cheat and the whole of the British track cycling team are lying cheating dopers, do you honestly believe this, with all the testing, you think there is no integrity in British cycling, what would it take to convince you?
Post edited at 12:25
2
Froome was impressive yesterday, but what seems to be missed by many (though has been stated up thread) was that Movistar's plan blew up spectacularly, along with most of their team.
Quintana got the last climb with two team members, one of whom dropped away quickly. He had only Valverde for company and Valverde is not the GC rider he was. Sky on the other hand, had used their guys conservatively and with G and Porte (who had been rested for the last week) ready and fresh they were able to put the hammer down.
The time gaps were not that impressive - we're not talking Ocana and Merckxx here.
May be one of the reason it all looks so "suspicious" is that team really have to work out there strategy rather than doping up and just slaying the competition as Banesto, USPS and Gewiss used to do.
In reply to Andy Clarke1965:
You are never going to convince some people, however hard you try. They'll always say "yes, but Lance Armstrong was the same"
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jul/15/chris-froome-independent-testi...
Thing is, it's not Froome who I believe, or Wiggins or any rider, its Dave Brailsford. And I don't believe Froome could dope without his knowledge and argreement. We've seen the same approach, and the same results, and quite a few of the same faces, in the olympic track team as with team sky. So if they are doping, it's far more extensive than LA/USP, far more people would have to be in on the conspiracy, including Cookson. And they've done a much better job of keeping a lid on it - even those bitter ex-staff who have left under a cloud like JTL, Yates and Leinders haven't spilled the beans.
Or they are clean. DB realised 15 or so years ago in the late 90's that with lottery funding and the application of science you could get gold medals in the backwater of track cycling, and keep the best young riders away from the perils of the european road scene. Maybe the aggregation of marginal gains is more than a cliche, but true. And having succeeded on the track, and as the road scene cleaned up, he did the same with team sky. Not immediately, not without mistakes and not without a massive and possibly unfair amount of funding. And possibly by stretching rules on TUEs, but without breaking the rules.
You are never going to convince some people, however hard you try. They'll always say "yes, but Lance Armstrong was the same"
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jul/15/chris-froome-independent-testi...
Thing is, it's not Froome who I believe, or Wiggins or any rider, its Dave Brailsford. And I don't believe Froome could dope without his knowledge and argreement. We've seen the same approach, and the same results, and quite a few of the same faces, in the olympic track team as with team sky. So if they are doping, it's far more extensive than LA/USP, far more people would have to be in on the conspiracy, including Cookson. And they've done a much better job of keeping a lid on it - even those bitter ex-staff who have left under a cloud like JTL, Yates and Leinders haven't spilled the beans.
Or they are clean. DB realised 15 or so years ago in the late 90's that with lottery funding and the application of science you could get gold medals in the backwater of track cycling, and keep the best young riders away from the perils of the european road scene. Maybe the aggregation of marginal gains is more than a cliche, but true. And having succeeded on the track, and as the road scene cleaned up, he did the same with team sky. Not immediately, not without mistakes and not without a massive and possibly unfair amount of funding. And possibly by stretching rules on TUEs, but without breaking the rules.
8
In reply to Chris the Tall:
seems to be a big grey area between black/white and teams know how to push into it: http://sportsscientists.com/2015/06/a-no-good-week-for-doping-in-sport/
seems to be a big grey area between black/white and teams know how to push into it: http://sportsscientists.com/2015/06/a-no-good-week-for-doping-in-sport/
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
My two-pennyworth:
Movistar did most of the leg work, pulling Sky along through the miles of preliminary stuff before serving them up the climb. Froome took off with 6 kms to go, with every incentive in the world and did precisely what he was supposed to do, win with the rest of his team well placed behind him.
It was hot, and as far as I can see, Froome does well in the heat.. The heat is seeing off several riders today for example.
Finally, Astana.
Hmm. Track record hardly blemish free, Vino too, and their star turn suddenly goes completely tits up and gets replaced as leader. Well, at least he's not riding off the front.
My two-pennyworth:
Movistar did most of the leg work, pulling Sky along through the miles of preliminary stuff before serving them up the climb. Froome took off with 6 kms to go, with every incentive in the world and did precisely what he was supposed to do, win with the rest of his team well placed behind him.
It was hot, and as far as I can see, Froome does well in the heat.. The heat is seeing off several riders today for example.
Finally, Astana.
Hmm. Track record hardly blemish free, Vino too, and their star turn suddenly goes completely tits up and gets replaced as leader. Well, at least he's not riding off the front.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
That's my thinking if sky are cheating then BC and all the Olympic Golds they won must be tainted as DB is the common factor in the Sky/BC success, and I don't think that is the case.
That's my thinking if sky are cheating then BC and all the Olympic Golds they won must be tainted as DB is the common factor in the Sky/BC success, and I don't think that is the case.
In reply to nniff:
Yes, they are looking very like a team that are not performing as well this year as last and it doesn't take much to think it's because they've had to cut out some of their tricks after having 5 (yes 5!) positive tests in the team last year. (and have already dirtied the race this year with the suspension from MPCC, and then having that particular rider perform prominently on the Cobbles (Lars Boom)
> Finally, Astana.
> Hmm. Track record hardly blemish free, Vino too, and their star turn suddenly goes completely tits up and gets replaced as leader. Well, at least he's not riding off the front.
Yes, they are looking very like a team that are not performing as well this year as last and it doesn't take much to think it's because they've had to cut out some of their tricks after having 5 (yes 5!) positive tests in the team last year. (and have already dirtied the race this year with the suspension from MPCC, and then having that particular rider perform prominently on the Cobbles (Lars Boom)
1
In reply to ClimberEd:
Really boring but tenacious and ultimately correct?
> That blog is the sports science equivalent of Paul Kimmage unfortunately.
Really boring but tenacious and ultimately correct?
1
In reply to nniff:
Interesting, it was a tail wind too which does benefit bigger riders. I'm hoping the times on other mountains aren't looking as fast as the EPO years.
Interesting, it was a tail wind too which does benefit bigger riders. I'm hoping the times on other mountains aren't looking as fast as the EPO years.
In reply to Mike Highbury:
No I think he means it has an Agenda (rightly or wrongly)
I doubt there's much In the way of positive feel good sports science article on there.
It's a bit like having a "football divers" blog that never talks about those players that don't dive, or get up when they've been hacked down and carry on.
No I think he means it has an Agenda (rightly or wrongly)
I doubt there's much In the way of positive feel good sports science article on there.
It's a bit like having a "football divers" blog that never talks about those players that don't dive, or get up when they've been hacked down and carry on.
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Could just be a bout of flu - haven't Astana already lost a rider out with it ?
Could just be a bout of flu - haven't Astana already lost a rider out with it ?
In reply to malk:
It's a huge area..
I'm pretty amazed at people suggesting it is out of order to question..
Look at Rita Jeptoo? Who would have thought she was? When she was caught I've got to say it made me question more than ever. I've even questions over friends or running acquaintances and I know others do.
I think sky are probably similar to NOP, right at the forefront of sports science. Doping isn't all about concerns over cheating its young athletes dying.. Some people have even linked the cancers some people have (though I've never heard a probable reason).. So even if something is legal it can still be ethically wrong, it depends on your own personal stance.
It is perfectly normal to question any amazing performance in a sport dogged by doping.. Though I've got to say i still have huge admiration for guys like Pantani, Lance... They were still amazing athletes and had some maxing performances that made great TV..
Sometimes I even think sod it, legalize it, allow research to be done openly and just have two parts of the tour.. A chemically assisted and clean tour. The military are always doing such research anyway, that's where a lot of our knowledge came from.
> seems to be a big grey area between black/white and teams know how to push into it: http://sportsscientists.com/2015/06/a-no-good-week-for-doping-in-sport/
It's a huge area..
I'm pretty amazed at people suggesting it is out of order to question..
Look at Rita Jeptoo? Who would have thought she was? When she was caught I've got to say it made me question more than ever. I've even questions over friends or running acquaintances and I know others do.
I think sky are probably similar to NOP, right at the forefront of sports science. Doping isn't all about concerns over cheating its young athletes dying.. Some people have even linked the cancers some people have (though I've never heard a probable reason).. So even if something is legal it can still be ethically wrong, it depends on your own personal stance.
It is perfectly normal to question any amazing performance in a sport dogged by doping.. Though I've got to say i still have huge admiration for guys like Pantani, Lance... They were still amazing athletes and had some maxing performances that made great TV..
Sometimes I even think sod it, legalize it, allow research to be done openly and just have two parts of the tour.. A chemically assisted and clean tour. The military are always doing such research anyway, that's where a lot of our knowledge came from.
Post edited at 16:57
In reply to Roadrunner5:
It isn't all just asking questions though is it, character assassination and blatant slanderous remarks with no real evidence, by many armchair critics with little informed knowledge, quite often generated by the media, looking for controversy, the public then regurgitate this ad nauseum as fact, Froome handles this all remarkably well, good luck to him for the rest of his tour.
It isn't all just asking questions though is it, character assassination and blatant slanderous remarks with no real evidence, by many armchair critics with little informed knowledge, quite often generated by the media, looking for controversy, the public then regurgitate this ad nauseum as fact, Froome handles this all remarkably well, good luck to him for the rest of his tour.
3
In reply to Andy Clarke1965:
It's just something that comes with the territory to be honest.. No professional champion cyclist will expect to not be questioned.
It's just something that comes with the territory to be honest.. No professional champion cyclist will expect to not be questioned.
In reply to Andy Clarke1965:
Tbh I'd rather we test the shit out of people now and store samples long term than people doubt later..
Many in running question Paula just because of her dominance.. But she did freeze samples for the future.
Tbh I'd rather we test the shit out of people now and store samples long term than people doubt later..
Many in running question Paula just because of her dominance.. But she did freeze samples for the future.
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
Sounds like Froome is planning to get tested independently with the independent tester setting the criteria, as well as releasing his power data for the whole season, and his blood passport data for his whole career as well as other stuff. The independent test is meant to happen between the tour and the veulta.
Great if he does.
Sounds like Froome is planning to get tested independently with the independent tester setting the criteria, as well as releasing his power data for the whole season, and his blood passport data for his whole career as well as other stuff. The independent test is meant to happen between the tour and the veulta.
Great if he does.
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Is he actually saving blood during the tour?
I think that has to start happening. Allow historic sampling.
Is he actually saving blood during the tour?
I think that has to start happening. Allow historic sampling.
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Didn't Sky promise something similar once before?
> Sounds like Froome is planning to get tested independently with the independent tester setting the criteria, as well as releasing his power data for the whole season, and his blood passport data for his whole career as well as other stuff. The independent test is meant to happen between the tour and the veulta.
> Great if he does.
Didn't Sky promise something similar once before?
In reply to Mike Highbury:
Yep, they gave Froome's data to an independent panel, who gave it the all-clear. Did that satisfy the cynics - of course not.
A far more interesting outcome to all this is the news that Froome plans to ride the vuelta
> Didn't Sky promise something similar once before?
Yep, they gave Froome's data to an independent panel, who gave it the all-clear. Did that satisfy the cynics - of course not.
A far more interesting outcome to all this is the news that Froome plans to ride the vuelta
Froome is clean, no evidence to prove otherwise
I am going to be really controversial here,why not all get behind him and his team
I am going to be really controversial here,why not all get behind him and his team
2
In reply to mark s:
Because I fail the cricket test.
> Froome is clean, no evidence to prove otherwise
> I am going to be really controversial here,why not all get behind him and his team
Because I fail the cricket test.
In reply to mark s:
I think it's past that and that's cyclings fault.
In that sport, and in athletics, its up to the athletes to prove themselves clean now.
Its not fair but the sport was to blame and those that go in to them must now be super open and missing blood tests really needs to be sorted out. TBH I think we should have constant taking of blood and freezing whether it is tested or not.
If Farah/Salazar comes out as dirty then my interest in top class athletics will end. Jeptoo really rocked my confidence in the elite side of the sport and the kenyan's especially, add the Jamaican tests and just have so little confidence the sport is clean, even at the sub-elite level we are seeing doping happening more.
> Froome is clean, no evidence to prove otherwise
> I am going to be really controversial here,why not all get behind him and his team
I think it's past that and that's cyclings fault.
In that sport, and in athletics, its up to the athletes to prove themselves clean now.
Its not fair but the sport was to blame and those that go in to them must now be super open and missing blood tests really needs to be sorted out. TBH I think we should have constant taking of blood and freezing whether it is tested or not.
If Farah/Salazar comes out as dirty then my interest in top class athletics will end. Jeptoo really rocked my confidence in the elite side of the sport and the kenyan's especially, add the Jamaican tests and just have so little confidence the sport is clean, even at the sub-elite level we are seeing doping happening more.
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Why does anyone bother watching a sport if all they are going to accuse someone of cheating just because they win ?
And lets be clear, unlike Armstrong, there is no evidence against Froome other than his performance
Why does anyone bother watching a sport if all they are going to accuse someone of cheating just because they win ?
And lets be clear, unlike Armstrong, there is no evidence against Froome other than his performance
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
nail on the head
if peoples enjoyment is taken away so much that they cant watch any sport without constantly question if the have had a little chemical help. they should not bother watching it.
> Why does anyone bother watching a sport if all they are going to accuse someone of cheating just because they win ?
> And lets be clear, unlike Armstrong, there is no evidence against Froome other than his performance
nail on the head
if peoples enjoyment is taken away so much that they cant watch any sport without constantly question if the have had a little chemical help. they should not bother watching it.
In reply to mark s:
there wasnt for jeptoo..
If you bothered to read what I said I said I still admired the cheats like Pantani... some of the greatest moments in sport have been drug fueled, especially cycling.. in fact most of them. So that's why I still like it...
Nail on the f*cking head..
there wasnt for jeptoo..
If you bothered to read what I said I said I still admired the cheats like Pantani... some of the greatest moments in sport have been drug fueled, especially cycling.. in fact most of them. So that's why I still like it...
Nail on the f*cking head..
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Also I dont think many have accused him of cheating. They have just expressed doubts... doubts about a sport which has been and is still dogged by cheats..
As I said, again if you bothered to actually read my comments, I doubt he did do anything technically illegal, I just think sky operate right at the edge of sport science and in time, like with other drugs, what they use may be deemed illegal. Its an arms race. To think their athletes are not chemically assisted at all would be extremely naive. Its just whether its illegal or unethical or entirely fair.. it's a bit like Formula one, are we watching the engines or the drivers...
Also I dont think many have accused him of cheating. They have just expressed doubts... doubts about a sport which has been and is still dogged by cheats..
As I said, again if you bothered to actually read my comments, I doubt he did do anything technically illegal, I just think sky operate right at the edge of sport science and in time, like with other drugs, what they use may be deemed illegal. Its an arms race. To think their athletes are not chemically assisted at all would be extremely naive. Its just whether its illegal or unethical or entirely fair.. it's a bit like Formula one, are we watching the engines or the drivers...
In reply to Roadrunner5:
if cyclists are taking a gram of test and whatever else a week ,it wouldnt stop me watching and admiring them for being the greatest athletes on earth.
if cyclists are taking a gram of test and whatever else a week ,it wouldnt stop me watching and admiring them for being the greatest athletes on earth.
1
In reply to mark s:
I'm behind team Sky. Before them what did we ever have on Grand tours other than the odd plucky Brit doing well on the odd stage ?
I'm behind team Sky. Before them what did we ever have on Grand tours other than the odd plucky Brit doing well on the odd stage ?
1
In reply to mark s:
Here, here.
> Froome is clean, no evidence to prove otherwise
> I am going to be really controversial here,why not all get behind him and his team
Here, here.
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Froome is an outsider.and I mean that in the nicest possible way.
He's quiet ,determined,shy and probably never been the most outgoing of chaps.
In life ,if you are like the above ,generally you are going to get shot at ,or seen as being there to get shot at.
If Chris Froome had sideburns,listened with blind obedience to late 70s/early 80s overrated cult music ,and shouted and swore a lot ,he wouldn't get half the flak he does.
Mr Wiggins ,when aspersions ,suggestions ,and borderline accusations were made ,used to shoot journalists to shit.
> Why does anyone bother watching a sport if all they are going to accuse someone of cheating just because they win ?
> And lets be clear, unlike Armstrong, there is no evidence against Froome other than his performance
Froome is an outsider.and I mean that in the nicest possible way.
He's quiet ,determined,shy and probably never been the most outgoing of chaps.
In life ,if you are like the above ,generally you are going to get shot at ,or seen as being there to get shot at.
If Chris Froome had sideburns,listened with blind obedience to late 70s/early 80s overrated cult music ,and shouted and swore a lot ,he wouldn't get half the flak he does.
Mr Wiggins ,when aspersions ,suggestions ,and borderline accusations were made ,used to shoot journalists to shit.
Post edited at 21:55
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
Interesting graphic posted on a similar thread on singletrackworld
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKD7yzyW8AEi_aK.jpg
Interesting graphic posted on a similar thread on singletrackworld
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKD7yzyW8AEi_aK.jpg
In reply to Chris the Tall:
I can get a variation of more than 10% on the same ride on successive days, the faster times aren't necessarily when I've been pushing it, there's been no real difference in weather conditions - wind, humidity, etc. , some days just seem to feel right.
At the power that the top riders produce even a couple of percent difference can be a lot in real terms.
I can get a variation of more than 10% on the same ride on successive days, the faster times aren't necessarily when I've been pushing it, there's been no real difference in weather conditions - wind, humidity, etc. , some days just seem to feel right.
At the power that the top riders produce even a couple of percent difference can be a lot in real terms.
In reply to Bob:
This is one of the interesting things about using Strava, you see how much variation you have over the same sections, and as you say 10% is normal. I don't get the notion that a minute is a huge gap, impossible to explain within the rules of human physiology. Look how quickly Dan Martin bridged a gap of 6 minutes the other day. Was watching "Slaying the badger" again last night (on ITV player - great film if you haven't seen it) and you were getting 5 minute gaps between the leaders in almost every mountain stage.
This is one of the interesting things about using Strava, you see how much variation you have over the same sections, and as you say 10% is normal. I don't get the notion that a minute is a huge gap, impossible to explain within the rules of human physiology. Look how quickly Dan Martin bridged a gap of 6 minutes the other day. Was watching "Slaying the badger" again last night (on ITV player - great film if you haven't seen it) and you were getting 5 minute gaps between the leaders in almost every mountain stage.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Chris, do you have a reference to the panel and / or its findings?
> Yep, they gave Froome's data to an independent panel, who gave it the all-clear. Did that satisfy the cynics - of course not.
Chris, do you have a reference to the panel and / or its findings?
In reply to Mike Highbury:
No, but I remember it, and have seen it referred to in a few articles recently. I'm sure if you search you'll find it, but I've got better things to do
No, but I remember it, and have seen it referred to in a few articles recently. I'm sure if you search you'll find it, but I've got better things to do
In reply to malk:
Him?!? You look to him?
> no suspect says durianrider: youtube.com/watch?v=8m0ItxYf1n4&
Him?!? You look to him?
In reply to Chris the Tall:
That was a genuine inquiry. I assume that you are referring to the L'Equipe analysis and not WADA testing that was promised.
> No, but I remember it, and have seen it referred to in a few articles recently. I'm sure if you search you'll find it, but I've got better things to do
That was a genuine inquiry. I assume that you are referring to the L'Equipe analysis and not WADA testing that was promised.
In reply to Mike Highbury:
IIRC Sky said "we'll give all our data to WADA", WADA said "don't bother, we just do drug testing", so Sky gave it to an independent group chosen by L'Equipe.
As I say, the more Sky do, the more it seems to fan the flames of the tin foil hat brigade. At the end of the day, how do we know what the threshold of clean performance is ? How can we say what isn't humanly possible ? That 5.9 w/kg is ok but 6 is not ?
IIRC Sky said "we'll give all our data to WADA", WADA said "don't bother, we just do drug testing", so Sky gave it to an independent group chosen by L'Equipe.
As I say, the more Sky do, the more it seems to fan the flames of the tin foil hat brigade. At the end of the day, how do we know what the threshold of clean performance is ? How can we say what isn't humanly possible ? That 5.9 w/kg is ok but 6 is not ?
In reply to Mike Highbury:
who should i look to? i'd like to look to Sky but they're too secretive.
have you heard the one about the oxygen chamber in the tour bus that noone is allowed in?
who should i look to? i'd like to look to Sky but they're too secretive.
have you heard the one about the oxygen chamber in the tour bus that noone is allowed in?
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
Surely this debate just comes down to one thing - is the Bilharzia story true ?
I can see why some people think it's just too convenient and has echos of LA's transformation after cancer. Is it really possible for a no-hoper, unsure of a contract for the next season, to be transformed into the strongest rider in the world ?
Well of course Froome wasn't a no-hoper - he was regarded as a very talented raw talent but with frustrating inconsistency. And I do remember bilharzia was first mentioned in his "breakthrough" race, no, not the 2012 tour, but the 2011 vuelta, when he lost to Cobo (who hasn't been heard of since). And Bilharzia is rife in Kenya and attacks red-blood cells - the opposite effect of EPO - so it is a plausible explanation.
Like most Brits I can't warm to Froome the way I can to Wiggo, Cav, G etc - living in monaco is a poor decision IMHO - but nonetheless I don't see any reason to doubt him. Rider beats another rider in race - where's the story ?
Surely this debate just comes down to one thing - is the Bilharzia story true ?
I can see why some people think it's just too convenient and has echos of LA's transformation after cancer. Is it really possible for a no-hoper, unsure of a contract for the next season, to be transformed into the strongest rider in the world ?
Well of course Froome wasn't a no-hoper - he was regarded as a very talented raw talent but with frustrating inconsistency. And I do remember bilharzia was first mentioned in his "breakthrough" race, no, not the 2012 tour, but the 2011 vuelta, when he lost to Cobo (who hasn't been heard of since). And Bilharzia is rife in Kenya and attacks red-blood cells - the opposite effect of EPO - so it is a plausible explanation.
Like most Brits I can't warm to Froome the way I can to Wiggo, Cav, G etc - living in monaco is a poor decision IMHO - but nonetheless I don't see any reason to doubt him. Rider beats another rider in race - where's the story ?
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
Froome's data has been released: http://road.cc/content/news/158231-team-sky-release-chris-froomes-data-bid-...
Froome's data has been released: http://road.cc/content/news/158231-team-sky-release-chris-froomes-data-bid-...
1
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Can someone who really understands the science of asymetrical rings and average and peak power outputs interpret that for me?
> Froome's data has been released: http://road.cc/content/news/158231-team-sky-release-chris-froomes-data-bid-...
Can someone who really understands the science of asymetrical rings and average and peak power outputs interpret that for me?
In reply to Mike Highbury:
The headline number is the 5.78 watt/kg which is substantially lower than the 6.5 w/kg that Armstrong used to use as his benchmark for tour form, and nearly 20% different from the rather daft 7 w/kg which was being flung around in the french media.
He then droned on happily for several minutes to demonstrate how he obtained that figure, presumably in order to pre-empt the armchair scientists. Doubtless some of them will come up with their own interpretations, and it won't silence all the doubters, but all in all I think the presentation helps to show that Froome's performance was relatively modest by the standards of the bad old days (backed up by the fact that he only actually gained very little time - all this palava for not even a minute on the stage!)
> Can someone who really understands the science of asymetrical rings and average and peak power outputs interpret that for me?
The headline number is the 5.78 watt/kg which is substantially lower than the 6.5 w/kg that Armstrong used to use as his benchmark for tour form, and nearly 20% different from the rather daft 7 w/kg which was being flung around in the french media.
He then droned on happily for several minutes to demonstrate how he obtained that figure, presumably in order to pre-empt the armchair scientists. Doubtless some of them will come up with their own interpretations, and it won't silence all the doubters, but all in all I think the presentation helps to show that Froome's performance was relatively modest by the standards of the bad old days (backed up by the fact that he only actually gained very little time - all this palava for not even a minute on the stage!)
In reply to Mike Highbury:
I assume the 6% difference between the 414 Watts and 390 Watts is put down to the increased efficiency of the asymmetric rings. Seems a lot, maybe it doesn't mean that.
> Can someone who really understands the science of asymetrical rings and average and peak power outputs interpret that for me?
I assume the 6% difference between the 414 Watts and 390 Watts is put down to the increased efficiency of the asymmetric rings. Seems a lot, maybe it doesn't mean that.
In reply to The New NickB:
I'm think Kerrison's point was that the real power isn't much different, it's just that the power meter reports a higher power when using the asymmetric rings, even when the rider is making the same effort. I'm guessing they've done tests and found that that reporting error is 6%.
Incidently, Chris Boardman was saying on the ITV podcast today that there are several different power meters on the market and they can vary in their accuracy by up to 30W.
> I assume the 6% difference between the 414 Watts and 390 Watts is put down to the increased efficiency of the asymmetric rings. Seems a lot, maybe it doesn't mean that.
I'm think Kerrison's point was that the real power isn't much different, it's just that the power meter reports a higher power when using the asymmetric rings, even when the rider is making the same effort. I'm guessing they've done tests and found that that reporting error is 6%.
Incidently, Chris Boardman was saying on the ITV podcast today that there are several different power meters on the market and they can vary in their accuracy by up to 30W.
Post edited at 21:25
In reply to Mike Highbury:
Google osymetric rings. Is that what they meant?
Quick read I've had, they seem to have more benefits for the lesser rider.
Google osymetric rings. Is that what they meant?
Quick read I've had, they seem to have more benefits for the lesser rider.
In reply to Mike Highbury:
And why not? He might be irritating, egotistical, repetitive, a general pain in the butt &c, &c, but beneath all that he makes much the same points as most of the more serious commentators on this thread.
> Him?!? You look to him?
And why not? He might be irritating, egotistical, repetitive, a general pain in the butt &c, &c, but beneath all that he makes much the same points as most of the more serious commentators on this thread.
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
What really hacks me off is that in 2012 the French press questioned Wiggins, he won mainly on the strength of time trials and had previously finished in fourth in a weaker team. In 2013 they accused Froome, I remember seeing the "FROOME ?" banners. And again accusing Froome in 2015.
Oh, I forgot 2014, Nibali wins by 7 minutes, no questions asked, despite the fact that several of his team mates being caught doping, his team manager is an ex-doper.
My view is that it would be almost impossible for an individual to dope and not be caught. They can only dope as a group and I think Sky have too much to lose. In 2012 both Wiggins and Froome were tested as part of the Olympic team and the tests were extensive.
Also, what drug is Froome meant to be taking? Has he discovered a new drug that cannot be detected.
Maybe I am being paranoid but I think it is a combination of anti-British behaviour and jealousy.
What really hacks me off is that in 2012 the French press questioned Wiggins, he won mainly on the strength of time trials and had previously finished in fourth in a weaker team. In 2013 they accused Froome, I remember seeing the "FROOME ?" banners. And again accusing Froome in 2015.
Oh, I forgot 2014, Nibali wins by 7 minutes, no questions asked, despite the fact that several of his team mates being caught doping, his team manager is an ex-doper.
My view is that it would be almost impossible for an individual to dope and not be caught. They can only dope as a group and I think Sky have too much to lose. In 2012 both Wiggins and Froome were tested as part of the Olympic team and the tests were extensive.
Also, what drug is Froome meant to be taking? Has he discovered a new drug that cannot be detected.
Maybe I am being paranoid but I think it is a combination of anti-British behaviour and jealousy.
In reply to Fidman:
Lots of questions were asked about Nibali and many concluded that he was a lifelong doper.
The accusation is that Sky goes to the edge of legality and works TUEs at least as much as the other teams, a matter that has been discussed in detail on here before.
> Oh, I forgot 2014, Nibali wins by 7 minutes, no questions asked, despite the fact that several of his team mates being caught doping, his team manager is an ex-doper.
Lots of questions were asked about Nibali and many concluded that he was a lifelong doper.
> Also, what drug is Froome meant to be taking? Has he discovered a new drug that cannot be detected.
The accusation is that Sky goes to the edge of legality and works TUEs at least as much as the other teams, a matter that has been discussed in detail on here before.
In reply to Mike Highbury:
That's one of the accusations, many accusations go a lot further.
> The accusation is that Sky goes to the edge of legality and works TUEs at least as much as the other teams, a matter that has been discussed in detail on here before.
That's one of the accusations, many accusations go a lot further.
In reply to The New NickB:
Do you think "Sky the TV company "are not breathing down "Sky the cycling teams neck" to make sure there is no doping.The reputational damage to Sky would be considerable.
Nobody mentions this.
Do you think "Sky the TV company "are not breathing down "Sky the cycling teams neck" to make sure there is no doping.The reputational damage to Sky would be considerable.
Nobody mentions this.
In reply to Fidman:
I think that's what everyone is afraid of - possibly a weight loss drug.
this is a good read
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/100-tours-100-tales/2015/jul/22/chris-froo...
It does seem that the more Sky do to reassure the doubters, the more flack they get. Was Ruben Plaza questioned about his links to Puerto after his stage win - no.
I think a lot of people are very keen to be able to say "I told you so" if Sky are doping, knowing that they'll never be any conclusive proof that they aren't. The internet breeds and fuels conspiracy theories - moon landings, 9/11 etc - but in cycling the fact that the huge conspiracies have occurred - USPS, Puerto - gives them more credibility.
And if Sky are doping, this would be the greatest sporting fraud of all time - it would cover the Olympics as well the road, and would destroy the UCI. Verbruggen and McQuaid may have been complacent, possibly complicit over Armstrong, but Cookson was right at the heart of British cycling, so to get him into power is the ultimate corruption. And complete nonsense.
> Also, what drug is Froome meant to be taking? Has he discovered a new drug that cannot be detected.
I think that's what everyone is afraid of - possibly a weight loss drug.
> Maybe I am being paranoid but I think it is a combination of anti-British behaviour and jealousy.
this is a good read
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/100-tours-100-tales/2015/jul/22/chris-froo...
It does seem that the more Sky do to reassure the doubters, the more flack they get. Was Ruben Plaza questioned about his links to Puerto after his stage win - no.
I think a lot of people are very keen to be able to say "I told you so" if Sky are doping, knowing that they'll never be any conclusive proof that they aren't. The internet breeds and fuels conspiracy theories - moon landings, 9/11 etc - but in cycling the fact that the huge conspiracies have occurred - USPS, Puerto - gives them more credibility.
And if Sky are doping, this would be the greatest sporting fraud of all time - it would cover the Olympics as well the road, and would destroy the UCI. Verbruggen and McQuaid may have been complacent, possibly complicit over Armstrong, but Cookson was right at the heart of British cycling, so to get him into power is the ultimate corruption. And complete nonsense.
In reply to neilh:
I'm sure they are. I hope Sky are clean and think they probably are.
> Do you think "Sky the TV company "are not breathing down "Sky the cycling teams neck" to make sure there is no doping.The reputational damage to Sky would be considerable.
I'm sure they are. I hope Sky are clean and think they probably are.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
First of all that's just nonsense. They are still a long way off of anywhere close to where Lance ended up, yet alone the allegations against say 1980's East German Olympic teams.
Again nonsense what has happened in the past does no necessarily dove tail into what is happening now just because some of the same people were involved. Correlation does not equal causation.
Whether you are prepared to accept it or not (clearly not by the way you're responding) in the current era of cycling any outstanding performance is liable to be questioned due to the nature and history of the sport. Wiggins was questioned less than Froome because despite his career achievements when he won the tour he did in a weak year (GC leaders of any strenght were fue and far between between Bertie and the Schlecks out), with by far the strongest team and when the course suited him best (comparatively speaking not a lot of climbing and more TTs than usual). Froome's achievements stand out more due to the more strenuous courses and more rigorous competition and despite all of that he constantly appears fresher than anyone else on the road.
The implication many parties have come up with is that potentially Sky have come up with a performance enhancing substances or chemical group that is probably not yet known about and not banned. Now this may not be illegal at this time but most certainly would be banned if it's existence was made public and certainly goes far beyond racing in a fair competition. When Froome was question about one particular weight loss pill he answered that they had looked into it but no perceivable gains were determined. This in conjunction with the immense gains sky have made and their absolute secrecy has understandably got a lot of people questioning how they are attaining these performance levels and if it's by fair means.
There's a link to an interview with Kimmage below in which he lays out his questions. He's not definitively pointing the finger at sky (like he did with Armstrong) but he is saying there are valid questions to be answered and sky would be much better off trying their best to answer them if they'd like the finger of suspicion lifted from them. This is not a particularly egregious suggestion in this day and age. As to the data that was released yesterday whilst it appears as if it answered the questions, reports are when it was really delved into it barely touched the surface and certainly did not go the whole way towards clearing sky's reputation as has been pointed out by some others further up.
Now you can accept sky are being questioned on a valid basis or not, there were plenty on here who were staunch defenders of Armstrong in his time, but the questions will continue to be asked until sky take solid and significant steps to respond to them in an open and fair manner.
As to the implication further up that the reputational impact would be too great to the sky corporation. Well please note sky is owned by the same people that brought you phone hacking and fox news so I wouldn't particularly put anything behind them.
link to kimmage interview, worth listening to eht audio too. : http://www.newstalk.com/kimmage-talks-froome
> And if Sky are doping, this would be the greatest sporting fraud of all time -
First of all that's just nonsense. They are still a long way off of anywhere close to where Lance ended up, yet alone the allegations against say 1980's East German Olympic teams.
> it would cover the Olympics as well the road, and would destroy the UCI.
Again nonsense what has happened in the past does no necessarily dove tail into what is happening now just because some of the same people were involved. Correlation does not equal causation.
Whether you are prepared to accept it or not (clearly not by the way you're responding) in the current era of cycling any outstanding performance is liable to be questioned due to the nature and history of the sport. Wiggins was questioned less than Froome because despite his career achievements when he won the tour he did in a weak year (GC leaders of any strenght were fue and far between between Bertie and the Schlecks out), with by far the strongest team and when the course suited him best (comparatively speaking not a lot of climbing and more TTs than usual). Froome's achievements stand out more due to the more strenuous courses and more rigorous competition and despite all of that he constantly appears fresher than anyone else on the road.
The implication many parties have come up with is that potentially Sky have come up with a performance enhancing substances or chemical group that is probably not yet known about and not banned. Now this may not be illegal at this time but most certainly would be banned if it's existence was made public and certainly goes far beyond racing in a fair competition. When Froome was question about one particular weight loss pill he answered that they had looked into it but no perceivable gains were determined. This in conjunction with the immense gains sky have made and their absolute secrecy has understandably got a lot of people questioning how they are attaining these performance levels and if it's by fair means.
There's a link to an interview with Kimmage below in which he lays out his questions. He's not definitively pointing the finger at sky (like he did with Armstrong) but he is saying there are valid questions to be answered and sky would be much better off trying their best to answer them if they'd like the finger of suspicion lifted from them. This is not a particularly egregious suggestion in this day and age. As to the data that was released yesterday whilst it appears as if it answered the questions, reports are when it was really delved into it barely touched the surface and certainly did not go the whole way towards clearing sky's reputation as has been pointed out by some others further up.
Now you can accept sky are being questioned on a valid basis or not, there were plenty on here who were staunch defenders of Armstrong in his time, but the questions will continue to be asked until sky take solid and significant steps to respond to them in an open and fair manner.
As to the implication further up that the reputational impact would be too great to the sky corporation. Well please note sky is owned by the same people that brought you phone hacking and fox news so I wouldn't particularly put anything behind them.
link to kimmage interview, worth listening to eht audio too. : http://www.newstalk.com/kimmage-talks-froome
1
In reply to Frank4short:
I don't get this Sky are so secretive line... In all the years I've followed cycling, no team has been open about their training, their numbers, their doctors etc. As far as I can see they are by far the most progressive team in terms of openness or did I miss the mass data released by saxo, astana, movistar, europcar, BMC and us postal service over the years? In fact have any of them ever offered anything? Have any of them invited a known sceptic and well respected journo to have a poke around the team? What about other sports? What's mo's vo2 Max etc?
I can understand perfectly well why too. Knowing this data about a competitor can give a huge advantage even historic data especially if you have your own data to compare.
I'm no sky lover, and not a great Froome fan although he's growing on me. I'm not 100% convinced by any means, but I can't really jear these alarm bells ringing. If anything i feel the other favourites are just not as strong as expected especially nibbles (his team owner seems to agree-if his performances power wise were up to scratch I suspect the owner would point the finger elsewhere rather than threaten to drop his star)
For me a much more alarming performance at this years tour is valverde... He seems to have managed to be inform for a lot longer then normal. With amazing performances all year so far. There's also already more than a bit of evidence against him.
I don't get this Sky are so secretive line... In all the years I've followed cycling, no team has been open about their training, their numbers, their doctors etc. As far as I can see they are by far the most progressive team in terms of openness or did I miss the mass data released by saxo, astana, movistar, europcar, BMC and us postal service over the years? In fact have any of them ever offered anything? Have any of them invited a known sceptic and well respected journo to have a poke around the team? What about other sports? What's mo's vo2 Max etc?
I can understand perfectly well why too. Knowing this data about a competitor can give a huge advantage even historic data especially if you have your own data to compare.
I'm no sky lover, and not a great Froome fan although he's growing on me. I'm not 100% convinced by any means, but I can't really jear these alarm bells ringing. If anything i feel the other favourites are just not as strong as expected especially nibbles (his team owner seems to agree-if his performances power wise were up to scratch I suspect the owner would point the finger elsewhere rather than threaten to drop his star)
For me a much more alarming performance at this years tour is valverde... He seems to have managed to be inform for a lot longer then normal. With amazing performances all year so far. There's also already more than a bit of evidence against him.
In reply to neilh:
Isnt Sky a sister company of news international?
> The reputational damage to Sky would be considerable.
Isnt Sky a sister company of news international?
In reply to dissonance:
Yes, and therefore Murdoch scum! But regardless most of their revenue comes from sport and if they themselves are found to be cheating, well it isn't very sporting really. I mean would you want your sport covered by a drugs cheat?
Yes, and therefore Murdoch scum! But regardless most of their revenue comes from sport and if they themselves are found to be cheating, well it isn't very sporting really. I mean would you want your sport covered by a drugs cheat?
In reply to balmybaldwin:
How much money are they paying me and do I need to declare it to the taxman? Many sports governing bodies seem to get away with it afterall.
> I mean would you want your sport covered by a drugs cheat?
How much money are they paying me and do I need to declare it to the taxman? Many sports governing bodies seem to get away with it afterall.
In reply to dissonance:
True, but its still a big risk for companies and sports who spend so much money on their brand images
True, but its still a big risk for companies and sports who spend so much money on their brand images
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Can you explain further? I suspect that you can make a far stronger argument because, to my understanding, only 13% or so of the Sky team's budget comes from race fees which, for Sky more than (all?) other teams, is far less important than sponsorship.
Whether or not the sponsor or supporting nation gives a toss is another matter entirely. German companies found cycling's association with doping uncomfortable and pulled out a while before the extent of drug use in those teams became apparent to those outside of the sport. As for other nations, who knows? French teams seem to ride pretty clean, or they are utterly rubbish, of course. Save for a bit of prurience, North Americans appear to be unmoved by drug use in cycling but, again, I don't know this. The British, do you know, I doubt that they care one way or the other.
> Yes, and therefore Murdoch scum! But regardless most of their revenue comes from sport and if they themselves are found to be cheating, well it isn't very sporting really. I mean would you want your sport covered by a drugs cheat?
Can you explain further? I suspect that you can make a far stronger argument because, to my understanding, only 13% or so of the Sky team's budget comes from race fees which, for Sky more than (all?) other teams, is far less important than sponsorship.
Whether or not the sponsor or supporting nation gives a toss is another matter entirely. German companies found cycling's association with doping uncomfortable and pulled out a while before the extent of drug use in those teams became apparent to those outside of the sport. As for other nations, who knows? French teams seem to ride pretty clean, or they are utterly rubbish, of course. Save for a bit of prurience, North Americans appear to be unmoved by drug use in cycling but, again, I don't know this. The British, do you know, I doubt that they care one way or the other.
In reply to Frank4short:
Froome's achievements stand out more due to the more strenuous courses and more rigorous competition and despite all of that he constantly appears fresher than anyone else on the road.
Right now its debatable he (or his team) does look fresher. Quintana got nearly to the finish with 3 other team members yesterday whilst Froome had none and it was Quintana who looked to be slightly stronger than Froome up to the line.
Froome's achievements stand out more due to the more strenuous courses and more rigorous competition and despite all of that he constantly appears fresher than anyone else on the road.
Right now its debatable he (or his team) does look fresher. Quintana got nearly to the finish with 3 other team members yesterday whilst Froome had none and it was Quintana who looked to be slightly stronger than Froome up to the line.
In reply to Mike Highbury:
Good grief. Brailsford is the man who put UK cycling on the map with the Olympics.All our gold medal winners - Hoy , Wiggins, Pendleton etc would be classed immediately as cheats if it turned out that Froome/Sky were cheating.It would destroy cycling here.
Its a point that Froome , Brailsford and Sky continually make, but the sceptics ignore.
Never mind the damage to Sky's reputation.
Good grief. Brailsford is the man who put UK cycling on the map with the Olympics.All our gold medal winners - Hoy , Wiggins, Pendleton etc would be classed immediately as cheats if it turned out that Froome/Sky were cheating.It would destroy cycling here.
Its a point that Froome , Brailsford and Sky continually make, but the sceptics ignore.
Never mind the damage to Sky's reputation.
In reply to neilh:
Dunno, I really dunno. Several Olympic athletes have been banned and I doubt that it reflects on their sponsors but, you may point out, that they are less associated with their sponsors than cyclists are with Sky. Is Sky cycling robust enough to survive a close call with the rule book? It's an interesting question, isn't it?
Would a positive test kill cycling in the UK? UK cycling has become a large market and is much more than Sky. Witness that even the fat blokes on bikes on a Sunday morning are no longer garbed in black and blue. Is UK leisure cycling that fragile? Shoreditch won't be cycling in five years time. Will the fat blokes? Of course not, they'll be doing whatever people do next. As for the sportives, these things come and go.
> Good grief. Brailsford is the man who put UK cycling on the map with the Olympics.All our gold medal winners - Hoy , Wiggins, Pendleton etc would be classed immediately as cheats if it turned out that Froome/Sky were cheating.It would destroy cycling here.
> Its a point that Froome , Brailsford and Sky continually make, but the sceptics ignore.
> Never mind the damage to Sky's reputation.
Dunno, I really dunno. Several Olympic athletes have been banned and I doubt that it reflects on their sponsors but, you may point out, that they are less associated with their sponsors than cyclists are with Sky. Is Sky cycling robust enough to survive a close call with the rule book? It's an interesting question, isn't it?
Would a positive test kill cycling in the UK? UK cycling has become a large market and is much more than Sky. Witness that even the fat blokes on bikes on a Sunday morning are no longer garbed in black and blue. Is UK leisure cycling that fragile? Shoreditch won't be cycling in five years time. Will the fat blokes? Of course not, they'll be doing whatever people do next. As for the sportives, these things come and go.
In reply to Mike Highbury:
Destroy competitive cycling not cycling per se.
Previous dopers like Miller came from a different era as I understand it.They did not have the pull of the likes of Hoy etc.So not seen in the same light.
Destroy competitive cycling not cycling per se.
Previous dopers like Miller came from a different era as I understand it.They did not have the pull of the likes of Hoy etc.So not seen in the same light.
In reply to neilh:
Perhaps but that's a smaller set. And, yes, the sportives are a route in.
If the internet had existed twenty years ago and blood doping products been readily available (e.g. http://www.cces.ca/en/news-307-cycling-athlete-suspended-for-possession) would more have doped? Yeh, probably.
> Destroy competitive cycling not cycling per se.
> Previous dopers like Miller came from a different era as I understand it.They did not have the pull of the likes of Hoy etc.So not seen in the same light.
Perhaps but that's a smaller set. And, yes, the sportives are a route in.
If the internet had existed twenty years ago and blood doping products been readily available (e.g. http://www.cces.ca/en/news-307-cycling-athlete-suspended-for-possession) would more have doped? Yeh, probably.
In reply to Frank4short:
I did listen to it.
PK wrote a great book 25 years ago and got hounded out of the sport he loved as a result. Is he bitter ? Too right. And then he's made a career as journalist, but his specialist subject is doping in cycling - you might even say he has a vested interest in keeping the issue high profile. And of course the Sunday Times decided not to renew his contract a few years back. Again, is he bitter ?
Someone up the thread said "he was right about Armstrong", and indeed he was, but was it he who was doing all the investigative journalism, who found the people prepared to speak ? I think it was David Walsh. Who PK now accuses of working for Pravda because he doesn't say what he wants to hear.
When PK says nothing has changed in cycling you know he's talking rubbish. The sport is far more professional, far more scientific. Tactics have changed, nutrition has changed, training has changed - as I keep on pointing out, the fact that you see them warming down on rollers is a good example - and I'm pretty sure the doping culture has changed. PK mentions being told at the start of a race that there would be no drug tests - so they all knew they could dope. No out of comp testing, no biological passport, no EPO or HGH.
Sorry, but why does PK only make a fuss when Sky are winning - yes he says he his doubts, but how much fuss did he make when Nibbles won the tour or Contador romped away from Froome in the vuelta.
However the big issue I have with that interview is that he questions Froome's pedigree without mentioning Bilharzia. Now he knows all about this - he covered it in an interview with Froome last year. If he thinks it's bullshit (and it maybe) then why doesn't he say so. But by omitting it, he's creating doubt when he knows there is a reasonable explanation. That's dishonest in my book.
> link to kimmage interview, worth listening to eht audio too. : http://www.newstalk.com/kimmage-talks-froome
I did listen to it.
PK wrote a great book 25 years ago and got hounded out of the sport he loved as a result. Is he bitter ? Too right. And then he's made a career as journalist, but his specialist subject is doping in cycling - you might even say he has a vested interest in keeping the issue high profile. And of course the Sunday Times decided not to renew his contract a few years back. Again, is he bitter ?
Someone up the thread said "he was right about Armstrong", and indeed he was, but was it he who was doing all the investigative journalism, who found the people prepared to speak ? I think it was David Walsh. Who PK now accuses of working for Pravda because he doesn't say what he wants to hear.
When PK says nothing has changed in cycling you know he's talking rubbish. The sport is far more professional, far more scientific. Tactics have changed, nutrition has changed, training has changed - as I keep on pointing out, the fact that you see them warming down on rollers is a good example - and I'm pretty sure the doping culture has changed. PK mentions being told at the start of a race that there would be no drug tests - so they all knew they could dope. No out of comp testing, no biological passport, no EPO or HGH.
Sorry, but why does PK only make a fuss when Sky are winning - yes he says he his doubts, but how much fuss did he make when Nibbles won the tour or Contador romped away from Froome in the vuelta.
However the big issue I have with that interview is that he questions Froome's pedigree without mentioning Bilharzia. Now he knows all about this - he covered it in an interview with Froome last year. If he thinks it's bullshit (and it maybe) then why doesn't he say so. But by omitting it, he's creating doubt when he knows there is a reasonable explanation. That's dishonest in my book.
2
In reply to Frank4short:
Oh, and he puts great faith in Antoine Vayer as an eminent physiologist. Which he may be. But he doesn't say that Vayer gets his data from watching the TV, guessing riders weights, and judging their speeds up the climbs by where they are when the cameras are on them in relation to landmarks. And he uses this to compare between different stages regardless of weather conditions or the state of the race. I know nothing about physiology but his methodology is rubbish !
Oh, and he puts great faith in Antoine Vayer as an eminent physiologist. Which he may be. But he doesn't say that Vayer gets his data from watching the TV, guessing riders weights, and judging their speeds up the climbs by where they are when the cameras are on them in relation to landmarks. And he uses this to compare between different stages regardless of weather conditions or the state of the race. I know nothing about physiology but his methodology is rubbish !
3
In reply to Chris the Tall:
This is interesting:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02xq0nw
Pierre Sallet defending his position. His implication is pretty clear from the "data" he has and he is standing by it. Has anyone seen a critique of his method for data gathering, how well it does or doesn't stack up in different scenarios (such as riders being in a team bunch for the majority of a climb compared to someone soloing / attacking etc)
This is interesting:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02xq0nw
Pierre Sallet defending his position. His implication is pretty clear from the "data" he has and he is standing by it. Has anyone seen a critique of his method for data gathering, how well it does or doesn't stack up in different scenarios (such as riders being in a team bunch for the majority of a climb compared to someone soloing / attacking etc)
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...