Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 141 total)
  • Contador Back Froome as Clean
  • munrobiker
    Free Member

    In 2006 I was fat and slow and could barely finish in the top 3/4 in a fun race.

    In 2008 I won 2 12 hour races, 2nd in a 24 hour race, 4th at the Scottish XC champs. I must’ve doped.

    Oh, wait, no. No I didn’t. While I do find myself questioning Froome’s performance I think this is just a side effect of all that has gone on in the last 10 years and given the relative under-performance of known dopers in this year’s tour and the Sky training program and funding I’d be surprised if he was on the sauce.

    joeydeacon
    Free Member

    You asked for ex Sky riders/staff who doped, I provided names.

    I did not ask for this list..

    Yes you did, you asked for exactly that info, see below!

    nothing to do with the rest of the ex Sky riders with a history of doping? could you name names here ?

    Re: 100m / athletics.

    I totally agree that the history of a dirty sport (whether it be grand tours or 100m) is not 100% proof of a rider/runner dominating being dirty. However it can be quite indicative.

    I have not explicitly stated that because rider A cheated, then rider B also definitely cheated – my main question which still no-one has answered is:

    “Name me one other cyclist who achieved so little up to the age of 26, and then suddenly turns into a world beater?”

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Miracles of this nature do not happen in cycling.

    How do you know?

    Can you expand on that statement please?

    joeydeacon
    Free Member

    munrobiker – congrats on the improvements, got some awesome results there! (genuine compliment, not meant to sound sarcastic!) However this seems to be due to your weight loss by your own admission – Froome’s improvements are a fair bit more dramatic, especially considering he was already a pro and so there would be less scope to improve compared to a regular guy.

    joeydeacon
    Free Member

    molgrips – I’ll rephrase that – Miracles of this nature have never remotely happened in cycling up to now, without the aid of drugs.

    As a great philosopher once said “To all the cynics, I’m sorry for you, I’m sorry you can’t believe in miracles.”

    Nobby
    Full Member

    Why do people assume that sudden improvement is due to a physical change? A change in psychology/belief/confidence or whatever you want to call it, can be a far bigger factor.

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    it’s Ok guys the Froomester just called, he holds his hands up bucket loads of everything, they get away with it my pouring baby piss back into themselves for the tests. Says it hurts more than Ventoux but worth it.

    (just off to report Munrobiker to BC for testing)

    munrobiker
    Free Member

    I was actually heavier. Dunno how I got away with that. (for the record I am now back to fat and slow, I did a Cadel Evans but without the being a massive tit)

    I do think the weight loss argument can be applied to Wiggins- we all saw how much he lost. Improving your power to weight ratio like that will always make you faster. I am more convinced Wiggins is clean than Froome.

    But your point about Froome being mediocre in the past is also unfair- he says himself he switched from Kenya to Britain for the improved support. When he was lapped in the Commonwealth Games he was riding for Kenya almost for a laugh. He clearly showed natural talent and with a proper backing has improved, which is only to be expected really.

    joeydeacon
    Free Member

    Nobby – this might account for handling ability / downhilling etc, but climbing is mostly down to physical ability and the number of watts you can push out. Clean or doping, winning uphill mountain stages is mostly down to your body.

    Nobby
    Full Member

    Nobby – this might account for handling ability / downhilling etc, but climbing is mostly down to physical ability and the number of watts you can push out. Clean or doping, winning uphill mountain stages is mostly down to your body.

    Oddly, I found the opposite. Once I’d convinced myself that going downhill was the reward for climbing rather than climbing being my punishment for downhills I got better & quicker. This led to a steady but rapid improvement which anyone who’s ridden with me over the years will attest to.

    I believe the phrase used is “choose your attitude”.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Miracles of this nature have never remotely happened in cycling up to now, without the aid of drugs

    Nothing happened in cycling before now without the aid of drugs though. If the peleton is mostly clean, we are treading new ground I think.

    whatnobeer
    Free Member

    Might of been posted earlier and I missed it, but this is a good read on whether you can use performance figures to judge if a rider is doping or not. I tend to agree, there are so many factors affecting the speed up a mountain, especially Ventoux that trying to compare times is a bit silly.

    joeydeacon
    Free Member

    Nothing happened in cycling before now without the aid of drugs though. If the peleton is mostly clean, we are treading new ground I think.

    Maybe. I’ve just been through too many “clean new eras” to believe in the current one, especially considering a lot of the characters from past eras still remain.

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    Apologies for dumping lots of text in here but this is the translation/borrowed L’equipe article – the French are happy

    Winning the Tour is one thing, but convincing a sceptical sector of the cycling media and public that it is being done ethically is proving harder for Team Sky. That challenge has prompted Dave Brailsford to make another attempt to prove his team are above board by providing the newspaper l’Equipe with all the climbing data Chris Froome has produced in the last two years: 18 ascensions dating back to the Vuelta a Espana in 2011, when the Kenyan-born Briton made his big breakthrough.

    L’Equipe, which is owned by the Tour’s parent company, Groupe Amaury, had the data examined by their in-house physiologist, Dr Fred Grappe, who has worked with the Francaise des Jeux team since 2000, and was the French Cycling Federation’s scientific adviser from 1998 to 2008. None of the data was made public in the newspaper, under agreement with Sky, but Grappe concluded that Froome’s performances were humanly possible without doping.

    “His performances are coherent,” ran the paper’s headline, a complete contrast to the previous day’s splash in Le Monde over a piece by the former Festina trainer Antoine Vayer – Froome and Sky’s most persistent critic in the last two weeks – in which Vayer said that Froome was as fast as Lance Armstrong and Marco Pantani up Mont Ventoux, although “he must have used more watts of power to win the stage”.

    Grappe pointed out several key indicators. He noted that the drop in Froome’s power profile was consistent over intense efforts between 20 and 60 minutes – the point being that there should always be a drop-off in power output as the body struggles with the effort. Froome’s drop-off is about 60 watts, as against an average of 50 watts for most of the riders Grappe has studied.

    Grappe’s method is based on estimated Record Power Profile (PPR), which is essentially the maximum power an individual can sustain over a set period. “Froome’s PPR over two years shows no fundamental anomaly,” he wrote. “In two years, his profile has not changed.” He also notes that Froome’s weight has barely varied over the two years, being around 68 kilos, with variations of less than 900 grams.

    Team Sky have never measured Froome’s VO2Max – his maximal level of oxygen intake during exercise – but Grappe concludes that this must be “close to currently known physiological limits … You can estimate that compared to his main rivals, he has a margin of 20 watts more power. This is the margin, for example, that we see between him and his main rivals at Ax Trois Domaines and the Ventoux.”

    Sky also released data regarding the drug tests that Froome has undergone recently, revealing to l’Equipe that he has been tested 19 times in this Tour – 13 blood and/or urine tests, and six biological passport profiles – while during this season he has been tested 29 times, 23 times in competition, six times out of competition.

    As any close follower of cycling knows, drug test figures are meaningless in proving a rider’s probity, but what they do show is that Froome and his team are being closely monitored, even if they are keeping essential figures to themselves.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jul/18/team-sky-chris-froome-data

    edlong
    Free Member

    That thing about Froome’s improvements that everyone’s hung up about neglects to consider the different role he’s now playing – by his own statements Froome reckons he could have won last year, and there was that showboating he did on one stage where it looked like he was making a point about being potentially faster / stronger than Wiggo, but team orders were what they were. This year the team’s riding for him so the leash is off and he can ride to his full ability, he simply wasn’t in a position to do that last year. And surely the training plan for a GC win will have been a bit different from the training plan for a supporting domestique last year?

    And what’s with the argument I saw a page or so back that Sky are cheating by using things that aren’t banned yet – how the heck is that cheating??!??!

    joeydeacon
    Free Member

    edlong: It’s not about Froome’s improvements this year – it’s about how he came from complete obscurity to placing 2nd at the 2011 Vuelta aged 26/27.

    Not quite sure I believe this:

    “Team Sky have never measured Froome’s VO2Max – his maximal level of oxygen intake during exercise” – I thought pretty much every team does this, especially one so obsessed with numbers such as Team Sky?

    jfletch
    Free Member

    Ex Sky riders/staff fired include Barry, Julich, Steven de Jongh, Leinders (doctor), also Juan Antonio Flecha and Yates left under suspicious circumstances

    So why hasn’t anybody squealed? There is a lot of incentive for a discruntled former employee/rider etc to spill the beans if Sky are doping but there isn’t even a peep.

    Daniel Freibe mad a good point on the Humansd Invent TDF podcast. His point was that no investigative journalists have been able to get a lead anywhere on Sky (and they are looking hard), it’s not just that its there but not worth publishing, it’s that there is just nothing there at all (other that the circumstantial guff that has now been posted to this thread).

    With Armstrong this wasn’t true, there was always real eveidence. The backdated TUE, the Tour De Suise EPO test, the donation to the UCI, Emma O’Reily, the list goes on. This may not have been publised in the mainstream press due to Lance’s litigiuos nature but the evidnece was there.

    I don’t think we can ever be 100% sure anybody is clean. It’s impossible to prove a negative but I think we can be happy enough with Sky to enjoy it at face value.

    We can still be skeptical, ask questions, but we don’t need to be cynical.

    joeydeacon
    Free Member

    Riders/staff haven’t talked as they have nothing to gain from it, many of them still work in the sport. They’ll just harm their careers – it’s not like they’ll gain anything from coming out with any revelations they may or may not have.

    Re: Armstrong – again the evidence was there, but it was never used in court against him, hence him winning against the Times and the insurance company. If the evidence was strong enough at the time, he’d have lost the court cases – it was only the eye witness testimonies and confession that finally legally proved it unfortunately, even if it was fairly obvious he was doping.

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    joeydeacon – Member – Quote
    Riders/staff haven’t talked as they have nothing to gain from it, many of them still work in the sport. They’ll just harm their careers – it’s not like they’ll gain anything from coming out with any revelations they may or may not have.

    and now a conspiracy has been declared, there is no way to disprove the conspiracy to those who choose to believe in it, the more proof that it doesn’t exist will only make people believe harder in it.

    atlaz
    Free Member

    edlong: It’s not about Froome’s improvements this year – it’s about how he came from complete obscurity to placing 2nd at the 2011 Vuelta aged 26/27.

    So coming from a team like Bartoloworld which was hardly at the forefront of anything he can’t be expected to win tour stages or races. Only 9 teams have riders who have won stages and 8 of the 17 stages were won by 3 riders. A small team has limited opportunities to shine. Since he went to Sky, his results have steadily improved as his role has got bigger within the team.

    I don’t see this as proof of doping.

    joeydeacon
    Free Member

    I don’t mean it as a conspiracy. I just mean that in relation to the USPS case, LA’s teammates spoke because of a FED and then USADA investigation, as well as the fact that Landis and Hamilton had nothing to lose.

    I don’t think there’s been a case in cycling where riders have divulged facts about doping etc without it being a plea bargain or as part of an investigation. Even if they are clean, I’m sure Sky riders have dirt on other less clean teams (Porte rode with Contador etc), but releasing that would make them a lot of enemies in the peloton, so they say nowt.

    jfletch
    Free Member

    Riders/staff haven’t talked as they have nothing to gain from it, many of them still work in the sport. They’ll just harm their careers – it’s not like they’ll gain anything from coming out with any revelations they may or may not have.

    Apart from shit loads of cash. A first hand account of Skys doping (if it exists) would make a lot of money, first from excluisives with the papers, then a book and the invetiable interviews etc. That would trump any career a lot of these people have in cycling and even then the new clean sport would welcome them back a la Vaughters etc.

    Re: Armstrong – again the evidence was there, but it was never used in court against him, hence him winning against the Times and the insurance company. If the evidence was strong enough at the time, he’d have lost the court cases – it was only the eye witness testimonies and confession that finally legally proved it unfortunately, even if it was fairly obvious he was doping.

    You seem to be agreeing with my point. There was evidence in the public domain about Lance, it just wasn’t able to be used in a court case. Does that similar evidence exist for Sky? The only thing we can level at Sky is that they go that quickly.

    (and looking at the Ventoux rankings they are not nearly as fast as some people make out, combine that list with the fact that the road has been re-surfaced and Froome looks very ordinary next to the juiced up freaks of the past)

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    it’s about how he came from complete obscurity to placing 2nd at the 2011 Vuelta aged 26/27.

    He turned pro at 22 riding for a Kenyan team and was then based in africa he was mid 80’s placing for his first tour and top 10 for young riders as well iirc -not bad for someone who must have had less than brilliant training conditions and regime. Hos first team in Eurpope was nto exactly top drawer
    His potential was spotted and trained and after overcoming a disease that limits his red blood cells he went on to dominate

    he may be unique, Ben Johnsons running style may be unique but that does not make him a doper

    Agins your facts that he was not great when young is true it is not a fact tjat the only way he could transfomr this is via drugs is neither proved nor do you have any evidecnce to suggest drugs involvemnet

    You just seem to go it is incredible and never done before so it must be drugs

    and now a conspiracy has been declared, there is no way to disprove the conspiracy to those who choose to believe in it, the more proof that it doesn’t exist will only make people believe harder in it.

    True the fact there is no evidence and no ex team members has said anything to support his claims that they dope is indeed further proof of his claims as they cannot because their carers would be ruined. How can we convince you – no claims = proof and i assume claims must = proof. you probably think this is evidence and logical as well when it is circumstantial and anon sequitor

    I don’t think there’s been a case in cycling where riders have divulged facts about doping etc without it being a plea bargain or as part of an investigation.

    True no one just confessed but people did squeal[ if not riders] then staff and journos and tests were failed though – where is this with froome? Oh there is none which further fuels your view

    joeydeacon
    Free Member

    I totally agree that there isn’t any concrete evidence against Sky at the moment – if there is any, then it may take years to come out, if at all (after all Lance would have got away with it all if he hadn’t made his comeback, at which point all the Lance fans on here would still be shouting the skeptics down and claiming he was clean.)

    However the hiring of Leinders and ex dopers etc, and the dramatic transformation of several riders doesn’t look good for Team Sky, even if it turns out they are clean, I think there’s reason to be suspicious at the moment, especially given cycling’s history.

    BTW, haven’t been able to verify this, but according to comments on Cycling News, Dr Fred Grappe also said Armstrong’s power data was clean.

    joeydeacon
    Free Member

    Anyway, spent most of the morning on this – gonna head over to the actual cycling thread – hoping for an attacking stage today!

    atlaz
    Free Member

    concrete evidence against Sky at the moment

    No, there’s NO evidence against Sky at the moment, it’s an important difference.

    I think there’s reason to be suspicious at the moment, especially given cycling’s history.

    So perhaps you could say how Sky would prove that they aren’t doping. Walsh is embedded with the team; the ASO’s own doctor says they’re fine; nobody on the team has failed a test while riding for Sky. What can they do to convince you?

    I should say, I don’t really like Sky, but it’s more because of their main sponsor than anything else.

    jfletch
    Free Member

    The words

    comments on Cycling News

    and

    haven’t been able to verify this

    Don’t fill me with confidence!

    mindmap3
    Free Member

    This is unfortunately the legacy of the likes of Armstrong and co. Although the sport was tainted for years I think that Armstrong was the straw that broke the camel’s back especially for none avid fans. Even when the Armstrong thing first beamgan to break there was a chap I work with who just refused to believe it and thought he was OK with Oprah. I’ve leant him Hamilton’s book and he has finally conceded that Lance was a but of a tool.

    As a result there will always be doubts about Froome and co and people willing to twist whatever facts they acan to prove a point one way or another. I’d like to think he is clean as is the rest of Sky but I guess there will always be a bit of a question mark just because what has gone before.

    I’m pretty sure tennis has a problem…the way that players deal with five set matches is pretty amazing these days. And then do it all over again a few days later.

    joeydeacon
    Free Member

    Totally agree it’s impossible to 100% prove they’re not. But given the history of the sport they’re in, they can’t object about the inevitable questions, especially considering their remarkable performances.

    A 100% impartial, separate and well funded anti doping organisation that gets to see all power data, blood data, Vo2 etc, as well as carrying out all the testing, separate from the UCI is the only way forward – even that wouldn’t be perfect, as new drugs will always come along, but it’s better than the current system.

    Anyway.. have to actually do some work now! Enjoy this arvo’s tour!

    jfletch
    Free Member

    But given the history of the sport they’re in, they can’t object about the inevitable questions, especially considering their remarkable performances.

    I don’t think anyone objects to the questions; but there is a general asusmption in some of the media and from people like you that because they are good they must be doping. That is what is objectionalble and if we continue like this it won’t be Armstong that killed the sport, it will be the cynics.

    Anyway.. have to actually do some work now! Enjoy this arvo’s tour!

    The irony of someone spending all morning arguing about doping and then not being able to watch the tour becuase they have work to do is huge.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    I’d forgotten about the blood disease.. that’s a good point and could easily explain the rapid improvement.

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    the evidence?

    TooTall
    Free Member

    Wow – joeydeacon must have a really miserable life, looking for doom in the hope of being proven correct. Life with sunshine is much better – and I don’t think they test for that.

    metalheart
    Free Member

    it won’t be Armstong that killed the sport, it will be the cynics

    You think? Did you read the reasoned decision, secret race, the rasmussen debacle, etc? You know all these ex-riders who have had limited admissions of guilt recently (inc one of my own hero’s Ulrich)? I remember La Plagne in 97, Mig powering past Armstrong et al in tiome trials, Hautacam in 96, Sestriere in 99, Jeux Plane in 07 and the rest yet somehow its now all my fault?

    There is no ‘hard’ evidence, correct. There are indicators when you add them all up (you know, a bit like marginal gains… 😉 ) that makes some of us think that we are smelling smoke. You guys, because you can’t see flames licking up around them, are denying anything is amiss.

    20 years ago I would be in the same boat. After all I’ve read in the last year, I need convincing proof to the negative. I mean it’s not like there are no dopers in the pro peleton, at leaset 4 have been popped this year alone. Plus there were a bunch of neo-pros (Dutch or Italian I think) who were comlpaining about the lack of OOC testing, one hadn’t been tested in 6 months!).

    While there isn’t a creditable body over seeing the sport I personally will not be convinced (you guys actually think Armstrong came back clean? Why do you think USADA opened the case in the first place, read about it). Lets not forgot about Verbruggen stating that there was no way Armstrong doped, ever! Doesn’t really fill me with much hope…

    epicyclo
    Full Member

    We need to bring back the witches stool so they can prove their innocence.

    Duck them for 5 minutes. If they drown they were innocent, and if they live then they obviously are on something that enhances their oxygen uptake.

    Simple!

    (It worked to protect us from the evils of Wicca 400 years ago, so it’s a well proven judicial tool) 🙂

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    I’d forgotten about the blood disease.. that’s a good point and could easily explain the rapid improvement.

    Wow hold on ca you not see LA also recovered from an illness to rise from the ashes as a world beater so it is proof he cheated

    I need convincing proof to the negative.

    You cannot prove a negative

    There is no ‘hard’ evidence, correct. There are indicators when you add them all up (you know, a bit like marginal gains… ) that makes some of us think that we are smelling smoke. You guys, because you can’t see flames licking up around them, are denying anything is amiss.

    Have you got heat stroke..what smoke – you mean he rides fast – that is a there is

    you guys actually think Armstrong came back clean?

    No one has said this
    Yes one person fooled some people but this is not proof that some other folk are fooling other people no matter how many times someone claims it

    jfletch
    Free Member

    it won’t be Armstong that killed the sport, it will be the cynics

    You think?

    Yes I do. Armstrong, Verbruggen, McQuaid, these people are all responsible for ruining the image of the sport, for destroying peoples trust in the competition but if we all take the view that because of this everyone must be doping then what is the point?

    Sure everyone should be skeptical, ask the right questions, but we shouldn’t just assume that becuase someone is good, that they improved, that they must be cheating. If we do that then there is no point in the sport at all. So Armstong et al may be the root cause but it is this continued cynicism that will kill the sport off.

    If there was any hint that Froome is doping then I would be all over it, I am skeptical, but other than the fact he is good there is nothing. Not one thing at all. Therefore I belive in the performance and am excited to see him ride. This doesn’t mean I am naive, that I have my head in the sand, just that I am not by default a cynic tainted by the past.

    ormondroyd
    Free Member

    what smoke

    Leinders

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    a doctor not know to have doped at the time and now accused[ as yet unproven] by someone who has tested positive who was then duped by SKY when they found out and they apologised

    Not their finest hour but pretty much every team has/had employees linked to drugs at some point

    SKY took a hard line stance with allegedley Yates as well

    Leinders was employed on an 80-day-a-year contract with Sky until last October after he was linked to alleged doping practices during his time with the Rabobank team.

    Drawing parallels to Lance Armstrong’s recent confession, Brailsford said of Leinders: “Hindsight is a brilliant thing, and what we’ve all learnt is pretty horrific. Had we known then what we know now [about Leinders], we wouldn’t have touched the guy for sure.

    “We went through what we thought was the right procedure – we interviewed the guy, we sat down with Steve (Peters, Sky’s Psychiatrist) and it’s well documented what we did. Had we have had hindsight we wouldn’t have done it.”

    jfletch
    Free Member

    what smoke

    Leinders

    Cuddles worked with Ferarri. Should I discount his TDF win as well?

    The hiring of Leinders was foolish but its not a reason to label Froome as a doper.

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 141 total)

The topic ‘Contador Back Froome as Clean’ is closed to new replies.