could Wiggins have lived with this? I doubt it – I don’t think he could have gone with the accelerations up the final climb

What accelerations? Were you watching a different stage to me? The one I saw Froome(-dog) rode everybody off his wheel riding tempo, with at the most two accelerations, the only one ITV deigned to show was a pretty tame one. Accelerating on a climb is also vastly over-rated – you’ve probably spent too much time listening to Ligget and Sherwen talking about “pure climbers” having the ability to accelerate, a line they’re still peddling this year, ignoring the fact that Wiggins (and Froome) showed everybody how to do it last year by riding tempo to catch the “pure climbers” who’d accelerated off the front and then faded. Not to mention Quintana yesterday getting caught by the Sky train riding tempo – did his accelerations help him get to the finish line faster?

i’d love Sky to do a one-two with Froome and Porte this year….two years in a row, has it been done before?

I’m guessing you’ve not been following road cycling that long, as it’s fairly well known? 85/86, but they went one better and did it with the same two riders both years.

Admittedly I know next to bugger all about road racing, but that performance definitely seems suspicious to me

As you say you know bugger all about road riding.

Such a shame when threads like this turn to shit talking about PED’s and the random speculation dished out.

Carry on, as you were. 🙄

As you say you know bugger all about road riding.

No need to be a dick about it though is there. I’m allowed an opinion, and was honest about how informed that opinion is.

Plenty of people who do know a lot about road racing have their suspicions too.

Such a shame when threads like this turn to shit talking about PED’s and the random speculation dished out.

Yes, let’s all just pretend there’s no possibility of cheating in a sport with a massive (recent) history of cheating. 🙄

Again everything is a possibility but generally it requires evidence
The evidence so far seem to be non sequitors and the opinions of non expert witnesses using this logic

Can we do this with the 100 m sprint then?
Bolt is the fastest
in the past the fastest cheated
Bolt is a cheat

That is basically the argument and it is bobbins

How much respect would you like for this guess?
What other sports would you like to speculate on from a position of relative ignorance?

There will always be this “speculation” as you cannot prove negative

What i would prefer is some evidence beyond oh look he is fast therefore he must be a cheat..oh and why only the GC why not say Cav or Sagan? [Or say Bolt from other sports].They are also fast and uncatchable on the right stage for them so why not have a pop at them ?

I read some stuff about Bolt and Jamaican sprinting that sounds pretty suspicious, if that helps. 😉

How much respect would you like for this guess?
What other sports would you like to speculate on from a position of relative ignorance?

Isn’t that pretty much what most people do about most sports?

(as posted on another thread, where Junky told us off for going OT 😳 )

I don’t know enough about roadies to have a plausible go at “is sky doping?”

… so here’s my ill-founded bollocks:

It’s down to the quality of the entire team, isn’t it (and that’s what makes me a bit suspicious) ?

Sure, not only is Froome bloody good but obviously Porte would make the GC leader for pretty much any other team. Then they’ve got the “domestiques” and this is the bit I can’t do. Are they all way better than everybody elses (B-Hagen, fair enough, he’s quite famous but what about the rest). If they’re genuinely better riders than everybody else’s (and always have been) then fair enough – they’re just the Chelsea/Man City model for purchasing wins. If all of those guys are performing better than anyone expected, …

I can see though, that they are all very disciplined – none of this Jens on a mad breakaway stuff; they just sit and ride, giving maximum effort and protection for Froome/Wiggo

(I don’t like sky’s racing tactics but I still hope they’re not doping)

Guardian article

“Tim Kerrison, the Australian coach behind Bradley Wiggins’s Tour de France and Olympic triumphs of 2012, has speculated that one reason for Team Sky’s success may be that they have been able to jump into a “knowledge gap” that has been left in cycling as teams focused on the expertise and logistics of doping at the expense of coaching and rider development.”

This is an interesting one. Could it really be that some of the top riders have had it relatively easy under the influence of illegal PEDs, and are now finding themselves no longer able to compete with the brute force they once used?

It’s not just Team Sky (and it does appear to be ALL of Team Sky – Froome, Wiggins, Porte, et al). If we go back to the Olympics last year, Team GB were smashing records left, right and centre. Completely dominating every event. They guys. The girls. Everyone.

Either the entire Brailsford camp are doing something very wrong, or they’re doing something very right.

My understanding is that the principal advantage of doping is not so much top level power on a single day, but being able to do it for multiple consecutive stages. If Froome comes out and destroys the field day after day then suspicion will increase, but a single super-effort up one Cat 1, having been very well sheltered for the rest of the day doesn’t look too suspect. I’d rather believe and be disappointed than be automatically cynical.

Either the entire Brailsford camp are doing something very wrong, or they’re doing something very right.

Quite. If Sky have jumped into a knowledge gap, then they’ve done it for all their riders.

as posted on another thread, where Junky told us off for going OT

[teacher voice]I can still hear you [/teacher voice] 😉

Yes PEDS tend to give recovery so they could train harder as well
At the levels available now, due to biological passport etc, it would be “mircro ” dosing anyway to not look suspicious.

On a one off they can give just as much as they always could – barring Pantani climbing with 50% hematocrit etc when it was just not physiologically possible to use that much oxygen

Just think it is shame that every GC event leads to this but we dont mind Cav being super human at sprinting [ or Hoy]

Its highly unlikely all of GB cycling is doping so there must be something else – training methods I assume -IMHO

I agree with butcher’s point: I think what is happening is that the Spanish and Italian riders who may have doped in the part have been shown up when compelled to ride ride clean. Therefore the teams that have worked hard to perfect training programmes (see also British track cycling, British rowing etc) have reaped the rewards.
I could ecwrong (I was wrong about Hincapie, Hamilton) but for the moment I have nothing but admiration for Porte and Froome.

Struggling to see froome today for all his team mates tbh…

What i would prefer is some evidence beyond oh look he is fast therefore he must be a cheat..

To some extent that is the evidence though. Much of the speculation about yesterday was looking at working out Froome(-dog)’s power to weight for the climb to see if it was in feasible levels for a clean rider. From what I’ve seen, most seem to think it was just about possible (unlike some of Pantani and Armstrong’s rides).

Problem with that is
1. We dont actually have his power data so its a guess.
2. What you can do for short periods is not indicative of drug use – i assume i can get past the 7 watts/kg for a short period of time -what do you reckon the sprinters are churning out at the end of the sprint for say the last 20 minutes and then the last 10 seconds?

I always cite Boardman here – accepted to be clean by all and look what he did for the hour record in terms of watts.
It is pointless it is just going he was fast for a bit therefore he is a cheat. it is not logical to just assume this as there is no proof of anything. the real proof is doing it day after day after day – this is only done with EPO IMHO
the evidenced is flimsy to put it mildly- everytime someone rides fast folk say this and yet Bolt can run fast and no one says much about this

Hopefully one day the sport will get to the point where we dont have to do this and we accept that , like all other sports, competitors get faster due to improved training rather than drugs

From 4 days ago:

As rumours swirl about whether or not there is a performance-enhancing drug culture within Jamaican athletics, Usain Bolt, the country’s biggest-ever star, remains adamant that he is clean from doping.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/10157145/Usain-Bolt-denies-using-performance-enhancing-drugs-ahead-of-Paris-Diamond-League-meeting.html

It is pointless it is just going he was fast for a bit therefore he is a cheat.

How would the Occam’s Razor principle be applied in this scenario? What is the most likely simple explanation for exceptional performance in professional road racing?

natural as drug use is another assumption – I assume you accept they would have to be good as well as doing drugs

ITS ALL ABOUT THE BIKE 😛

I still want to see your proof rather than your innuendo

aracer – Member

I’m guessing you’ve not been following road cycling that long, as it’s fairly well known? 85/86, but they went one better and did it with the same two riders both years.

I was 8 yrs old in ’85 so you’re right, i wasnt an avid road cycling fan at that age!

Take that Grandad 😉

I was 8 yrs old in ’85 so you’re right, i wasnt an avid road cycling fan at that age!

Eddy Mercx won his last TdF when I was 4, but I still know he won 5. It’s not like I was even that into cycling in 1985, I certainly didn’t watch the Tour, but the Lemond Hinault duals are surely among the most well known TdF stories for anybody who’s paid attention to the history.

1. We dont actually have his power data so its a guess.
2. What you can do for short periods is not indicative of drug use – i assume i can get past the 7 watts/kg for a short period of time -what do you reckon the sprinters are churning out at the end of the sprint for say the last 20 minutes and then the last 10 seconds?

Given we have the timings and the distance/profile of the route, it’s an extremely good guess. Of course the issue is about how much power he put out for how long – who cares if somebody managed 1000W at the end of the sprint, as that’s within the realms of possibility. Similarly we know that 400W for an hour is possible. The whole point is about riders sustaining power outputs for longer than physiologically possible.

I am actually largely with you on this – I think I was actually the first to introduce CB’s hour record power output in one of these threads! The trouble is, some of the calculated outputs for Armstrong et al on the climbs were actually greater than that – and as you say they managed it for several climbs in a row day after day. It is a perfectly valid way of determining whether a rider’s performance is suspicious IMHO.

Right now I’m happy that Froome(-dog) is clean until proved otherwise. The circumstantial evidence would suggest it is likely he is. However yesterday’s performance certainly left me with doubts and looking carefully at what people were suggesting his output was (lots of speculation at the bottom of http://www.cyclingnews.com/tour-de-france/stage-8/results ). My take is that he was right at the edge of what’s physiologically possible for a single day – if he does the same again today I’ll be worried.

I think I was actually the first to introduce CB’s hour record power output in one of these threads!

I think you did and I think we do largely agree

My take is that he was right at the edge of what’s physiologically possible for a single day – if he does the same again today I’ll be worried.

Rest day tomorrow so he may be able to but in general this is the only way we can really tell- recovery and duration.

Given we have the timings and the distance/profile of the route, it’s an extremely good guess.

Fair point

Have a look at the Science of Sport website for a pretty thorough examination of power over climbs.
I’m working so can’t link to it.

Just to stoke the embers of this thread a bit more…

How would Wiggins have coped in Froome’s place today without any team mates to support him? Very badly I suspect.

I know Froome would have been with Wiggins but I can’t help thinking the Movistar attacks would have been too much for Wiggins.

No need to be a dick about it though is there. I’m allowed an opinion, and was honest about how informed that opinion is.

Ooh someone’s a bit touchy. What’s your opinion based on given that you know next to nothing about road riding?

Any people on here who think Wiggins looks cool on a bike obviously didn’t watch him descending in the Giro this year .

Ooh someone’s a bit touchy. What’s your opinion based on given that you know next to nothing about road riding?

I know probably more than the average man in the street but probably a lot less than many on here. Perhaps I should have paraphrased some stuff I read on some cycling blogs and pretended to be an expert though.

What level of knowledge is required in order to be allowed an opinion? Is there an exam or something?

What level of knowledge is required in order to be allowed an opinion? Is there an exam or something?

You mean you haven’t even sat them?

So does anybody still think Porte does drugs?

On the Wiggins vs Froome debate, surely Wiggo would have just sat in his saddle and chugged his way back up to the Movistar riders.

Porte looked knackered, Froome (much) less so. I think many of us have become conditioned to just expect the worse now – sadly, this may be Armstrong’s biggest legacy to the sport. I want to say that I don’t think Froome is doping, but a part of me wonders if that’s just because I don’t want him to be doping. Does that make sense?

Does that make sense? Absolutely.

This is very much my view on the damage doping has done to the sport. Every time you see a great performance, you can’t help but wonder about its legitimacy and your own objectivity.

Still watching though…

On the Wiggins vs Froome debate, surely Wiggo would have just sat in his saddle and chugged his way back up to the Movistar riders.

I think if Wiggins had been in the race yesterday without Froome to support him, he’d have been dropped. There’s not many riders in the world who could live with the pace that was set as well as cover the attacks from Quintana and Wiggins is not in that group.

Quintana looked gutted on Saturday though. Must be soul destroying to launch an attack, get up the road and find yourself slowly winched in and passed. Then yesterday to not even be able to get away when your opponent is isolated. Mentally, Froome must really be doing a job on the opposition after those two stages.

Speaking of mental, it was interesting to see Schleck finishing in that group. Either he’s out to prove a point to Trek and buried himself yesterday or he’s heading back into form.

IMO yesterday Sky suffered due to the effort they’d put into the day before – but they kept yellow, so it was worth it.

Day off now and hopefully they’ll recover.

Bet Brailsford was worried though.

Back to the original Q – it’s clearly impossible to know if Froome could have won last year and whether Wiggo would have done as well this.

What is clear is that working in support of a GC contender is very different to being one. If you have a bad day as a team member it’s not the end of the world where it is as team leader.

Riders after GC need to think about tomorrow and next week when riding, need to be measured and make sure they expend the minimum effort for the days objectives.

Example A is Mr Porte. He was stellar helping Froome get into yellow and himself in second but couldn’t back it up today as he pushed so hard and didn’t recover. Froome did recover but had 2 team mates to help him for all bar the last part of the day. It would be easy to say after Saturday that he could have beaten Froome had he not held back after pacing etc but it would be wrong.

So you can’t take one days result as an indicator as to whether a ride could do better than the leader. Being a leader and winning is far more than one days ride.

It’s a team effort and it’s more realistic to say that any of Froome, Wiggo or Porte could win this years tour – but they’d approach it in different ways.

It’s a team effort and it’s more realistic to say that any of Froome, Wiggo or Porte could win this years tour – but they’d approach it in different ways.

I don’t think Wiggins would have won this year; too many big mountain stages where he could only rely on the train. I think yesterday for example, as I said, he’d have been off the back rather than able to shut down Quintana like Froome did.

Fair point but Wiggins rides mountains differently.
He doesn’t do the accelerations like Froome can do /respond to but last year when Nibali attacked like Quintana did, the Sky boys just kept the same tempo and rode back to him.

Froome is better suited to this years tour but I think Sky have the squad and, now, experience to win with Porte or Wiggo had Froome had an injury and wasn’t able to ride.

It’s all opinion and all that really matters is what happens tomorrow.

I think atlaz and DaveRambo both make good points which I agree with. At the end of the day it’s pure conjecture on a forum but just a bit of fun.

One thing that does occur to me though is I can’t recall Chris Froome cracking that badly on the major tours I have seen him ride in recent years but Wiggins, yes.

I think Froome is a much better all-round rider rather than just just a one-trick pony like Wiggins. One thing’s for sure though, if Movistar et al continue attacking Froome it’s going to be a much more interesting tour than of late.

I can’t recall Chris Froome cracking that badly on the major tours I have seen him ride in recent years but Wiggins, yes

Vueletta last year though you could legitimately cite tiredness
Froome has yet to win one you know – we dont know that he wont crack though I hope he does not.

When did Wiggo crack once he focused on the tour? I will give him the benefit and say he ws ill for the Giro

They are different riders and Froome has more raw ability to cope with multiple demands and attacks on mountain stages where as wiggo was more one speed- all be it ridiculously fast and the best TT of the GC.

Would have been interesting had they been on different teams

I’m worried for Froome as there are a lot of good riders and teams in this year’s tour. And yesterday showed that there are chinks in Sky’s armour.
It is very exciting.
I hate rest days.

He doesn’t do the accelerations like Froome can do /respond to but last year when Nibali attacked like Quintana did, the Sky boys just kept the same tempo and rode back to him.

I think that’s the point I was making. He needed the support last year whereas Froome yesterday was fairly strong in keeping the Movistar pace and also dealing with GC threat rider attacks. It’s not to diminish the result in 2012, but I think most people would agree that the route last year was more suited to Wiggins than this year and that in terms of a more “pure” climber, Froome has the edge over him by quite some distance.