[Closed] Contador Back Froome as Clean

I'm sure Froome is thrilled to have his backing.

What does Lance think?

What does Lance think?

Who gives a **** what he thinks?

Just sums up the whole 'sport' that is road racing for me. That addled with drugs that people have to make statements like this

[quote=notmyrealname ]What does Lance think?

Who gives a **** what he thinks?

LOL it is in context, I think he already professed that Froome was fine.

The texan who ruined others careers should be aggressively ignored. I am personally disappointed that some pros still follow him on twitter.

notmyrealname - Member
What does Lance think?
Who gives a **** what he thinks?

That's the real legacy of the culture of cheating. We now don't know what clean cycling should look like so anyone who performs well is doubted.

Of course, some/most of the current generation of (hopefully) clean riders were complicit at times of not speaking out when they knew doping was going on but it's easy to criticise when you're not actually involved in the sport and just wanted to race your bike.

Hopefully Froome, Wiggins and most of the top current riders are clean. Certainly there are indicators that they could be but who can 100% say there's no cheating, even at a low level. For example, I'm convinced that Contador cheated in the past and I'd be surprised if he's riding completely clean now given that people in the know say that there are still ways to dope and avoid positives but just with much lower levels of performance boost. Hence IMO why Contador, Schleck and others are now consistently performing at a lower level than they did in the past.

I guess, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt because otherwise, road racing will be dead to me - winning through talent and hard work makes racing interesting for me. Winning through cheating completely turns me off.

That's the real legacy of the culture of cheating. We now don't know what clean cycling should look like so anyone who performs well is doubted.

Yet Usain Bolt isn't having to answer these questions...why does he get a free pass from journalists?

Yet Usain Bolt isn't having to answer these questions...why does he get a free pass from journalists?

I was saying the same thing over dinner last night. There's a massive doping culture in athletics, and much of it is knocking on some doors that are very close to Bolt. There's masses of doping in Jamaican sprinting, and yet there's no one out there saying, "Well, if Bolt is winning, he must be doping" in the same way they do when any cyclist does well.

Pretty sure Contador backed himself as clean too. Doubt Froome is interested in his support.

+1 Clubber.

Looking at it very objectivly / scientifically, you would have to question any large increase in performance.

I will not be surprised at some point to hear Usain cheated, dispite his long legs.

Its also very hard to look at cycling and not suspect the top performers are cheating. They need to do a lot more to remove the tainted image before the natural reaction is to think of cheating.

8 out 10 of the world's fastest 100m sprinters have doped 😯

So yes, Bolt defo should be asked tough questions.

But lets hope he's the exception to the rule

German TV news had a headline 'doubts over Bolt grow' this morning. The doubt everyone over here since Ulrich got done, and Lance was the nail in the coffin. They seem to have a double standard over the Bundesleague though. They ignore the indications that there are/were allsorts going on there, but refuse to show the TDF.

there's no one out there saying, "Well, if Bolt is winning, he must be doping"

As I understand it, Bolt is extremely well adapted to sprinting, physically. So you can look at him and expect fantastic performances. He may of course still be doping, but he's obviously going to be very good clean or otherwise.

I suspect the same is true of Froome. Tall and incredibly skinny.

All sports use performance enhancing drugs, it's just some sports fall under greater scrutiny than others and so appear to the general public to be worse than others.

Tennis and football are great examples. Don't tell me that football clubs don't endorse the use of performance enhancing drugs when the rewards are so astronomically high and yet you see nothing like the same level of testing taking place. Even people in the football industry both admit that not enough testing takes place and that doping is rife. I've seen statements from high profile football industry people to say that clubs dope players without players even knowing about it.

It frustrates me the intensity that cycling comes under and the perception of 'cheats' that this generates which no doubt damages the overall view of the sport when other mainstream sports are just as bad if not worse.

There has been a lot of chatter on twitter over the last few days over 'GAS6'. I don't entirely understand what it is/does but think its to do with genes.

Would be great to believe this years TDF was clean. It's interesting to note Andy Schlek's and Cadel Evans performance this year compared with a few years ago. Contador too.

Its also very hard to look at cycling and not suspect the top performers are cheating. They need to do a lot more to remove the tainted image before the natural reaction is to think of cheating.

Like what? There's not much the riders can do, other than not cheat!

I'm in two minds of the whole UCI truth and reconciliation debacle as well. On the one hand there probably needs to be change at the top (of which the T&R would give the evidence to get rid), but on the other hand if the current field are clean then what benifit would it give? It's too late, we already know all about EPO, HGH, cortisone, blood transfusions, testosterone, etc. If the sport is now as clean as any other then the doping that is happening will be already a step ahead of what happend in the 90/00's so all T&R would do is air some already very dirty laundry in public again.

The Today Programme yterday had an apologist from some British athletics organisation on who blamed supplement manufacturers for the recent batch of sprinters failing tests. Appalling stuff.

some/most of the current generation of (hopefully) clean riders were complicit at times of not speaking out when they knew doping was going on

What saggan Cav, and froome did not speak out them but they all know - evidence?
By the time they were there the cheats did it in secret not in the team]HEL even Wiggos team was thrown out and he was unaware of it all

Its also very hard to look at cycling and not suspect the top performers are cheating. They need to do a lot more to remove the tainted image before the natural reaction is to think of cheating.

It frustrates me the intensity that cycling comes under and the perception of 'cheats' that this generates which no doubt damages the overall view of the sport when other mainstream sports are just as bad if not worse.

Cadel Evans performance this year compared with a few years ago.

Cuddles is clean but he is also 36

Perhaps I'm being a bit dim, but I"ve never really understood what the difference is between 'performance enhancing drugs' and 'supplements'. One is a concoction of man-made chemicals designed to enhance performance and recovery, the other is, err, a concoction of man-made chemicals designed to enhance performance and recovery.

Can anyone explain to me why packaging a cocktail of industrial chemicals and processed nutrients into a sachet and calling it a 'gel' is different to any of the other performance enhancing drugs which are deemed illegal?

As I understand it, Bolt is extremely well adapted to sprinting, physically.

Surely all top level sprinters are physically well adapted to sprinting, otherwise they wouldn't be sprinters?

Can anyone explain to me why packaging a cocktail of industrial chemicals and processed nutrients into a sachet and calling it a 'gel' is different to any of the other performance enhancing drugs which are deemed illegal?

Drinking water improves my performance on a stage race but not above "natural"

Taking some amphetamine would also improve my performance but above "natural"

The line may indeed be blurred but other[ well qualified] people make this decision as to what is and what is not ok

Cadel Evans performance this year compared with a few years ago.

Cuddles is clean but he is also 36

Yup, and rode a pretty impressive Giro, not surprising that he's not on form.

As I understand it, Bolt is extremely well adapted to sprinting, physically.

Is this like when Armstrong was regularly claimed to be some kind of medical miracle with huge lung capacity etc therefore was extremely well adapted for cycling?

Tennis and football are great examples. Don't tell me that football clubs don't endorse the use of performance enhancing drugs when the rewards are so astronomically high and yet you see nothing like the same level of testing taking place.

Football seems to completely overlook doping in general. During the Operation Puerto trial Fuentes stated many times that he'd worked with footballers but was blocked from naming them. In Tyler Hamilton's book he mentions that the doping doctors he dealt with also said they'd worked with footballers.
There's a guy in Twitter, Giggs-Boson, who regularly tweets about doping in all sports but mainly football. There's some pretty interesting stuff on there.

I'm beginning to believe in Contador a bit. He is a fantastic cyclist and he's cheated in the past, but then so did many others. His results appear to show that he is clean, and he is under such scrutiny that surely it would be too risky to dope, no matter how small?
He seems a likeable chap - maybe I just want to believe in him?

He raced when he knew he would get banned after the event that was the bit I will never forgive him for he should have withdrawn from races
His "defence" was never going to work outside Spain.
I loved his style pre ban but iirc he still maintains the steak excuse and does not admit to doping - in reality he most likely took a blood bag as well as doped.

If he confesses then i may start to alter my opinion

Perhaps I'm being a bit dim, but I"ve never really understood what the difference is between 'performance enhancing drugs' and 'supplements'. One is a concoction of man-made chemicals designed to enhance performance and recovery, the other is, err, a concoction of man-made chemicals designed to enhance performance and recovery.

We had this as a debate in a medicinal chemistry lecture at uni.

There isn't a difference, carbohydrates fit all the same definitions of a drug as heroin.

The usual justification for the banned substances (note, they don't actualy refer to them as drugs) is they have a detrimental effect on the body as well. So a shot of B vitamins is legal, a shot of HGH isn't.

8 out 10 of the world's fastest 100m sprinters have doped

Ironically this is probably the reason Bolt doesn't get the same amount of scurtiny by the press.

The key phrase being that 8 out 10 have been [b]caught[/b]. So athletics fans and journos still trust the system to catch people eventually*.

But with cycling everyone got burned. Armstrong was, in the eyes of the public, the greatest cyclist ever. 7 TDFs. But people in the know always knew, and now everybody knows, that he was doped to the gills. But he never got caught, he famously never failed a test. Very few big names ever failed tests and only a very small percentance of doped riders have even been caught. This is in large part due to a failure of the UCI, some would say they were complicit in the era of doping.

To compare to sprinting 10 out of 10 champion cyclists from the 90s and 00s were doping but the record books don't show this. The UCI distroyed peoples trust in the system

So the natural reaction to this is for fans and journalists to be overly sceptical. They failed to be sufficently sceptical of Armstrong and they aren't going to make the same mistake again.

But we have to get out of this vicious cycle or we will never be able enjoy a great performance again. Instead of Froomes performance on Ventoux being hailed as one of the greatests rides ever it is clouded in suspicion. But what if he is clean? What if in all our suspicion we have just failed to notice one of the great sporting performances? What a shame.

[i]*It is interesting to note that many more sprinters than endurnace athletes seem to get caught but the word on the street is that EPO is rife with long distance runners, a lot of them even work(ed) with Ferarri[/i]

Source

What saggan Cav, and froome did not speak out them but they all know - evidence?
By the time they were there the cheats did it in secret not in the team]HEL even Wiggos team was thrown out and he was unaware of it all

I did say 'some/most' for exactly those reasons and yes, I think that many did know it was taking place because it was pretty clear even in the junior/U23 ranks. I'm be surprised if Wiggins wasn't aware that it was happening even if not specifics in his team. Cav being a good bit younger probably less so, particularly by the time he turned pro and Sagan being that much younger, less still.

In fact, a quick google shows a neat 5 year gap Wiggins(33)->Cav(and Froome, 28)->Sagan (23)

*It is interesting to note that many more sprinters than endurnace athletes seem to get caught but the word on the street is that EPO is rife with long distance runners, a lot of them even work(ed) with Ferarri

Different drugs with different chances of getting caught using them probably. Cycling is catching people through EPO test and Bio passport. Even if the bio passport hasn't caught lots of people, it's forced them to use much less effective EPO type doping (to avoid failing the passport) rather than just changing the way they use EPO as happending in cycling when the EPO test was brought it - they just microdosed which they knew wouldn't be detected alone.

I regularly use the same performance enhancing drug that I have seen several cyclists use openly on the Tour this year. Maybe that's what Sky used to power Froome to the win in their impromptu feed 10k from the finish.

Theirs comes in a little red can, mine comes in a cup. That's where the line begins to get very blurred I think.

What about riders in the early tours using alcohol to increase performance?
Not sure what increase it gave, apart from a drooping performance 😳

Caffeine only has a real effect on performance if the person hasn't been taking it, and then has quite a big dose, much more than in a can of coke.
Riders drink coke more for the sugar rush, much like necking a gel

No they don't we used to drink flat coke for the caffeine, I got that tip from Barry Clarke, he was a top mtb'r
Caffeine in redBull is great for 24 hrs racing.
See even at lowly top amateur racing we are all up to it.
Drink coffee before a race, it's a diuretic.
Doping is any substance which is on the banned list of substances, that is all there is to it?
But how to define the banned substances, by chemical signature?
I suppose the only true way is to define a rider passport, which gives a base line for performance.....

[url= http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI2/layout.asp?MenuId=MTU4ODY&LangId=1 ]UCI blood passport Q&A[/url]

using alcohol to increase performance?
Not sure what increase it gave

I'm guessing, but either gives confidence or a pain killer, or to balance out some of the effects of amphetamines?

much like necking a gel

Which probably has shit loads of caffine in it!

And "G" freely admitted that his pre TTT build-up comprised of getting a massage and being taped up while drinking shit loads of coffee.

Surely all top level sprinters are physically well adapted to sprinting, otherwise they wouldn't be sprinters?

Exceptionally so in his case.

I think you are allowed things that are available in natural food substances. So Carnitine, HMB and whatnot are okay, along with carbohydrates and electrolytes, because they are just concentrated versions of what's in food.

But I think they can ban specific things on merit. Cocaine for instance is from a plant, but not food.

in reality he most likely took a blood bag as well as doped.

I thought the theory was that he took tainted blood.

Article I just read and found interesting, fits well here I think.

Not seen it posted on the Tour threads so....

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/07/can-performance-be-used-as-an-indicator-of-doping/

IIRC the caffine effectiveness thing was proven to be in the head? So the same dose of caffine to a coffee drinker and a non coffee drinker both had the same effect on their performance, but the non-coffee drinker noticed it more.

It would appear that Ricco and Rasmussen are less than impressed.

How does the real dopers league add up now then?

IIRC the caffine effectiveness thing was proven to be in the head?

Some evidence back along to suggest that something 'over your regular dose of caffeine' (ie loads if you drink coffee, not a lot if you don't) slightly alters the ratio of ATP and stored glycogen you use at a not-breathing-out-your-arse heart rate, meaning if you have a little bit of blub (ie not Froome) you can theoretically go for slighly longer before you bonk in endurance races as you use more of your beer gut relative to what you also ate last night. And that in the same way it would help you lose body fat at a slightly better rate in cardio exercise/training as long as you also watch what you eat before and recover with. But I read about it at Nursey-school ten years ago (iirc in some highfaluting sports science journal), can't remember whose research it was now.

Couple of interesting comments on Cycling News articles relating to Froome / Sky - first is about a not-yet-banned performance enhancing substance, second is just sceptical of Froome's rapid transformation from a mediocre rider to world class climber / TTer.

[i]The new drugs are "metabolic modulators" AICAR + GW1516 (which is banned and at2013 tour have tests for).... BUT... Telmisartan is purported to be just as effective if not more and is NOT ACTUALLY BANNED YET.. WADA is still considering it...

EPO and blood doping concentrate on oxygen delivery... but that's only half of the battle.. your cells need to take that oxygen an nutrient and convert to kinetic energy... that's what these new drugs do... they can flip muscle fiber type, increase mitochondrial density etc... even in the absence of training (exercise in a pill).. with training the effects are that much greater... mice sedentary for 1 mth have shown 30-70% greater endurance than mice exercised for that one month etc...

so Sky and Froome could very well be taking PEDs and not 'technically' cheating... but still getting an unfair advantage... other are also free to use it and maybe they are, but as we saw with Armstrong some people are hyper-responders to certain drugs or methods...

"J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Mar;26(3):608-10. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31824301b6.
Telmisartan as metabolic modulator: a new perspective in sports doping?
Sanchis-Gomar F, Lippi G.
Source

Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Valencia, Research Foundation of the University Clinic Hospital of Valencia/INCLIVA, Valencia, Spain. fabian.sanchis@uv.es
Abstract

The World Antidoping Agency (WADA) has introduced some changes in the 2012 prohibited list. Among the leading innovations to the rules are that both 5-aminoimidazole-4-carboxamide-1-?-D-ribofuranoside (peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-? [PPAR-?]-5' adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase [AMPK] agonist) and GW1516 (PPAR-?-agonist) are no longer categorized as gene doping substances in the new 2012 prohibited list but as metabolic modulators in the class "Hormone and metabolic modulators." This may also be valid for the angotensin II receptor blocker telmisartan. It has recently been shown that telmisartan might induce similar biochemical, biological, and metabolic changes (e.g., mitochondrial biogenesis and changes in skeletal muscle fiber type) as those reported for the former call of substances. We suspect that metabolic modulators abuse such as telmisartan might become a tangible threat in sports and should be thereby targeted as an important antidoping issue. The 2012 WADA prohibited list does not provide telmisartan for a potential doping drug, but arguments supporting the consideration to include them among "metabolic modulators" are at hand.

PMID:
22130396
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] "

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22130396

also velonation.com/News/ID/11395/Doping-AICAR-Telmisartan-and-the-need-for-vigilance.aspx[/i]

and

[i]OK,most of it I wrote here somehow before, so sorry if it upsets you.

I am one of these "sad people" as you labeled me.
I have only 1 medal from national championship of my country (europe mid size country) so I quess I qualify for "couch dweller with no cycling experience"

Chris Froome is unbelievable (this is key word)

Chris Froome was rubbish, rubbish not even mediocre, rider and basically overnight (by joining SKY) he is superman.

SKY rising is explained by "marginal gains", but these marginal gains cannot explain total riders makeovers. before 2010/11 Froome had NO mentionable results in anything (1 stage victory in tour of Japan is marginal succes in D-class race), now he is super human. He climbed Ax 3 Domaines and now Mont Ventoux as fast as Armstrong when he (Lance) was chemicalized to the max.
This guy who came from nowhere after 3 years is as fast as Pantani, Ulrich, anybody.
There is such a deja vu.

Yes, they did not test positive, because they must have something new. Neither Ullrich, Lance, Festina, Fuentes's guys, Indurain tested positive. none of them. Testing is useless. Even Gewiss after Fleche-Wallone 1994 were negative - if you do not know it, google it. None of the big doper were caught be testing. if there is test, this dope is obsolete. Positives are only if they mess up (Landis, Hamilton), wrong dosage, bad bloodbag etc.

Froome has not history of excellence (like Nibali, Cancellara etc. others who rose year after year from obvious talent - outstanding juniors). again. He was rubbish, overnight, superhuman. UN-BELIEVABLE.
There is fairy tale about parasite (that was supposed to eat his red blood cell to make him not performing, when he was cured, suddenly superman)?
Before and after completely different guy, illness in between? Where did I hear it before? yes, Lance.

Froome does not mind cheating, he was expelled from Giro few years ago for holding motorcycle so he could even get to the summit at Mortirolo. now he would be probably faster that motorcycle.

Nothing about Froome looks credible, believable, real. Even his talking, he sounds like he is brainwashed and only says PR/marketing sweet talk Sir Brailford injected him. I believe he works hard, sure. But others dont? It is not only thing he does. Same applies for Porte. Or Wiggins (similar mid-carreer transformation)

there are other scary similarities to history (Lance Armstrong and USPS team):

Training in places where inspectors will have a hard time surprising you. Why did Sky train in Tenerife? They certainly have good excuses, but it is one of the puzzle pieces

Hidding data, dismissing any unpleasant questions

Hanging out with crooked doctors

Deny everything and treat your audience as if they were stupid - E.g., Froome's comments on Vayer (former french coach confronting Froome with his power numbers and climbing data bettering all of dopers from past)

dismissing any unpleasant questions like "they are just haters" (Lance style) etc.

Yes I believe that cycling (post Armstrong) is much cleaner, cleaner than ever before.
But even so, that is why non-clean standout even more.

why do I think so (it cleaner that before)?
-they look "real - pain and suffering, they look tired. in EPO era they just looked plastic.
- colombians are back - natural advantage shows - it was eliminated by drugs in 90s.
- there are bad days - in stage races, sometimes even really good riders underperform in 1 day. in EPO era, that never happened, they were just robots. unlike SKY. they look plastic. Porte gives interview after stage and he looks like he just been for walk with dog.
they keep "top shape" for whole season round. UN-BELIVABLE.

never tested positive in not valid argument - e.g. blood transfusions are not detectable. only if you got someone elses bloodbag by accident. only way how they would "catch" them would be (like all big doping cases before) not by testing (you cannnot test something if you do not know what you are testing for - You cannot find anything if you do not know what you are looking for) but police - listening to the phones, emails, "follow the money", payments, secret funds. Somewhere at the end of the chain, there will be crooked doctor, genetics labs or something we do not even ever heard about.

I am not hater. I just hate when sport that I love is raped and disgraced (again), as I think it is so shamelessly done by SKY.[/i]

Again, neither are my comments, and maybe it's just me, but I can't help but be suspicious of a rider who has come from absolutely nowhere, in the middle of a pretty unremarkable career, and suddenly started dominating both climbing and time trialling in a sport which is so riddled with doping. I hope I'm wrong, but can't think of a single instance in cycling where this has happened before, without the aid of doping.

Personally I think Sky are not using banned substances, but are using a lot of "currently legal" substances that achieve the same effects, that WADA are still mulling over.