[Closed] Contador Back Froome as Clean

Anyone who comes good would be accused of taking drugs. There's more than one possible explanation for what Froome's achieved. I don't think we can automatically choose the worst one, can we?

Interesting that Wiggins is accused of having a " mid career transformation" after a glittering career in track cycling and quite publically giving up a life on the piss to finish 4th on TDF, next year bust his collar bone and then win year after. Hardly coming from nowhere.

Whether it's totally clean? Who knows. It's cleaner than it was and cleaner than most sports.

Interesting that Wiggins is accused of having a " mid career transformation" after a glittering career in track cycling and quite publically giving up a life on the piss to finish 4th on TDF, next year bust his collar bone and then win year after. Hardly coming from nowhere.

Yeah - I thought the comment about Wiggins discredited a lot else of what he said. Wiggins' development is not surprising at all.

That discredited it ...yes apart from that it was a pretty cogent smear with an absolute absence of evidence and some circumstantial "similarities" between LA /Postal and Froome/Sky

Its a rambling, yet oddly coherent. piece of nonsense basically

I'm getting fed up with all these doping arguments, all these armchair experts that have read a couple of articles seem to suddenly know whether someone is doping or not just because they're better this year than a couple of years ago. That's up to WADA to work out, they can test all they want, ask all the questions they want and get the answer - whatever that is.
Until proved otherwise I will continue to believe that Team Sky and Chris Froome are clean - Dave Brailsford and the rest of his team have done great work with GB and Sky to bring them to the forefront of world track and road cycling and I believe that is because they've taken a fresh approach to training rather than take a trip to the medicine cabinet.

I think even I could have a [i]mid-career transformation[/i] if I were given the support of the Sky team, thirty-five years too late.

Has anybody mentioned David Walsh on this (or other similar recent threads)? Only got around to watching yesterdays TdF coverage today, with the interview with him. Surely if he thinks they're clean - when he's the man who led a campaign against LA for so long, and is embedded in the team - then surely that's the best opinion you can get?

[url= http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/al-hinds/blog/128122/tour-soapbox-chris-froome-no-questions-to-answer ]SBS Opionon Piece on Sky/Doping accusations[/url]
1st Claim/circumstantial evidence

Froome climbed Ventoux at a speed only bettered by Armstrong
True, but I'm not sure what that means. The climb has only been used a few time in the past 20 years, and there are many variables when comparing times up a mountain. Wind, and the way the climb is ridden are two major ones. Stage 15 was essentially a team time trial, with very little messing around, and an almost direct run to the finish. Full gas all the way, plus a tailwind to aid them. Here's Sky's own explanation from the rest day press conference.

From team boss David Brailsford:

1) Froome's major accelerations came on the 'false flats' towards Chalet Reynard.

2) There was some motorbike drafting, particularly at that point, then later after the Chalet, because the bikes didn't move out of the way

3) The road surface is completely different to 2000 (Armstrong), when final section had ruts and pits and was rough aggregate.

4) There was a headwind in 2000, a tailwind yesterday.

But Wiggins did have a mid career transformation [i]on the road[/i]. He 'discovered' he could suddenly climb with the best in the Giro one year! Not quite the Riis conversion obviously, but look who was positions 1 and 3 when he was 4th. If he was some Johnny foreigner would you be so 'sure'?

I think joeydeacons cut and paste is a decent summary of the 'objections'. These are some 'red flags' for sure.

Look at the history of the world of professional cycling (esp. the last 20 years). Now remove your Union Jack tinted specs and ask yourself, why is this different from all the other times?

I'd love to be able in pro cycling again, but I'm not prepared to believe in this (which is not the same as saying he's definitely a doper, just I find it hard to believe). Especially after the usada reasoned decision, the Secret Race, and all the admissions of the the last year. If anybody else comes to to different conclusion fair enough. And that's why I've deliberately not commented negatively on the the other TdF threads...

Trying to catch drug cheats off the back of analysis of historical performances is a false positive. I think we have to assume that the majority of people up until recently were doping, so if Froome is clean then it is no surprise that his historical performances were not as good as his fellow doping riders. Maybe what we're really seeing here is the difference between dopers and non dopers.

Unfortunately now everyone is under suspicion, and quite rightly so. This is the pain the sport needs to go through after decades of a culture of doping. Cycling and doping have gone hand in hand - even the sports legends were dopers (e.g. Tom Simpson). It's upto the sport and its participants to demonstrate and prove their innocents. This will take a long time. If Froome is truly clean he should not get upset about the continual question, he should be expecting them.

The guy who wrote the second piece I quoted was indeed referring to Wiggins transformation, going from a world class 4 minute track rider who has quite handy in the TTs, but couldn't climb at all, to a world class climber who could suddenly stay with Contador, Armstrong and the Schleck brothers in getting 4th (now 3rd) at the 2009 TDF.

I'm not claiming to be the most knowledgeable on here, am sure there are some on here who know far more than me, but have followed road cycling pretty closely since around 1997/8, and I honestly can't think of another rider who's made such massive improvements mid career as Froome, but using clean methods. He's dominating a world class field, that statistically will contain doping riders (granted none have been caught this year, but a couple did get popped at the Giro, and most of the contenders have a fair bit of history, Contador, Valverde, Kreuziger etc), as do many of the riders, staff and a doctor that Sky have hired since they first setup. Clean riders don't dominate doping ones in a grand tour.

I personally believe the phrase "marginal gains" extends to using performance enhancing pharmaceutical products that are not yet on any banned list.

Jody deacon have a read of the link I posted it addresses some of the froome points you make.

Mikewsmith - Had a quick look - re: Ventoux - pretty sure the commentators said there was a headwind, as did Ten Dam, and the footage from what I remember showed a pretty strong cross wind - don't recall it having much of a tailwind.

Re: "Sky is far too strong to be believed" paragraph - I don't think Sky are doing anything that the rest are not - all the stuff they claim to have pioneered, altitude training, wind tunnel testing, training blocks designed to build form for 3 weeks in July etc has been around for years. Saxo hired Rogers solely to get an insight into Sky's training secrets, so they'll have a pretty good idea of what Sky do, yet Contador still can't match Froome.

Re: "Froome has come from nowhere" paragraph - it uses Evans as an example of another rider who achieved little on the road in his early career - that's because Evans was a world class mountain biker. Froome also rode MTB at the Commonwealth games. He got lapped, that's how ordinary he was. In 2010 he got kicked out the Giro for holding onto a motorbike going up a climb. 3 years later he's riding faster than the motorbikes. Name me one other cyclist who achieved so little up to the age of 26, and then suddenly turns into a world beater?

Re: Quintana - no idea if Quintana is doping or not, but irrelevant - chances are a fair few of the rest of the contenders are, and Froome's beating the lot.

Froome is as dominant as Armstrong - again, name me one instance where a clean rider has dominated a grand tour like Froome has. Wiggins and Evans didn't win by this much, and this easily, and Froome is arguably against better opposition - the Movistar and Saxo teams are v v strong, and each team has 2 very good leaders.

The hiring of Geert Leinders is v suspicious. Brailsford is clearly v intelligent, and to suggest he knew nothing of Leinders doping work at Rabobank is bullsh*t. Whether he worked with CF or not is a different matter, but he wasn't hired for nothing.

As for the bitter ex employees - it took ten years for LA's ex teammates to start talking, and they only spoke because they hated him. A lot of the riders/staff quoted there are still involved in cycling, and would still be part of the Omerta. Sean Yates walked away (from what I recall) a fair amount of money, under suspicious circumstances (nothing to do with the rest of the ex Sky riders with a history of doping?!) and nothing was leaked to the press about his history. The official line was ill health IIRC, so he's hardly gonna start talking when he's got away with a clean reputation.

Couple more points - about Froome's accelerations being on false flats - regardless of the terrain, it still doesn't explain why no other rider's could match them, and the rate at which he accelerated away from world class riders.

Also re: Evans - Evans' (whether clean or not) road career has a fairly normal trajectory to it - he shows gradual improvement and incredible consistency:

Giro: 14 , 5, 3
TDF: 8, 4, 2, 2, 30, 26, 1, 7
Vuelta 60, 4, 3

That's 10 top 10 finishes in Grand Tours, and add to that winning a World Champs RR, La Flèche Wallonne, numerous other stage races, he's been consistently good pretty much as soon as he started riding on the road, which followed an impressive mountain bike career. Granted his results are on the wane, but he's 36 now so it's fairly understandable.

[fancies getting involved in the tin foil hatness]

Maybe Wiggins wouldn't ride for Froome this year 'cos he knew he was doping!

[/smells like chicken fat]

So are we now back at the stage where there is no viable testing for any of the drugs?

If there is no way for a team or athlete to prove they are innocent we should probably call the whole thing off. I'd love to see WADA take sky up on the offer to move in with them and to see exactly what they do. Perhaps that is the only way to convince people.

Dopers will always be ahead of the testers - they can only test for substances which they think riders have been taking, and have subsequently been banned - and with cases like Telmisartan, there's no case to answer for as it's not currently banned.

There's no easy answer - However Vaughters makes the most sense to me. Despite the fact he's an ex doper, he's one of the few in the sport that I actually trust:

[url= http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jonathan-vaughters/opinion-its-not-all-about-lance-armstrong-and-heres-how-we-can-fight-doping ]http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jonathan-vaughters/opinion-its-not-all-about-lance-armstrong-and-heres-how-we-can-fight-doping[/url]

I'm getting fed up with all these doping arguments, all these armchair experts that have read a couple of articles seem to suddenly know whether someone is doping or not just because they're better this year than a couple of years ago.

THIS
Every year folk with limited knowledge, no hard facts and claimsso strong they need to use arguments like this

If he was some Johnny foreigner would you be so 'sure'?

I think joeydeacons cut and paste is a decent summary of the 'objections'. These are some 'red flags' for sure.

Look at the history of the world of professional cycling (esp. the last 20 years). Now remove your Union Jack tinted specs and ask yourself, why is this different from all the other times?

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

name me one instance where a clean rider has dominated a grand tour like Froome has.

it still doesn't explain why no other rider's could match them, and the rate at which he accelerated away from world class riders.

nothing to do with the rest of the ex Sky riders with a history of doping?

It straw clutching and often ill informed and using poor "principles" of reason and logic.

None of you have even a hint of a grassy knoll let alone a smoking gun hence it is this level of debate..its like debating with conspiracists tbh and you have the same amount of overwhelming evidence

I for one cannot be arsed rebuffing such vague, lazy and sometimes humorously ill informed comments for example

I for one cannot be arsed rebuffing such vague, lazy and sometimes humorously ill informed comments for example

I do feel some of it is not even clutching at straws, more thin air trying to work out why there is a pile of straws on the floor.

Its all circumstantial.
I can see why it would happen give the sports history but please produce some evidence slightly stronger than saying we are all blind because they are Brits. the argument is basical Froome is the fastest, LA was the fastest Therefore they are both drug cheats

Its a non sequitor as you have no prove and what LA did does not prove Froome does

About 6 months back I was having similar discussions with Armstrong fans. Look how that turned out.

Preety sure that will stand up in court as proof - Really is this the best it gets?

Mercyx failed drugs tests, Indurain was almost certainly doping considering he was winning in the early 90's. Even if Hinault was clean, that was 35 years ago - cycling has become a lot faster since then, look at the average speeds.

I don't massively follow athletics, but recall a couple of high profile sprinters being caught this very week, which kinda undermines your argument slightly.

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

the argument is basical Froome is the fastest, LA was the fastest Therefore they are both drug cheats

The argument is more along the lines of how does a relatively unknown rider show absolutely no promise up to the age of 26, then suddenly start beating Cancellara and Tony Martin in the TTs, and decimating the world best climbers (many of whom are dopers / ex-dopers), whilst riding clean?

bout 6 months back I was having similar discussions with Armstrong fans. Look how that turned out.

Again, you can't come up with a single example. Miracles of this nature do not happen in cycling.

FFS its a miracle and therfore he must be cheating - yes that fact has convinced me...well done

I don't massively follow athletics, but recall a couple of high profile sprinters being caught this very week, which kinda undermines your argument slightly.

NEW TOP 50

1. 2004: 55:51 Iban Mayo 23.10 km/h
2. 2004: 56:26 Tyler Hamilton 22.86 km/h
3. 1999: 56:50 Jonathan Vaughters 22.70 km/h
4. 2004: 56:54 Oscar Sevilla 22.67 km/h
5. 1999: 57:33 Alexander Vinokourov 22.42 km/h
6. 1994: 57:34 Marco Pantani 22.41 km/h
7. 1999: 57:34 Wladimir Belli 22.41 km/h
8. 2004: 57:39 Juan Miguel Mercado 22.38 km/h
9. 1999: 57:42 Joseba Beloki 22.36 km/h
10. 2004: 57:49 Lance Armstrong 22.31 km/h
11. 1999: 57:52 Lance Armstrong 22.29 km/h
12. 2004: 58:14 Inigo Landaluze 22.15 km/h
13. 1999: 58:15 Kevin Livingston 22.15 km/h
14. 1999: 58:31 David Moncoutie 22.05 km/h
15. 2004: 58:35 José Enrique Gutierrez 22.02 km/h
16. 2009: 58:45 Andy Schleck 21.96 km/h
17. 2009: 58:45 Alberto Contador 21.96 km/h
18. 2009: 58:48 Lance Armstrong 21.94 km/h
19. 2009: 58:50 Fränk Schleck 21.93 km/h
20. 1999: 58:51 Unai Osa 21.92 km/h
21. 2009: 58:53 Roman Kreuziger 21.91 km/h
22. 2002: 59:00 Lance Armstrong 21.86 km/h
23. 2013: 59:00 Chris Froome 21.86 km/h
24. 1994: 59:02 Richard Virenque 21.85 km/h
25. 1994: 59:02 Armand De Las Cuevas 21.85 km/h
26. 1994: 59:02 Luc Leblanc 21.85 km/h
27. 1994: 59:02 Miguel Indurain 21.85 km/h
28. 1994: 59:02 Roberto Conti 21.85 km/h
29. 2009: 59:03 Franco Pellizotti 21.85 km/h
30. 2000: 59:05 Marco Pantani 21.83 km/h
31. 2000: 59:05 Lance Armstrong 21.83 km/h
32. 2009: 59:05 Vincenzo Nibali 21.83 km/h
33. 1994: 59:07 Pascal Lino 21.82 km/h
34. 1999: 59:08 Tyler Hamilton 21.82 km/h
35. 1999: 59:08 Roberto Laiseka 21.82 km/h
36. 2009: 59:10 Bradley Wiggins 21.80 km/h
37. 2004: 59:12 Levi Leipheimer 21.79 km/h
38. 2004: 59:24 Michael Rasmussen 21.72 km/h
39. 2004: 59:27 Stéphane Goubert 21.70 km/h
40. 2013: 59:29 Nairo Quintana 21.69 km/h
41. 2000: 59:30 Joseba Beloki 21.68 km/h
42. 2000: 59:34 Jan Ullrich 21.66 km/h
43. 1999: 59:35 Txema Del Olmo 21.65 km/h
44. 1999: 59:43 Kurt van de Wouwer 21.60 km/h
45. 2009: 59:46 Jurgen Van Den Broeck 21.58 km/h
46. 2004: 59:47 Oscar Pereiro 21.58 km/h
47. 2006: 59:47 Denis Menchov 21.58 km/h
48. 2006: 59:47 Christophe Moreau 21.58 km/h
49. 2009: 59:49 Andreas Klöden 21.57 km/h
50. 2004: 59:50 David Moncoutie 21.56 km/h

The revised top 50 on Ventoux shows that this

Froome climbed Ventoux at a speed only bettered by Armstrong

is untrue.

Obviously most of those times were set in different circumstances i.e. weather, race distance etc with the fastest being an ITT up the mountain. Many of those in the top 20 have since been shown to be dopers but not all of them**.

I find it sad, yet understandable, that any great performance in road racing is almost immediately met with speculation of cheating rather than admiration. When you consider that nobody raised any concern at the Olympics when track cyclists were breaking their own world record every time they ran it seems a very focussed reputation.

If you take the "marginal gains" philosophy and roll that forward from 2004 (the last TdF stage with super fast times) then it is entirely feasible that developments in equipment, training methods & fitness levels can explain the current performance levels, IMHO.

This doesn't mean there's been no cheating but it could just be that they're clean.

**Yet

that is circumstantial evidence and there was some actual evidence about LA I have know he was a cheat for decades as has pretty much everyone

I've backed up every point with facts, and you're still yet to answer several of my points.

Regarding Bolt - I do not know if he is clean, but over a 10 seconds race, it may be that his physical advantages (I assume freakishly long legs, given his height?) may be the difference between him and the rest. However given that 8 out of 10 of the fastest men in 100m history have doped, then there is a high probability that he may not be clean.

It will be interesting when l'equipe put today's paper article on their website, but early reports are that they are happy with the data.

To be fair, it was someone else's comment about Froome's Ventoux climb time (I was quoting it), and in the above list I can't see many clean athletes. Setting roughly the same time as a peak doping Lance Armstrong is pretty suspicious in my eyes.

I've backed up every point with facts, and you're still yet to answer several of my points.

You have a pretty short memory.

Besides which, the argument you are using here is "I know he was doping therefore he was doping",

which is the very argument you're (unfairly I feel) criticising me for using.

I've backed up every point with facts,

and you're still yet to answer several of my points.

I am not doing Bolt as well as Froome as neither has any evidence though this is your main claim and it lacks proof

given that 8 out of 10 of the fastest men in 100m history have doped, then there is a high probability that he may not be clean.

Setting roughly the same time as a peak doping Lance Armstrong is pretty suspicious in my eyes.

Yeah but TBF Lance's "facts" were mainly spin (500+ tests etc) - as far as I'm aware mine are all true - although feel free to correct me if I have made any mistakes 🙂

I think there is only 1 person who can come to this thread with anything new and definitive. So far I can't find any "Where to buy oval chain rings that fit on my pinarello" threads and "Will I look silly going to the shops in my Sky gear" so I'm guessing Chris Froome isn't on here.

Until he either goes on Oprah or Fails a test he is innocent. Thats how the rules work in the race. If you have credible evidence then package it up and send it to WADA/the mail/anyone else who will publish it.

he failed one at his first TdF and then got a back dated doctors note - not in his original submission - for saddle sore cream
Testoreone iirc.
Not in dispute but it was in breach of the rules

Junkyard you argue with a complete lack of logic. In every post I have included facts, you've just seemed to have completely dismissed them.

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

You stated Mercyx was clean - I corrected you by pointing out he failed drugs tests.

You used athletics as an example of clean sport - I pointed out 2 cases this very week of world class athletes getting caught.

At the end of the day, it seems I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine, but wish you well all the same, and hope you enjoy the remainder of the Tour.

Oh and re: Armstrong - the evidence that you quote was completely dismissed at the time by the majority of cycling fans, and the courts - hence Lance winning court cases against the Times, and the insurance company etc. It was fairly obvious he was doping, but until various riders came forward, and he actually admitted it then it wasn't proven.

Junkyard you argue with a complete lack of logic. In every post I have included facts, you've just seemed to have completely dismissed them.

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

You stated Mercyx was clean - I corrected you by pointing out he failed drugs tests.

You used athletics as an example of clean sport - I pointed out 2 cases this very week of world class athletes getting caught

RE LA whist ir ewmained unproven for some time - and for some till he actually admitted it- there was still nonetheless actual evidence be it the etests, the team mates, the masseuse etc saying it. the fact the sport took a long time to do something about it is shameful

I see no smoking gun with froome and you have yet to provide it despite your "facts" none of which include the fact he cheats just that he might which is true of anyone

Setting roughly the same time as a peak doping Lance Armstrong is pretty suspicious in my eyes.

Then again, it was slower than Armstrong's time in 2009 which, by all accounts, was his only clean one. Wasn't it?

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.

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?"

Miracles of this nature do not happen in cycling.

How do you know?

Can you expand on that statement please?

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.

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."

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.

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)

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.

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 - 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".