[Closed] Froome's Test Results

it doesn't stand up to the spidey sense

Until there is evidence of him being a doper I'll give him the benefit of the non-existant doubt.

[url= http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-tour-de-france-leader-chris-froome-would-be-well-advised-to-invite-questions-31386946.html ]Paul Kimmage's thoughts[/url]

Though not on the newly released data - more background info.

You can't get away with a Pantaniesque 60% Hct these days though therefore they're unlikely to be beaten. Much like athletics in the 70%

Fair point, but again how do you prove a negative? The argument goes round & round & round.....

Or is the only way to clean up pro-cycling to throw out anyone who has ever taken anything stronger than paracetamol out of the sport & start again?

I'm no rocket scientist but if independent & to my knowledge impartial & unbiased scientific observations say its all okey dokey then I'm inclined to believe that science.

Guilty by association? No.

Worthy of questioning? Yes.

Clearly my refusal to believe has touched a raw nerve with some

yeah I think you have touched a nerve, but not specifically about Froome. it's the fact that it appears that nobody can [b]prove [/b]themselves clean in some peoples eyes.

Simply put, Yes. If it absolved me of cheating or even the suspicion of cheating then it's worth doing

except that it wont will it, doubters still gonna doubt...

whatever anyone does is always being poo poo'd, and until the ones slinging accusations around can actually articulate what what would sway them there's little anyone can do, especially since it seems that all you have to do to be accused of being a cheat is ride quickly a few times.

if there is actual evidence of cheating then present it, if all you've got is such a severe case of cynicism that you can't entertain the possibility that someone can win clean then you need to just keep quiet.

what's the alternative, we forever assume that the winners are cheating? in perpetuity, forever?

at some point we (as a sport and as fans) have to push the reset button and start form the assumption that people are clean unless proven otherwise, and drop this idea of cheat unless proven clean, because that appears to be impossible (nor fair).

if you want to direct your anger about previous transgressions, and doubts about the current checks then direct them at the governing bodies and at the testing regimes, pour your scorn on them and demand better, not becasue you think everyone is cheating and want to expose them, but becasue you want to prove the sport [i]is [/i]clean (or at least getting cleaner), don't direct your hate and doubt at the riders until you have an actual proven cause to.

yours optimistically,
a cycling fan

You can't get away with a Pantaniesque 60% Hct these days though therefore they're unlikely to be beaten. Much like athletics in the 70%.

But you were saying that pro cycling is the same as it's always been. Now you're saying that they can't get away with stuff the likes of Pantani used to get away with. I'd call that progress.

Until there is evidence of him being a doper I'll give him the benefit of the non-existant doubt

There may have been evidence if he didn't swerve a random test!

Did the questions come out of the blue? Did they honestly think that people would disrergard the previous 100 tours worth of drug use and take them at their word? Did they completely fail to anticipate and prepare for the relentless doping questions that inevitably follow the leader around every single tour?

What answer would you like them to have prepared that would satisfy you though?

Journalist: You're a doper.
Wiggo: No I'm not.
Journalist: You're a doper.
Wiggo: No I'm not.
Journalist: You're a doper.
Wiggo: No I'm not.
Journalist: You're a doper.
Wiggo: No I'm not.
Journalist: You're a doper.
Wiggo: No I'm not.
Journalist: You're a doper.
Wiggo: No I'm not.
Journalist: You're a doper, everyone on the internetz says you are.
Wiggo: 'I say they're just f*** w. I cannot be doing with people like that.

'It justifies their own bone-idleness because they can't ever imagine applying themselves to do anything in their lives.

'It's easy for them to sit under a pseudonym on Twitter and write that sort of s, rather than get off their a* in their own lives and apply themselves and work hard at something and achieve something.

'And that's ultimately it. C*.'

Journalist: You're a doper.
Froome: No I'm not.
Journalist: You're a doper.
Froome: No I'm not.
Journalist: You're a doper.
Froome: No I'm not.
Journalist: You're a doper.
Froome: No I'm not.
Journalist: You're a doper.
Froome: No I'm not. Here's a ****load of data from an independent lab to prove it.
Journalist: You're a doper.

But you were saying that pro cycling is the same as it's always been. Now you're saying that they can't get away with stuff the likes of Pantani used to get away with. I'd call that progress.

Same as it's always been as in taking whatever you can get away with.

Same as it's always been as in taking whatever you can get away with.

Doing what you can get away with applies to most professional sport, so I'd say your point is moot.

I guess that because he is beating a convicted drugs cheat then there is suspicion. As said earlier it would be interesting if the other contenders subjected themselves to the same tests and released their data.

Doing what you can get away with applies to most professional sport, so I'd say your point is moot.

Why stop at pro sport? It's human nature to try and win at all costs, it's in our genes.

What would you do if someone questioned the quality of your work? Would you attack, avoid or obsfucate? Or would you sit down and explain the results show your working out and calling on mutually respected colleagues if required?

This is assuming that your detractor is incorrect and you haven't been sending crap and lies out of the door.

Therein lies my issue with Sky (and all of pro cycling in general). I do not believe a dickybird of it (Froome / Wiggo) not because of physiological testing or iffy w/kg estimates on twitter, but because they have given me zero reasons to trust them.

Other things that get my spidey senses going are the timing of Froomes transformation, the appointment of a team doctor that has been subsequently banned for life the abuse of cortisone and AICAR for weight loss (raised in the CIRC).

It's also been said that the faster Wiggo rode the less outspoken about doping he got. His MO when dealing with doubters was straight out of the Armstrong textbook (attack attack attack). Oh and his coconut hairdo and crappy clothes also p155 me off too

The trouble is that if Froome and Wiggo are doping that is that's the whole house of cards falling down isn't it. So your saying Dave runs a doping tour team but british Cycling is clean? Wiggo joins SKY and Dave says here are the drugs? Or are you saying Britsih cyling Vickey and Hoy all doped as well?

Oh and no I wouldn't respond to every critic. I certainly wouldn't use their lab.

Oh and Armstrong failed tests in retrospect, after the tests improved

What answer would you like them to have prepared that would satisfy you though?

It's not a question of having an answer prepared for them, it was more about anticipating the questions and keeping calm rather than kicking off.

Oh and Armstrong failed tests in retrospect, after the tests improved

This test was never going to prove anything to either side.

It doesn't prove he's clean or doping - it's just a snapshot of what his capabilities were at a certain point in time (assuming he tried his hardest etc)

If it was cross referenced with his climbing data from notable performances and additional test data from his past, as well as biological passport etc then it would have far more impact.

Seems more of a PR stunt than anything - doubters will continue to doubt, and supporters will continue to claim his innocence.

Why stop at pro sport? It's human nature to try and win at all costs, it's in our genes.

Well no, we don't, and no it isn't.

It's not a question of having an answer prepared for them, it was more about anticipating the questions and keeping calm rather than kicking off.

Why stop at pro sport? It's human nature to try and win at all costs, it's in our genes.

No that's psychopathy/sociopathy, the rest of the human race sticks to a code of moral conduct based on empathy. The elephant in the room being that often the best do 'win at all cost', because of their psychopathy/sociopathy.

why don't we just turn all this on its head and allow doping? Give up second guessing and trying to catch the cheats?

If I was doping on a regular basis I would want to live near the Doctor who could provide me with stuff. Somewhere that doesn't have the same laws to abide by as anyone else. Somewhere that money rules all

I live near Monaco and I see Team Sky, and Paula and the Astana team whizzing along. Lance used to have a place nearby and pedalled around here a lot, probably loads more about who I wouldn't recognize.

I wonder if anyone else has ever looked into peoples locality when they are suspected of being involved in this type of thing.

It may all just be coincidence. I wonder where Dr Ferrari is based nowadays?

If you question the data, then by inference you are questioning the testers.

What do you base your suspicions of GSK's lab on?

Being "clean" in pro cycling is a relative term. What matters is a appearance and saying the rights things (in the uk anyway) to keep the funds coming in. Best example of this is a previous poster being impressed with the likes of Garmin Slipstream.... JV has the media and sponsorship game dialled although I think even the most casual fan has probably finally caught on to him. Don't care either way, just enjoy the racing

If I was doping on a regular basis I would want to live near the Doctor who could provide me with stuff.

You have that backwards. The doctor could more easily move to where the cyclists are, so that would prove nothing.

Best example of this is a previous poster being impressed with the likes of Garmin Slipstream

That was me, and was more based on David Millar than JV. And if memory serves they've fallen out anyway.

As I said, different, but not different enough.

You have that backwards. The doctor could more easily move to where the cyclists are, so that would prove nothing.

Far easier to do it all yourself and spend most of your time deep in South America or somewhere remote in Colorado where the testers don't bother to come .... tried and tested

If you question the data, then by inference you are questioning the testers.

What do you base your suspicions of GSK's lab on?

GSK have never been up to anything underhand and are squeaky clean, the coup of getting Froome in isn't worth anything and/or a cycling team has never been organizing doping it has always been naughty individuals so nothing at all to be slightly skeptical of at all 😀 As I said, I don't care either way and let's be honest our opinions count for nothing but let's not be tooooooo naive 😀

The problem cycling has is that drug taking was embedded into the culture of cycling all through its history, whether it is alcohol to dull the pain on the tour or amphetamines. Some of the glorious heroes of the by-gone ages were openly taking substances which today would be banned in competition.

So a sport with a long history of doping has a lot to do to get its culture entirely clean.

Froome is clean until a test proves otherwise, as are all other pro cyclists. If being the best at a sport immediately makes you guilty of doping there's not much hope for the future is there...

Maybe I'm wrong, sure. But the laws, such as they are in Monaco aren't as portable

why don't we just turn all this on its head and allow doping? Give up second guessing and trying to catch the cheats?

Not everyone responds to medication in the same way, but at least it would do away with the lies / percieved lies and would make for some crazy racing.

No that's psychopathy/sociopathy, the rest of the human race sticks to a code of moral conduct based on empathy. The elephant in the room being that often the best do 'win at all costs', because of their psychopathy/sociopathy.

Exactly.

If he posts up a carbon isotope ratio test I'll believe him especially with that impressive vo2 max. The other tests are a joke and very easy to pass. The cir test is the gold standard but the accused always seem to avoid that one.

The data release doesnt prove anything other than Froome is physiologically exceptional, which we knew anyway.

What this does do, however is open the door for more transparency from riders. Would be interesting to see a comparison of Froome and his closest rivals

Not everyone responds to medication in the same way, but at least it would do away with the lies / percieved lies and would make for some crazy racing.

And people dying.

Considering all the phone tapping News Corp did, I expect they knew exactly who was doing what, and wouldn't be sponsoring if they thought that Brailsford was anything but clean...

I like that logic of shady people giving credibility to others by association

@ pitchpro, it is almost like all of this is a pr exercise or something

its almost like some of you will insinuate he is a cheat no matter what he does or what he says or what happens.

After he passes each test you will always have another.

There's a clearly juiced up 'natural'body builder doing the same thing at the moment and paying for all these 'tests' to prove he's natural. He too avoids the cir test

Well if that insinuation does not prove Froome cheats then what will?

TBH he does look remarkably like a juiced upo boddy builder

Your "evidence" is a collection of,laughable, non sequiturs

TBH i dont know why we pay for tests when you can see "clearly" who juices.

Its sometimes hard to remember it adults who are discussing things on here

Nice trolling.

[i]Oh and Armstrong failed tests in retrospect, after the tests improved[/i]

I don't think testimonies from former team mates, colleagues and back room staff helped much either!

I'd be perfectly happy if he took 1 cir test during training. Then one at the end of the tour. 2 for the whole year than those pathetic test ratio tests that anyone can pass. He could be completely clean now but that would shut up the journalists.

As I understand it the CIR test is being used by the UCI et al but not for everyone - rather it's targeted.

Seems a little harsh to take Froome to task over not taking the test if the governing bodies haven't tested him for it??

Ill ask again as nobody seems to want to answer it.....

If Froomes data is iffy, then surely the GSK Lab is complicit.

Where's your evidence to suggest they are guilty of such doing?!

Yeah they use the cir test if the rider already has failed or a dodgy normal test result. So basically if your too stupid to use the correct amount of epitest to test and fail the basic test. They will nail you with the proper test. What I'm saying is 2 700 quid cir tests are much more proving than the 20 70 quid tests they make them take.

No one thinks the Labs data is iffy. They are just saying it means nothing. All it means is that he's an exceptional athlete which he is and able to perform at the highest level possible. The tests prove he's a champion they don't debunk doping in the slightest. I hope he is clean and don't care either way but the lab tests prove only that he's gifted.

Pitchpro are you talking about the off-score when you refer to the "silly ratios"?

As I understand they too aren't easy to fake either, as it's a measurement over a period of time rather than a one off test. From the article it appears that Froomes off-scores aren't regarded as suspect..

Edit: if you're questioning the results & suggesting they've been manipulated then you are also questioning the lab? I'm not saying you but others have certainly suggested the data has been "fixed". I'd like to know the reasoning behind suspecting GSK of acting improperly.

Yeah I read back and seen a few saying that. I'm not. Yeah the off score. It's 4-1 these days right? Instead of 8-1. Still a pretty big margin if you've got a medical doctor on hand.

Valets credibility is affected in my eyes by his "if he's not doping he has a motor" line. I can't see any one ever getting away with that in the Tour.

My thought are Armstrong tore away any kind or credibility the sport or any champions will have in the Grand Tours. He's used every line, and therefore any rider who says the same will always be tainted. Froome is one of these.

So far he's clean, no positive tests, I can't see Sky systematically doping, I can't see all of the physiologists and British cycling going along with it, or Hoy or Wiggins.

We seem to accept the Ussain Bolt is clean, and just a physiological freak for lack of a better phrase, why can't Froome be the same.

I too grew up watching Armstrong, as as I read more got to know the sport more I doubted him, and finally didn't see how it was in any way plausible. Later to see him brought down by Landis, Hamilton, very publicly and Vindicating Emma O Reilly, and Kimmage, Walsh who sowed the seed of my doubts, and if I'm honest I believed off the bat.

I "believe" Froome is clean as I want to believe the sport can be won and competed in clean. Is there a tiny thought that maybe there is a possibility there is a chance he's not of course, but that's to do with the history of the sport than Froome himself.

My thought are Armstrong tore away any kind or credibility the sport or any champions will have in the Grand Tours.

You are falling in to the trap of thinking doping started with Armstrong.

We seem to accept the Ussain Bolt is clean

😕 You don't have to dig too deep to be cynical. Athletics just manage this stuff better than cycling

They are just saying it means nothing. All it means is that he's an exceptional athlete which he is and able to perform at the highest level possible.

Indeed the new information says very little.. Also interesting his test results are almost identical to the 2007 public results and the claim is that his rise is due to weight loss. 8kg heavier and 17% body fat back then 😕

The funny thing is that more "road" forums are still busy discussing disc brakes coming in to the peleton and this Froome PR stuff has been completely ignored 😀