[Closed] Le Tour doping/speculation/rumour/conjecture thread

No. 😛

What! Are you on drugs or something

On the telly earlier they referred to a vid of 2013 Ventoux. Someone leaked or hacked Froome's data from his SRM box. Someone else synched it to TV coverage. It's been pulled from Youtube and a twitter has been taken down too. However, it's the internet, so if it's been up for an hour it will be up somewhere forever. This link probably won't last.

[url= https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2xyt27_chris-froome-tour-de-france-2013-mont-ventoux-srm_sport?start=21 ]https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2xyt27_chris-froome-tour-de-france-2013-mont-ventoux-srm_sport?start=21[/url]

Thanks for sharing that midlifecrashes, I was wondering what people were banging on about...

Not criticising you here, but: what's it supposed to prove? We already know he rode his bike quite fast up that hill, which would certainly require quite a few watts. Also he's pedalling, and his heart is beating too, by crikey. I can't see the bit where he injects EPO on there or anything though. Maybe I'm missing something? 😉

To my mind this is the worst thing that Lance has left the sport. The constant suspicions of doping and cheating, the refusal to believe in good clean performance based on training and science.
The finger pointing, the adding 2+2 and getting 5.

The rest of Lance I don't have a problem with, I still think he was a fantastic rider (unpopular though that opinion might be). But he has pretty much single handedly ensured that every win, every great performance will be met with scepticism rather than applause. He's given rise to a culture of suspicion and disbelief, a world where journalists are desperate for the next big doping story rather than the next great win story.

Yeah, Chris Boardman said something today about how it's going to take a decade of clean cycling to wear that suspicion down, and I suspect he's right. Very sad.

My 2p - froome only looks so good now because the other GC guys all seem to be off the boil.

Whether they're off anything else as well...

PS. The journalists have been very restrained on the doping questions so far this tour.

I think they've been glad not to have to ask so much.

I watched that vid and I don't think it shows much. He puts in an effort, recovers, effort, recovers. He wasn't at 400+ watts all the way.

I found this interesting.
[url= http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/124045491453/w-balance-analysis-of-a-grand-tour-climb ]http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/124045491453/w-balance-analysis-of-a-grand-tour-climb[/url]

Had to look up W' to understand it though.
[url= http://physfarm.com/new/?page_id=563 ]http://physfarm.com/new/?page_id=563[/url]

Is there a bit missing from the video where he stops for a steak sandwich at chalet reynard? I guess it's interesting to see the effort, recover, effort, recover pattern but he discussed that in interviews at the time.

Where's all the Nibali haters from last year?! He was defo doping because he destroyed a shitty field but weirdly Froome is clean 'coz they're a fan. Play the game both ways or not at all.

I thought nibali was clean for the reason you give.

Since then I've had some doubts due to Astana's troubles.

What did you think?

All of them.

mintimperial - Member

Yeah, Chris Boardman said something today about how it's going to take a decade of clean cycling to wear that suspicion down, and I suspect he's right. Very sad.

Unfortunaty this cannot start until teh likes of froome and co leave

I'm going to bite. What do you mean froome and co? I could understand the comment about Millar, valverde, contador, Riis, basso but who's the druggy gang froome was rocking with now or on previous teams? Jullich, Yates maybe but come one. Do we need the barguil, Yates brothers to have a whole career and leave. How many generations of riders before you decide it's ok again?

Because of all the irrefutable evidence that he's doping?

Cha****ng - Bit of a Nibali fan boy but also kinda like Froome (despite his ugliness) for his tenacity in last years Vuelta and the way he rides. I can't see any evidence they're doping except for everyone shouting, "ZOMG he climbed as fast as Lance/won a stage!!1!1!"

The point of the vid is there is a large community of experts, both the armchair and the real type, who have spent years analysing this sort of data, and coming to the conclusion that there is a limit to how many Watts a clean athlete can/should produce for how long, in the context both of a 240km stage and towards the back end of a hilly grand tour. Much of that is based on working backwards from fairly sparse actual data released by the pros, so getting their hands on Froome's logs is a pretty big deal to them. Much of it happens here, but not by me, I'm no expert(of either kind):[url= http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewforum.php?f=20 ]http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewforum.php?f=20[/url]

is the speed in that vid kph ? they seem to be going faster 😕

eddie11 - Member

I'm going to bite. What do you mean froome and co?

froome loser to winner in 3 years, with now outclassing ALL the other climbers 🙄 portes miraculous retunrning form, skys hipocritical "ethics"

do you really think they are SO much better than everyone else becease they claim better training methods 😆 An infamous Texan used the same arguments and reasoning!

[url= http://sportsscientists.com/2015/07/day-1-in-the-mountains-one-more-pixel-context-mistrust/ ]The Science of Sport[/url] has been looking at the wattage data for quite a few years. I don't know if he's [i]right[/i], but he's certainly not hysterical.

I'm not really watching this year, but I heard the commotion as another Sky one-two blasted a field of hardened dopers backwards with their mighty slipstream.

😐

[url= http://sportsscientists.com/2015/07/long-live-transparency-the-data-video-controversy/ ]and discussion of the 2013 Ventoux video[/url]

The response has been amazing. As in 2013, the data was first dismissed as fabricated. Then as hacked (which is a tacit acknowledgement of its validity). Or maybe irrelevant. The usual attacks that it proves nothing came, to which I’d respond by saying “welcome to a six-year long conversation, take a side-order of context with that indignation”. Fact is, we’ve been here before, and it’s the reaction more than the revelation that is so amazing.

Some interesting stuff in there. The flip side to blowing away some of the past greats is how does their performances stack up after some of their previous indiscretions.
Watching it last night it seemed that Sky played a tactical battle and kept Froome/Porte fresher for the climb. The pressure was on the others to attack them and try and make efforts they couldn't sustain. In many ways we won't know and not wanting to sounds like a LA media rep you can't prove a negative.

I'd like to see a more proactive approach in the pro tour, giving riders an out if there is something going on. First man to blow the whistle gets a light punishment provided there is a long list of names and proof. Get caught get hammered.

In some ways the "evidence" that drugs are on the way out are the fact the nobody is winning the Giro and the Tour in one year. Contador looks like he has 3 weeks in his legs already.

every rrider can make a super human effort , its the recovery that takes longer without 'assistance'--i doubt he will do the same again today, sky will have a plan a, plan b and plan c -for various scenarios-they all said the rest day really helped,which may well be the case--i'm sure they have calculated when to 'go' --and when conditions are otherwise--this is the same managment team that has transformed british track cycling--how many postive tests have there been ?
The oppnents who used to have a chequered past seem to be missing their old 'ways' --i am optimistic , and hope that eventualy the cynics can move on to somethin else.....

Why did Sky's Lawyers go on the offensive?

The thinking is they don't want it out there. Why?

They all arent at it. Only the top of the field is and I said this before. It should be a lifetime ban. Not a Contador-long ban..

If I was at Sky and somebody was trying to hack/break into stuff I'd probably set some lawyers on it, if you had a good set of team sky's power data it would be good for understanding their weaknesses just as they use it for improvement. If somebody had stolen data from your company what would you do?

Out of frustration, Froome's Team Sky did something unusual: It released two years of data about Froome's physical power output to the French newspaper L'Equipe and French physiologist Frederic Grappe, who examined it to analyze whether Froome's body should be capable of zooming up hills that most of us would struggle to walk up. You can read CyclingNews.com's summary of those findings here. The quick take: Froome is indeed a freak of nature, but he's not doping.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/chris-froome/11740170/Chris-Froome-commits-to-independent-testing-to-prove-he-is-clean-after-Tour-de-France.html

And on this

Lance ArmstrongVerified account
?@lancearmstrong
1. Clearly Froome/Porte/Sky are very strong. Too strong to be clean? Don't ask me, I have no clue.

Nobody was asking you Lance, nobody at all, nobody wants to talk to you.

I see we're into the hard evidence now, beating ex dopers means mega big tit power doping, he wasn't winning but now is and the greatest of all, the spurned house wife Hora telling us they're all at it.

Squeeze me? Baking powder? Come again? I said THEY ALL ARENT AT IT.

Data is quickly becoming the most important commodity in the world. Of course Sky would get their lawyers to look into it. As mikewsmith says, you could use it to establish and exploit their weaknesses, if you have enough of it you could infer their training patterns.

Sorry Hora (I'm not).

They all arent at it. Only the top of the field is

2015[edit]
On 19 January, it was announced that Lampre rider Diego Ulissi was banned for nine months after the Salbutamol positive from the 2014 Giro d'Italia. The ban was backdated and ended on March 28.[580]
On 22 January, it was announced that former Rabobank and Team Sky doctor Geert Leinders was banned for life by USADA, Anti-Doping Denmark and Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands. Former Rabobank riders Michael Rasmussen and Levi Leipheimer testified at the hearing.[581][582] Information from the hearing lead to UCI Doctor and Scientific Advisor Dr. Mario Zorzoli being suspended by UCI.[583]
On 10 March, UCI announced that Lloyd Mondory (Ag2r-La Mondiale) had tested positive for EPO in an out-of-competition control on 17 February 2015.[584][585]
On 23 April, it was announced that Hichem Chaabane had tested positive for two undisclosed prohibited substances and was provisionally suspended from racing.[586]
On 9 June, it was announced that Petr Ignatenko of Rusvelo had tested positive to hgh on 8 April 2015. He was fired by his team.[587]
On 9 June, the UCI confirmed that Ramon Carretero of Southeast Pro Cycling had tested positive for EPO on 22 April, during the Tour of Turkey.[587]
On 30 June, it was announced that Davide Appollonio of Androni Giocattoli gave an adverse analytical finding for EPO, on June 14 – two weeks after completing the Giro d'Italia, and was provisionally suspended.[588]
On 10 July, it was disclosed that in the 2015 Tour de France, Luca Paolini (Team Katusha) tested positive for cocaine. He was thrown out of the race after stage 7.[589]

Interesting Froome is up for "independent" testing. If he gets testes enough maybe he'll start claiming he's "the most tested athlete in the world"

In all honesty, I haven't watched much of this tour. But I watched the highlights from about half way through last night. After that acceleration I genuinely laughed and turned it off. Looked like he was on an e bike.

Boardman's comment are right on the button for me, except I don't believe the sport is clean yet. So that decade hasn't even begun yet. That's not a declaration of my belief that they are doping. Just an inability to discard the very real possibility that some form of cheating is still widespread.

Nobody was asking you Lance, nobody at all, nobody wants to talk to you.

Then why follow and quote him?

My opinion doesn't matter as i'm new to watching this. All i can say with 100% accuracy (and i have no proof for this statement) is they are fitter than i am.

Then why follow and quote him?

As Mike said, **** off Lance. You know what you did, now go away.

Interested that Emma O'Reilly's thrown her hat in too. I'd have thought she would know as much as anyone the harm that innuendo and rumours can have, so if she has something to say then say it. Properly.

I was an Armstrong fanboi back in the day, I'm a Wiggo and Froome fanboi now. It was a hell of a ride. I'm not naive enough that I'm not looking at it with a raised eyebrow but I don't know whether that's because of the ride or because of the damage that the likes of Armstrong did that means we can never look at an incredible performance in wide-eyed wonder again.

I just can't see how they could be juicing in such plain sight any longer. And also if they are, the damage that causes to Sky and British cycling. Knighthoods, TdF wins, 6 olympic golds for Chris Hoy, Hour records, all valueless. No-one's that dumb any more, are they?

Once you have read Tyler's book and you understand their "juice fueled" strategies then, it's difficult to view any carbon copy tactical moves without reaching the obvious conclusion

No-one's that dumb any more, are they?

As you note, the rewards are greater than ever. Choices, choices.....

^ This is a point I'd made in the stage thread, surely the £€$ you could make for selling the Sky doping story would be huge, in this day and age of the Internet/Facebook/camera phones it's impossible to keep celebrities titties and sex tapes off the internet let alone something as huge as this?

So someone hacked into the Skynet (oh yeah) and all they found was training files, not a sniff of illegal medicines etc? Hmmm...

So someone hacked into the Skynet (oh yeah) and all they found was training files, not a sniff of illegal medicines etc? Hmmm...

Yes, but didn't Fränk Schleck pay Fuentes €3000 for 'training plans'?

/tinfoil hat

As mentioned above, Nibali and Contador just look knackered, if they are micro dosing then they've clearly got the dosage level wrong.

The problem with any data relating to human physiology is that as an individual we vary so much from day to day as well as from individual to individual that you need some serious analysis to make sure that you aren't seeing simple noise. My mate and I are of similar age, height, weight and about the same level performance wise (i.e. we are within a few seconds of each other on Strava segments!) but his MHR is 20 bpm lower than mine. Without knowing that you'd come to some strange conclusions about our respective performances.

For an amateur rider Strava is useful in showing you how you are doing and those who use it will have seen segment times that are poor when they thought they were riding well and vice versa. There's a huge variablity from day to day: On one segment I'm top ten - that was done at the end of a 100Km ride and in to a head wind, the same segment with a tailwind and I get a time that is 15% slower yet I felt fresher and faster on the latter.

In any group, even professional athletes, you are going to get statistical outliers, if you base your assertions on the group mean then any such outlier looks suspicious. Is Froome (or indeed Team Sky) clean or not? I don't know.

Movistar got it tactically wrong yesterday pushing the pace for 50Km before the final climb rather than let another team do the work

So someone hacked into the Skynet (oh yeah) and all they found was training files, not a sniff of illegal medicines etc? Hmmm...

If I was running a pro cycling doping outfit. I don't think I'd keep all that data in the same place, I'd also not keep the doping records on a device accessible by some hacking goon on the Internet.

Yeah i got that Mike, but it's a bit 'Don't mention the war' on your part. 😉 In your defense, this is the doping thread and it would be odd if Lance wasn't mentioned.

I'm of the opinion that they are doing something that is not yet deemed illegal, with makes it clean. But i think that of most top sports folk where big money is involved. Be that track and field, football (all varieties), cycling etc. I'm also of the opinion that i don't care if they are cheating - rules are made to be broken.

The strange thing us that a couple of days before Froome said that it was down to the other GC contenders to attack; so why did he do it on the first mountain stage when all he had to do was sit with them and cover any attacks?

... it's difficult to view any carbon copy tactical moves without reaching the obvious conclusion.

The tactics yesterday being sit in nicely on a Movistar train till c10km to go then attack whilst your rivals bar one have either already blown, Nibali and Uran or demonstrate that the hype isn't justified and as suspected by a few commentators they can't respond to sudden attacks in the high mountains, TJVG or suffer from having had on hard Grand Tour already. Not sure thats the model used by USPS et al. Iirc Sky suffered badly on one of the big stages in 2013 when they tried to boss the front and Froome was left with no team mates.

I'm no Sky fanboy but I do feel they are being tarred unfairly, the whole BC /Sky system has been based on a drug free agenda since day one and they seem to have delivered this consistently both on road and track, I don't see it benefits the DS and Sky to be doping, and tbh if they wre doping I'd expect them to hit their declared target of a Classics win by now.

steve_b77 - Member

The strange thing us that a couple of days before Froome said that it was down to the other GC contenders to attack; so why did he do it on the first mountain stage when all he had to do was sit with them and cover any attacks?

A bluff perhaps?

The stage was rolling all the way to the start of the hors-catégorie Pierre-Saint-Martin, 15km long with an average gradient of 7.4 per cent. It was Movistar who were on the front from the start and the ferocity of the tempo manifested itself in Nibali, Rigoberto Urán, Joaquim Rodriguez, Thibaut Pinot, and Jean-Christophe Péraud all being dropped early.

The front group was already considerably thinned by the time Sky hit the front as the gradients rose above 10 per cent on the steepest middle section of the climb. Yet it was Quintana’s teammate Alejandro Valverde who threw the cat among the pigeons, with a double dig that appeared to leave Froome in slight difficulty.

He must have been bluffing, though, as he held on while Contador, van Garderen, Pierre Rolland, Adam Yates, and other members of that 15-strong elite group lost contact. Alone with Quintana and Porte, Froome wasted no time making his move and ploughed up the mountainside to take a stranglehold on the yellow jersey and leave the rest of the field stunned and thoroughly demoralised.

Basically it was a they started it, Movistar went to try and do something, once that shed the majority there were more attacks but Sky had something left having not tried to run the pace for the last 50km. Seems a shame not to grind them into the floor, we all would have if we could have (and the mental boost you get from hearing your rivals are suffering)

If I was at Sky and somebody was trying to hack/break into stuff I'd probably set some lawyers on it, if you had a good set of team sky's power data it would be good for understanding their weaknesses just as they use it for improvement. If somebody had stolen data from your company what would you do?

Would this thread be here if quintana had destroyed froome yesterday?

I'll post merely what I wrote yesterday on the other thread. I [i]think[/i] they're clean, but I also think that you need to ask the questions.

I love, love road racing, I love the romance of it all, the characters, the futile French attacks, the pain and suffering. I adore how I have just watched the last 20 minutes and felt real excitement, how it all went off.

But...

But, as the adrenaline has died down, the thought lingers, is this all a bit late 90's? Putting 2 mins into a rival is fine, putting into 2 rivals is OK too, but into 4? And having 2 team mates in the top 10 as well? Well, it "not normal"...

I want to believe, I do believe, but it's healthy to question things, like we didn't with Lance, like we didn't all the way through the 90's and early 2000's, so yes, I'm questioning. You can't prove a negative, I know that, but it does no harm to question.

Interestingly, a professional footballer got busted this week and there has barely been a ripple of acknowledgement...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33523681

Would this thread be here if Quintana had destroyed Froome yesterday?

https://app.strava.com/activities/346051358/overview
of the one's I've seen there are 3 who didn't the rest did. Can't tell what the devices were though. I was following ten Dam for a while now and he didn't have power data last year so we might be in a transition. For the leaders though knowing things like how hard Froome can go for or the other GC contenders would be an exceptionally valuable bit of info, if knew that your closest rival had never managed to get more than x over 5 mins etc. or how long/hard you need to go to drop them.

I don't think Froome's doping. I think he's using weight loss medication to control weight, using inhalers at the bottom of climbs, has TUEs for other medication. Some fruity goings on with that weird illness he had. I don't think Sky have a doping programme in place although their reputation is not as pure as they imply - plenty of association with shady individuals in the past not to mention people like JTL and even Sergio Henao, that was odd too.

In conclusion, probably not doping but doing everything possible but.

Interestingly, a professional footballer got busted this week and there has barely been a ripple of acknowledgement...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33523681

A lower league player getting busted for a recreational drug, got about the same coverage as a cyclist busted for a recreational drug at the premier cycling grand tour http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cycling/33489804

not to mention people like JTL

But JTL came to them and couldn't replicate the form he had previously - when juiced, surely that's exculpatory?

plenty of association with shady individuals in the past not to mention people like JTL and even Sergio Henao, that was odd too.

Ditching Yates and others who couldn't sign the "I have never" contracts also showed a low tolerance, finding team guys of an era who have not been involved in something limits your choices and you could imagine for a team that puts itself up there anyone with a decent story about their riders would be off to the papers.

LTD posted an avg 354 watts on that climb with a peak of 671!

I remain cynical but hope that it was a clean ride by Froome. His season has clearly been limited & well planned to lead into the TdF especially avoiding the Giro which many have said was brutal this year. There have been signs that he's been riding with some in reserve & that the 'kick' was back (the Dauphine) so I wasn't particularly surprised when he went - more that the other main contenders (mostly) had no response to it.

I also doubt Porte would have been there if his Giro hadn't been cut short.

Last year there was [url= http://www.teamsky.com/teamsky/home/article/7332#33d10pBittWsuvIR.97 ]this article[/url] which, looking back, they've since followed everything that was said - could have been the start of a smokescreen but I'm not so sure.

I take the points about Sky and their low tolerance. They must have known JTL was juiced pretty quickly and got rid, fair one.

I do think they push it to the limit with what he is taking, weight-loss, inhalers and the steroids in the past, but I'm sure all the others do too. Maybe Froome is the perfect formula - a bigger guy who can put out higher power than the climbers, and then just make him lose weight to dangerous levels and you have the perfect TDF machine.

They must have known JTL was juiced pretty quickly and got rid, fair one.

a bigger guy who can put out higher power than the climbers, and then just make him lose weight to dangerous levels and you have the perfect TDF machine.

it was the weight i lost due to cancer m'lud

OK, getting away from the topic a bit (since when has that ever stopped things?) but there's a lot of bluff and double bluff from Dave Brailsford - he got advice from Alex Ferguson after all - "it's up to the others to attack" then attacking yourself now means that the other contenders now have to attack really hard and probably over several days to claw back the time they lost yesterday.

Sky are effectively back seat drivers now.

LTD posted an avg 354 watts on that climb with a peak of 671!

See that where I think that people are over extrapolating. The digital number has 3 lovely figures which you beleive. But that number might be out by 50W. That's the difference between good and extra ordinnary

Why would it be out by 50W? The power reading is from his bike, not a strava estimate.

Reminded me of the landis attack from years back

Why would it be out by 50W?

That was the error quoted by Boardman on power meters

Oh and a question for the doubters. I'm genuinely interested

If Froome and Porte et all are all winning due to dopping does that mean that the whole Brailsford error is a lie. That all the gains in British cycling and those olympic gold medals where part of a wave of doping. Or is the idea that Dave does dope for sky but not for Britain?

SkillWill - Member
I don't think Froome's doping. I think he's using weight loss medication to control weight, using inhalers at the bottom of climbs, has TUEs for other medication. Some fruity goings on with that weird illness he had. I don't think Sky have a doping programme in place although their reputation is not as pure as they imply...

...In conclusion, probably not doping but doing everything possible but.

I think that's where I am too at the moment though I still hope I'm wrong. There's been enough out there for me to think that Sky play to the rules rather than the spirit and the TUE system is ripe for abuse/bending.

Mind you, I also believe that Sky are probably cleaner than most (not all - I reckon Garmin are proper clean) and I'm pretty sure there's still micro-dosing and other drugs still being used (particularly now it's been shown that the bio passport can be managed by dopers) but in much less effective ways than in the past, hence many of the past superstars aren't performing to the level they used to.

If Froome and Porte et all are all winning due to doping does that mean that the whole Brailsford era is a lie?

Genuinely don't know. But:

A is probable
If A is true, then B is likely
B being true would give me a very big sad

=> A is false

... is dire reasoning which shouldn't really be indulged. 🙂

Brailsford/Sky project created and heavily funded to win clean.

If they hadn't managed to deliver wins clean would they a) have abandoned the project or b) done it dirty?

I would like to believe that Sky & Brailsford/UK Cycling would have had far too great loss of reputation at stake to chose b).

The hiring of Leinders was a very strange decision for a team who pride themselves on being clean, given his reputation and history. As per US Postal, if you ignore the PR & spin being produced by Sky, and actually focus on the evidence, they're no better than any other team when it comes to hiring questionable individuals.

FWIW, it's the power per kg figures which really concern me. When AC and Andy Schleck's figures dropped significantly one year to the next (IIRC from 6.3 or so to 5.8ish) also coinciding with bio passport and other more stringent doping tests, I saw that as clear evidence that there had been a change in the sport - at a minimum that they were doping to a much lower level than before.

The figures are now appearing to push the mid 6s. That has to be a concern.

As with many, I think we're hoping that Sky's marginal gains really are making the difference but suspension of doubt is difficult when it has so many parallels with the past.

I would like to believe that Sky & Brailsford/UK Cycling would have had far too great loss of reputation at stake to chose b).

Me too but as BD pointed out that's not a particularly great logical argument...

I think that there is too much made of the microdosing, if you look at something like clenbuterol (Contador steak) it is pointless microdosing, you need a course at the full dose to make any impact. EPO you may be able to play the passport by microdosing, but you are going to have to use it consistently over a period of time to get a benefit, and that means you will likely fail a blood test.

IMO most likely current cheating would be from substances unknown, and abuse of the medical exemption rules.

O.K. yesterday was spectacular, but if you give sky the benefit of the doubt and assume Sky are 'clean' the tactics of the all out attack yesterday make sense and here's how:

As stated before, the tour is largely won on recovery and a rider's ability to come back day after day and take the beating. I'm sure team Sky are using every unsanctioned trick in the book (i.e. the motorhome) to help their riders recover but if they're racing clean they can't resort to the old method of a big fat enriched blood bag at bedtime so withstanding concurrent days of attacks by different teams may be beyond them and they know it.

So, they're going into the mountains in yellow but know that they need to do something to avoid this war of attrition, what better way than going all out on the first big day and smashing huge time into everyone, putting the GC 'to bed' and dissuading the competition from attacking them all day every day for the next week and a bit.

They did this in 2013, Froome won on stage 8, going into Yellow, but the next day his team was in tatters, he was isolated, repeatedly attacked and had to fight tooth and nail all day, he looked in agony and was probably one strong dig away from cracking and freefalling down the GC.

I suspect that yesterday may have been a result of Brailsford applying the lessons of 2013 in an all or nothing gamble to demoralize the rest of the teams and prevent a week long war of attrition that Sky can't win because they can't use the illicit recovery boosting techniques that have been used in the past.

Watch Porte and Thomas today in particular, if they spend most of the day in the pack looking knackered then it'll be a good sign that the team are racing clean, if not well....

MSP - it's been shown that you can microdose and not fail tests or the bio passport - that's why Froome's suggestion about night time testing is (and all credit to him for suggesting it, unless of course it's just PR because he knows it'll never get approved) so important.

Hatter - good theory - credible but I'm not sure that the big gamble is so much Sky's way of thinking even though there's some logic to it.

Night time testing is happening already iirc.

is there a live link for the video anywhere?

The papers have given up on Froome already, he's now 'Kenyan born' or 'African' rather than British.

His attack yesterday was probably to put the nail in the coffin for Contador and Nibali. If you see them in trouble, maximise the time gaps now to take them out of the GC race.

For me the most worrying aspect of yesterday's stage is the fact that two Sky domestiques Porte and Thomas were out climbing Quintana, Contador, Nibali, Valverde, Rodriguez, Gesink, Kreuziger, Uran etc - the best climbers in the world, many of whom are or have been under suspicion of doping themselves.

A clean rider who's never really shown any real climbing prowess shouldn't be able to beat so many world class climbers IMO, especially when he weighs 10kg more.

I'd love it if they were all clean, but I've seen this situation too many times before to be convinced..

A question to the sceptics (the real ones, not the folks like me that can't see a decent performance without being jaded by the past, the ones that are utterly convinced that Sky are cheating)

What would it take to convince you? Is there any point trying to convince you; or is the 'evidence' of performance and results outweighing anything offered as counter?

If one of the others attacks in the next few days, and does a Froome back to Froome himself, is that because he's clean and overstretched himself, or are the others now juiced up as well?

I know it's very hard to prove a negative, and i know to just accept everything at face value is difficult. But that's because of what went before, and if we don't draw a line under it then we'll always be tainted by Lance and co.

Innocent until proven guilty, for me, but with a healthy dose of 'proving' innocence as well. Otherwise I might as well not watch.

It's no surprise that Porte was up there, especially as he was the main man for the Giro for sky and will be off for a top seat next year. Are those riders the best climbers or were they?

chakaping - Member
Night time testing is happening already iirc.

Nope. That's the window for microdosing, etc. and it's still there.

Currently there is a “no-testing window” from 11pm to 6am