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

Why would it be out by 50W?
That was the error quoted by Boardman on power meters

Power meters are nowhere near that inaccurate - 3% at worst, and you'd hope that Pro teams have them all calibrated properly!

What would it take to convince you?

Well for a start, a wholesale change to Therapeutic Use Exemption. Sure, if you're really ill, you can take what you need to get better, and you won't get busted for that drug. However, let's say withdrawal from competition from the date of the first prescription to three months after the end of treatment.

Porte is hardly a shit climber. Thomas is not just a classics specialist but one of the of best allrounders in the sport.

I'm not a fan boy of sky or froome (though I am of gee), but really struggling to see the smoking gun here.

Comment above about the next few days being the real test is spot on.

Nemesis - old article. It has now happened.
Google it. Can't post link from this phone sorry

There's night time testing been done this year, the UCI reported that 4 (?) tests had been carried out but wouldn't say who was tested or which team.

MSP - it's been shown that you can microdose and not fail tests or the bio passport

Hmmm, not really, it was "proven" it could beat the bio passport for a short amount of time, about 6 months, but that doesn't prove that you could keep on beating it forever. Blood values are monitored over years now, I'm not sure anyone could realistically keep their blood values perfect through micro dosing all year long every year through 120 days of racing every year.

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.

A: Thanks

B: Considering how strong and stacked with superb climbers the team is and how they've managed to come out of the first week largely unscathed it was not a huge gamble to think that they could smash it yesterday, the gamble comes from whether they've managed to smash the other teams hard enough that they won't have their bluff called.

If one of the teams that did relatively little yesterday (i.e. BMC) hits today's stage hard and turn the screws on Sky then yesterday's fireworks could still backfire badly.

That's the 'gamble' element of Brailsford's calculations IMHO, but so far it seems to have paid off, Astana and Saxo-Tinkoff have pretty much been knocked out of the GC race, that's two of the strongest dangers gone in one fell swoop.

Again all this makes sense only if you're assuming that the team are racing clean and didn't spend all last night being pumped full of every banned variety of recovery juice going.

Ah, had missed that. Good news.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tour-de-france-night-time-doping-tests-done-before-the-race/

Maybe that's why AC's struggling... What are the odds that lots of riders got tested on the rest day night.

As Hatter and myself have said, Sky's tactics seem to have been to put the effort in early so that others have to make even more effort from now on.

The comment about TUEs is valid: if you are ill enough to require medical treatment then why are you racing? A bit tough if you develop something on the eve of a race but substitutions should be allowed (if they aren't already) up to the signing on point.

However, let's say withdrawal from competition from the date of the first prescription to three months after the end of treatment

So if you have Any condition that requires treatment every day, like asthma, you career is over

yesterdays stage was an obvious one for Froome. Snap the elastic on the climb. Pull away on the flatter bit where your faster than Quintana

The big problem (for me) with taking Froome seriously as a clean athlete will always be his ascent without trace at the beginning of his career, not the performances he's laying down now. To go from Chris down the pub, the skinny bloke who likes cycling, to second in the Vuelta just seems impossible without some form of assistance.

I can accept a bit of give and take with doping, though - if there's a sort of narrow window of opportunity that people are exploiting around the testing regimes then I'm not especially arsed. This must be happening - movable battlelines and all that. It would only be if Sky were up to their balls in doping and brass-necking the whole world that I'd find it outrageous.

Porte did no more than I'd expect Porte to do yesterday. He got dropped by Quintana then slowly TT'd his way back on, it's classic Porte. Thomas has been building to this position for the last 2 or 3 years, I remember when SKY initially signed him he was being spoken about as Brad's successor. He did his job on the lower slopes then sat on the wheels of a group that were trying to limit their losses. Again a great performance but not blowing the field apart.

Also I may be naive but I think doping on the level of a TdF team has to come from the top and be very structured and controlled which would mean Brailsford knowing about it and I just don't see that at all.

And just as a side note, I'm not in denial about doping at all.

I would bet my house on the fact that there are juiced riders in the tdf.

I just have no reason to suspect sky based on their performance so far.

Except that's not what happened is it. Watch the Froome docu from ITV and have a look at his palmeres, he was impressing very early on when he was turning up off his own back and he finished strongly on a few stages for Barlowworld.

If you read his biography, there's credible explanations for his improvements (basically the Vuelta was one of the few times that things all came together without him being ill/injured or crashing) but of course the problem is we've heard that before so it's hard to know how true it is.

Similarly things like his TUE for asthma that had never been mentioned until it was 'outed' via the media don't do much for credibility.

And then add in the bilharzia and while it's all circumstantial, it's not surprising that people piece it together to lead to a conclusion of doping.

I think it's more a case of pretty much every other unbelievable ride over the last 20 years has later proven to be due to doping (Vino TT, Landis solo, Armstrong, Pantani etc) combined with Sky's hiring policy, and huge transformations - why would they hire the world's leading blood doping doctor? How did Froome go from [url= http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/racing/giro-ditalia/froome-disqualified-from-giro-ditalia-60517 ]this[/url] to what happened yesterday? The whole bilharzia thing seems to be a convenient excuse for the dramatic transformation of an average rider into the world's best climber/TT.

If they were transparent and released all racing data so Ashenden and other experts can analyse it, that would go some way to helping.. and stopping with the bullsh*t claims like they've never even measured Froome's VO2 max etc

MSP - it's been shown that you can microdose and not fail tests or the bio passport

The science of the tests are pretty solid, especially for EPO, and you have to understand what the benefit of microdosing is, you don't just do it for one day, you do it for a few months so you can train harder and make the gains.

The area where the biggest current problems lie is in the testing regimes. There are rightfully big questions being asked about Kenyan and Ethiopian runners as they face no winter testing as they train on drugs, then come into race season clean.

It is fairly solid but it's not beyond challenge which casts reasonable doubt - Kreuziger for example recently. And again, it's been shown that you can work around it - even if that was for a short period - and get significant (at this level) improvements.

Yep, true enough and again to be fair to Froome, he's been one pointing out times when he hasn't been tested at exactly the times when he should be.

dirtyrider - Member

is there a live link for the video anywhere?

[url=

monkeyfudger - Member

Except that's not what happened is it. Watch the Froome docu from ITV and have a look at his palmeres, he was impressing very early on when he was turning up off his own back and he finished strongly on a few stages for Barlowworld.

Agreed, he was showing incredible promise from a very early age and doing what, in context, were seriously impressive performances riding for Kenya.

Put that together with the the long term bilharzia that was only diagnosed in 2011 and took 2 years to properly treat and you do have a rational explanation for his rise since joining Team Sky. When you combine an exceptionally gifted physique with a very disciplined, driven mind and then place both in the custody of possibly the most advanced, scientific performance programe cycling's ever seen and off you go.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't ask questions, but does mean there are justifications for a rational conclusion beyond 'they all on it'.

But he's not the best climber and tt in the world is he? If he was on his 7th Tdf win I could understand these comments but he's won one Tdf and podiumed at the vuelta. He rode like a sack of xxxx all last year. He's put in one attack on the first hill of the tour. Hes got a good palmeres but nothing more. Also sky has won 2 grand tours and messed up a vuelta for its £40m a year. Is that really a super team?

How did Froome go from this to what happened yesterday?

It sounds like he had a bad knee, did you not read the article? 😛

ye, Chris had a hard paper round but Uncle Dave saw the potential - give over mate. What those early performances showed was that Froome, with a bit of luck, might, maybe, have what it takes to be a professional cyclist on a tier 1 team (something that was in jeopardy prior to the Vuelta when Sky were thinking of cutting him) - not that he had the potential to be the best cyclist in the world.

In your opinion eh mate, which team you working for again? So Froome was talking to other teams on a contract year? ZOMG doping!

firestarter - Member

Reminded me of the landis attack from years back

I disagree with this simply because the day prior to Landis' mental victory climb he was properly broken, to then pull out the performance the following day was just ridiculous.

Froome hasn't had that turnaround at all here, in fact he's backing up what was done on the smaller climbs up the two Murs.

No offence Hatter, but that last post reads similar to the ones five/ten years ago justifying Armstrong's transformation to Tour Winner.

Froome did nothing prior to 2011, then burst onto the scene as a world beater - what are these impressive results you speak of?

Has anyone read much about GW1516? It seems relevant to mention it, especially given Basso's news yesterday.

An old link. http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/04/the-new-epo-gw1516-aicar-and-their-use-in-cycling/

Man with undiagnosed serious illness is nevertheless an excellent rider.
Man cured of serious illness turns into world-beater.
Sounds about right.

Innocent until PROVED guilty, not just suspiciion & slander.

You're right. The last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics: I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles.

Moses - Member
Man with undiagnosed serious illness is nevertheless an excellent rider.
Man cured of serious illness turns into world-beater.
Sounds about right.

You mean Lance and testicular cancer?

Are those riders the best climbers or were they?

That's what I keep coming back too - maybe we put too much emphasis on class/past performance and not enough on form. Be interesting to see how it pans out today. I don't think GT is a top climber, but yesterday he made a sustained high effort without having to push the group on. RP is a class act, and clearly in that transition from super domestique to having a go for himself. So I don't think yesterday was that surprising... 3/4 more times then hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[i] richardk - Member
The papers have given up on Froome already, he's now 'Kenyan born' or 'African' rather than British.[/i]

I've always considered Froome to be Kenya's first TdF winner. From what I've read, he's there as much as possible and I wouldn't be surprized if he stays there, once his pro career is over.
😐

Froome did nothing prior to 2011, then burst onto the scene as a world beater - what are these impressive results you speak of?

All here under the '2007-2010: Early years" section, mind how young Froome is at this point [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Froome ]Wikipedia[/url]

As I stated in my original post; this doesn't mean we should stop asking questions but the way he rode with a blood parasite was a sign of his immense potential. Once he was diagnosed and treated the 'limiter' came off.

Very different from Lance who was an established top level pro (and World Champ) before he was diagnosed though I can see how the two situations get conflated.

LS - Member

Power meters are nowhere near that inaccurate - 3% at worst, and you'd hope that Pro teams have them all calibrated properly!

tested them have you?

they're just strain gauges, results can be all over the place.

in the world of force-measuring kit, bicycle power meters are at the cheap end.

Yeah, there's nothing there - compare 26yr old Froome to 26 year old Contador

[img] [/img]

So Froome was a good rider who improved once he didn't have a blood parasite, and Contador was off his tits even then? 😉

GT was possibly under orders not to push on as it would help the other riders he was with. He went with Valverde when the latter broke from the group they were with but was happy to (perhaps could only) sit on his wheel.

well based on all this we should really piss in his shoes.

Moses - Member
Man with undiagnosed serious illness is nevertheless an excellent rider.
Man cured of serious illness turns into world-beater.
Sounds about right.

Innocent until PROVED guilty, not just suspiciion & slander.

That's funny in a thread about doping. You know Basso's a doper, yes?

It's relevant because this a drug - or perhaps a new family of drugs, I don't know - that is suggested to give huge increases in performance but causes cancer. I sincerely hope that this isn't what Basso has done.

After the Giro an anonymous pro wrote about the riders who were performing at a far higher level than expected. I can't remember whether he used the term 'two tiers' but it was certainly implied. Just like when EPO first appeared . Imo there are new drugs on the scene which we, the casual viewers,have no idea about yet. It's unlikely to be GW1516 (I hope), but it's worth reading about it.

Froome showed no potential whatsoever (he got kicked out the Giro for holding onto motorbikes), then suddenly turned into a world beater. Contador may well have been (and in all probability probably still is) doping, which leads us to how an average rider suddenly turned world class and started beating known dopers?

which leads us to how an average rider suddenly turned world class and started beating known dopers?

The Secret Pro on the Giro
http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/06/the-secret-pro-on-the-giro-there-were-days-when-youd-just-despair/

A point about Froome when he was kicked off the Giro - he was injured and his explanation for holding onto the motorbike (he was going to retire due to his knee so was getting a tow to the top of the climb where his team were) was considered reasonable at the time though as ever, who knows for sure

The same massive anti doping policy that saw them hire loads of ex dopers as staff, riders and doctors?

and fire them all.

There is nothing but smoke which is mostly been blown in from the outside, if it's going on then it goes to the top and as says brings into question every medal won and everything that was done to bring it to where it is.

Yeah but why hire them in the first place? Particularly in the case of Leinders - what could they possibly need from a doctor who ran the blood doping operation at Rabobank for over a decade?

mikewsmith - Member
and fire them all.

Did they fire them before it became public knowledge that they were involved in doping, or after? (I honestly don't know that, haven't checked.) To be fair though, I'd imagine it would be difficult to find staff, especially ex-pros, who are sqeaky clean.

Have any of the teams got a pro-doping public policy? 😉

yep fair point, but still not exactly what you call evidence.

Was reading an article which claims to be speaking to the guy who made the ventoux climb video:

He confirmed that data was available from other stages, although he was guarded about whether or not that would be made public. “Maybe. But one is enough. One is enough,” he repeated.

Why on earth would he not put the other data up?

Maybe because it would put all this stupid conjecture to bed one way or another and then no one would want to talk to him. (I suspect it would prove that he isn't on the juice, as if they loads of data to back up juicing they'd publish it, shirley?)

Looking at the vid he appears to average about 380-400Watts - which doesn't sound unreasonable to me. I've briefly looked at links, but can't work out why people are getting in a froth about it. Has anyone got a link as too why this particular wattage is suspect?

but can't work out why people are getting in a froth about it.

Looking at the vid he appears to average about 380-400Watts - which doesn't sound unreasonable to me. I've briefly looked at links, but can't work out why people are getting in a froth about it. Has anyone got a link as too why this particular wattage is suspect?

A good point. I can average those watts, Albeit for a shorter period of time...

IIRC it's because his HR response doesn't seem to match the efforts - eg he attacks and his HR doesn't move significantly as you'd typically expect. There's been speculation that this is because he has a low max HR so increasing effort doesn't raise it.

or the data has been badly spliced from some mix and match stuff to make it look like enough to get a big payout for the other training data that shows nothing.

Regarding yesterday's stage IMO

PRO

In favour of Froome, happened after a rest day, is the normal Sky plan. Attack hard on the first big day, and let the other teams try to get it back. My prediction is that you won't see a Sky rider doing anything other than cycling alongside the main five contenders

CON

Every other "astonishing" performance like that in the recent past has been fake, EPO is for any athlete with a room temperature IQ easy to get, take, and remain undetected. The rewards too great, the pressure to succeed too high. If we're serious about stopping doping then it has to be on the basis of one positive, banned forever, and take the money out of sport.

PEDs are stacked so heavily towards the athlete that I find myself believing less and less in the achievements, which saddens me way more than I should let it

or the data has been badly spliced from some mix and match stuff to make it look like enough to get a big payout for the other training data that shows nothing.

I look at data validity on a daily basis and that video could be anything - any data from any event laid over any section of video from any race.
It proves nothing, it's deliberately confrontational. Anyone remember that similar video which "proved" Cancellara was using a motor during Paris Roubaix? They'd taken camera angles and sections where he was moving his hands around on the bars a lot and put it all together to "prove" he was using hidden switches.

I never believe stuff like that unless it's categorically backed up by verifiable official documentation.

And talking of the data and why they're so protective of it - did anyone remember the trouble Lewis Hamilton got into for tweeting a pic of some F1 car data? He deleted it but it had already been grabbed by all the other teams who immediately went over it with a fine tooth comb - potentially costing them any advantage they'd gained from their tech. I imagine Sky might justifiably expect their data to be treated confidentially by staff/riders for the same reason.

I have to believe in innocent until proven guilty. If CF is doping then it must be running throughout the team and therefore Porte / Thomas etc would all be doping, as would Wiggo in his day, I don’t think it can happen in that scale and not come out eventually. There is no point speculating or insinuating, it will either all come out or it won’t. I will admire and respect their achievements up until some serious evidence suggests otherwise.

With regard to context and data, one thing that is often overlooked is the biomechanics and physics of Froome. He is a freak. He is simultaneously, lanky, wiry and muscly. He looks a bit like a stick insect on a bike and that must help him. There are other lightweight guys out there but there must be some; power / weight / leg length formula that is optimal for cycling and CF must be close to it.

It puzzled me how he looked almost broken at one point yesterday then as if by magic he was a world beater. Id like him to be clean but this argument has been happening for many years about many riders and it will no doubt continue for many years. People argued for and against Armstrong for years until the truth or at least some of it came out. We will probably never know when and if everyone is clean.

If CF is doping then it must be running throughout the team and therefore Porte / Thomas etc would all be doping, as would Wiggo in his day,

uwe-r - Member
I have to believe in innocent until proven guilty. If CF is doping then it must be running throughout the team and therefore Porte / Thomas etc would all be doping, as would Wiggo in his day, I don’t think it can happen in that scale and not come out eventually. There is no point speculating or insinuating, it will either all come out or it won’t. I will admire and respect their achievements up until some serious evidence suggests otherwise

This is the argument that allowed Armstrong et al to ruin pro-cycling for a generation. If Froome and Sky are clean then they have nothing to worry about, but these days cyclists must realise that there will be a huge amount of cynicism about their efforts.

I totally agree that cynicism is to be expected of any Tour winner for years to come but as I have said I am in the innocent until proven guilty camp.

Armstrong has left a legacy of suspicion but it is for cycling to present the negative argument (prove is too strong a word), Sky do a pretty good job of this IMO.

It puzzled me how he looked almost broken at one point yesterday then as if by magic he was a world beater

I think that's called bluffing / tactics 😉

Worked well for Lance in getting Telekom to rip themselves apart one year, same worked for Froome on Movistar yesterday... Mind you that's valid tactics and nothing to do with doping.

If Froome and Sky are clean then they have nothing to worry about

They don't seem to come across as particularly worried, but they do come across as pee'd off at the constant suspicion, I don't think that's unjustified.

ahwiles - Member
LS - Member
Power meters are nowhere near that inaccurate - 3% at worst, and you'd hope that Pro teams have them all calibrated properly!

tested them have you?

they're just strain gauges, results can be all over the place.

in the world of force-measuring kit, bicycle power meters are at the cheap end.

PMs have been around for 25+ years now across varying platforms and the tech is pretty settled.
50W out across the board? Or at 100W? At 600W? 1000W? Linear or non-linear error? There is no way on earth that any amateur, never mind big-money pros, would bother with data that was so inaccurate or imprecise.

As it happens I have tested them in a previous job, over a decade ago mind so the earliest Powertaps, Ergomos and the contemporary SRMs. They were all within 2% if I recall, although there was the obvious Ergomo design flaw.
I've ridden with a PM for nearly a decade now and have used all the popular brands bar Stages and Vector. I've always had more than one so have been able to do direct comparisons between them, and a static torque test is a piece of cake to check readings. If I can do that as an amateur I'm sure that Sky can manage it, especially when they were using SRM Science. Funnily enough my FTP across all my meters over the years has never suddenly dropped to 4th cat or leaped up to Pro with a 50W jump!

The whole bilharzia thing seems to be a convenient excuse

I've read some rubbish on this site (and this thread) but that one takes the biscuit.

From Twitter just now, relating to yesterday's climb (retweeted by [url= https://twitter.com/robhayles1 ]Rob Hayles[/url], original tweet from Jeroen Swart)

[img] [/img]

As it happens I have tested them in a previous job, over a decade ago mind so the earliest Powertaps, Ergomos and the contemporary SRMs. They were all within 2% if I recall, although there was the obvious Ergomo design flaw.

Any idea how accurate crank based ones are with regards to elliptical chain rings? I.e can they accurately catch the velocity changes precisely enough to maintain accuracy?

Sorry, no, it wasn't something we tested at the time and it's not my field anymore.

Nemesis very good tactics / skills to be able to change your skin pallor so effectively;)

I call that seeing what you expect to see. I don't reckon you can really see that on TV.

firestarter - Member
Nemesis very good tactics / skills to be able to change your skin pallor so effectively;)

So what do you think Froome took, in the middle of the stage, which isn't going to be picked up by his post-stage test?

I don't think anyone's dropping brandy and amphetamine these days

Matt

Any idea how accurate crank based ones are with regards to elliptical chain rings? I.e can they accurately catch the velocity changes precisely enough to maintain accuracy?

I am trying to sort this out in the lab at the moment but doing it in my own time. We calibrate dynamic and static torque in several of my laboratories day in day out, trying to set a rig up isn't that easy as work keeps getting in the way. Pffffft

Can all we just agree that the only way to look clean in cycling is to be a bit sh1t and not ride very well 😀

Also when doing insane thing with your body over a month of racing you end up in a world of grey at the very least.

I find it amusing that lots of posts here and on other threads are along the premise that doping happened only around LA's time. There was even a post referring to Merckx as an inspirational beacon of clean despite lots of evidence to the contrary. We have a funny way of remembering the past 😉

If we are talking about SKY then one of the most interesting things come up recently was the secret pro making references to Porte being a bit "Valverde". Nice guy but...

Another thing we can all agree is we are suckers for a bit of gossip 😆

Another thing we can all agree is we are suckers for a bit of gossip

Where did you read that? Source?

😉

Cris Boardman was clearly wrong about Power Cranks. Sorry I mentioned it

I'm going to just enjoy the Tour now. Clearly doping speculation is the ultimate key board warrior game

I of course don't know whether Sky and Froome are clean. But I'm yet to see a credible argument to say that he is not. So I'll wait until some actual evidee crops up

But what i can see is that like the moonlanding skeptics you can just pick away at odd anomalies to your hearts content. You don't need a consistent story you just keep chipping away

Your pointing at Froome comments don't have to cover whether Wiggins, Thomas, Porte, Hoy and Pendelton are all dopers as well. Because if they aren't that would acually be even more weird. The Dave Braillsford selective school of doping. If he is doping Froome but not Port he backed the wrong horse

The key board theorist doesn't have to worry that around 200 million Africans have Bilharzia (I think that's about 20% of the population)

We haven't quite had anyone say that "its suspicious that the winner was riding fastest" but its been close. Before the doping did everyone go up the climbs at the same speed?

The best laugh of all is using grand tour finishing places in years where he was a dometique to show how rubbish he was. I assume the person that hasn't watched a Grand Tour

Nice incoherent ramblings there.. I posted his stage race record simply as before 2011 he hadn't done anything else of note.

Ritchie Porte has tweeted this: [i]Best moment of my day was stopping to have a chat to a guy calling me a doper on the way way back to the bus. He shit himself #coward[/i]

On a lighter not: some interesting willy-waving between Cavendish, Kwiatkowski and Renshaw about their top speed on the descent off the Tourmalet. Renshaw won - [i]Too slow @michalkwiatek @MarkCavendish 107kmh and that was shoving a rice cake in my mouth trying to avoid the cut[/i]

Froome story now on ITV4, bit of an insight into where some of the toughness comes from....

Froome story now on ITV4, bit of an insight into where some of the toughness comes from....

I haven't watched it. Is the answer "his wife" 😆

Ritchie Porte has tweeted this: Best moment of my day was stopping to have a chat to a guy calling me a doper on the way way back to the bus. He shit himself #coward

Wow! #hero! Who runs from an exhausted jockey sized person 😆

Froome story now on ITV4, bit of an insight into where some of the toughness comes from....

Hopefully that is on +1 as still coming home from work. The cynic in me immediately thinks of strategic communications and PR.... But I am biased.

Great to read the positivity that exists behind the belief that cycling/pro sport is clean. Can't see it myself but prefer others' positive outlook to my weary resignation.

Frankly I don't GAF anymore. It's their bodies, let them take responsibility. The masses want spectacle and new records like the Romans in the Colliseum. Feed the baying masses......that's the game now. (Sad to say)

107kmh

Flipping heck. 😯

Watched the Froome doc. His elbows stick out even when he's just standing there. Clearly can't ride a bike for toffee.