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 - Memberis there a live link for the video anywhere?
[url=
Aye, 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.monkeyfudger - MemberExcept 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 - MemberReminded 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 - MemberPower 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?
First thing I'd do is join the one team who had a massive anti doping policy. I'd certainly not go anywhere near the ones that have a massive pharmacy sign outside.
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.
Cyclist is a success therefore must be doping
I'm not sure what is worse knowing you are spending your time doping & lying about it or being accused with no way to prove your innocence.
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.
