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,
Lol it was a brief and angry conversation with Richie on that subject... think they are ready to punch the next idiot that asks..
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.
Its the infallibility of Froome (for example, Nibbles last year) No down days, not going bang on one of the big climbs. That's the bit I find incredible.
There has been one big climb where he's shown his hand, and two days in the mountains... 😕
wheres the highlights for tonight on the itv player. I missed them live at 7, theyre usually on the player by 10. No sign of them yet 🙁
Sky performance is certainly well up there but they have been quite active in looking for alternative training and psychology methods that could make a difference across the entire team. Froome appears to have a different physiology and it will be interesting to see how strongly Sky team support his commitment to independent testing more widely in the team.
But at the same stage what seems to have been missed from much scrutiny is that Nibali's and Contador's performance drops markedly when overnight testing starts; both of whom have a lot more tangible doping related questions previously. Quintana was a bit more knackered by the final climb from the efforts Movistar were putting in pre-climb. Naively I believe he is clean too.
Porte looked burst in the hills today which points more to a real rather than chemical effort. Or clever cover story, as an option for the cynics.
Its the infallibility of Froome (for example, Nibbles last year) No down days, not going bang on one of the big climbs. That's the bit I find incredible.
Quoted for OMG'z.
You miss my point, Nibali didn't go bang last year. Like Froome won't this year that's what I find incredible, total dominance whomever that may be. The best man, if your that way inclined or the best 'prepared'
Nibali had a lucky year last year his main rivals crashed out and he was able to control the mountain stages at his pace.
Froom hasn't "gone bang" this year YET, they have only ridden two mountain stages. He did on his last victory and got punished for Porte going back and getting him a gel.
Froome has also been lucky and it is very early days. His main competition is a sick and over tired Contador, out of form and out of favour with his team Nibali, Quintana who won't ever worry anyone outside the climbs and TvG, the only man who believes TvG is a Grand Tour contender. To win a Grand Tour you kind of need the stars to align and so far things have been going in Froome's favour.
Sky performance is certainly well up there but they have been quite active in looking for alternative training and psychology methods that could make a difference across the entire team.
The approach is reminiscent of other historically successful GT riders ( 😉 ) in that you take a strong rider and put them through extreme weight loss. How the weight loss is acheived, how they maintain power and if the power element of the equation receives any help would be the questions. I feel this approach is doable at the whiter shades of grey that exist in the peleton but who knows
And so it continues...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-faces-scrutiny-for-employing-former-us-postal-soigneur
...only posting as my real interest in the doping stuff (as a Media Studies teacher) is in the feeding frenzy around the TdF - no interest in condemning Froome or anyone else.
FWIW, I would like to believe that Sky are clean and until clear evidence arrives have to assume they are working within the rules (whether or not that makes them truly clean is another question...).
[quote=joeydeacon ]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.
You could of course look at the suspicions of doping the other way. Maybe they were doping when they were the best climbers in the world, and the testing regime is now getting too tight for them to do as much...
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
I think it does them no justice to imply they're simple domestiques - Richie's off to lead a pro tour team next year and G's unique breadth of talent is well reported, he's great if not outstanding at everything. In contrast, the Movi guys were on the gas all day, Bertie was fairly busy in Italy earlier in the year and Nibbles - well, Nibbles rides for Astana, make your own conclusions.
...until clear evidence arrives ...
What would you find acceptable?
pondo - Member
...until clear evidence arrives ...What would you find acceptable?
Lets start with a failed test (Even the masked man LA failed tests - and the likes of Merckx)
After that maybe somebody coming forward to say they have seen stuff thats breaking the rules.
You know evidence.
Lets start with a failed test (Even the masked man LA failed tests - and the likes of Merckx)
After that maybe somebody coming forward to say they have seen stuff thats breaking the rules.
You know evidence.
Yeah, I get that - the post I quoted was on about "clear evidence of no foul play", would love to know what would constitute clear evidence of that. Sorry, I could have made that much clearer.
Impossible to prove, proving a negative doesn't work - you could shadow the riders 24/7 and make them sit naked the entire time and people would either suggest you are in on it or that they got doped via special rays beamed through the window.
You know that, I know that... It's why I asked the question in the first place.
you could shadow the riders 24/7 and make them sit naked the entire time and people would either suggest you are in on it or that they got doped via special rays beamed through the window.
This is it, exactly. After umpteen years of doping, we've all become sensitised to the fact that if someone does something a bit special, then they *must* be doping, because everyone who did something good in the past was. And if they aren't then they've invented some new doping system so really they are, it just isn't known about yet.
I realise that there's a lot of trust to be won back, maybe it will take ten years of clean as CB suggested (and every fail in the meantime resets the clock again) but as supporters of the sport i think we've got to lead the way in that. If Froome says he's clean, and in the absence of anything to say otherwise other than the fact he's the best rider by a mile, I'm happy to say he's clean. And if subsequently I'm wrong and he, Wiggins, Brailsford, Hoy, Pendleton, Peters, Thomas, Cavendish, Sutton, etc. are all implicated I'll be handing up the nails for their crucifixions; it'll make US Postal look amateur.
What gets me is I'm incredibly frustrated by all the 'yeah but, it's all drugs again' on here; I'm frustrated that i can't talk to non-cycling mates or colleagues without it being 'yeah, but drugs'; and it's only a hobby to me. If you're Froome, or G, or Richie Porte, and you KNOW you're clean, just that you've prepared incredibly well (and I mean in the proper sense of prepared) and now all those months and years of prep are coming to fruit - I'm surprised a few journalists haven't been ejected through press conference windows already.
He's already pretty well said that once the tour's over he's going to tell us all what the secret is. He can't in advance as that'll tell us all where he's weak and how to beat him. I can't see at this stage what else he can or needs to do?
It used to be the rational, open-minded fans who were cynical about doping, with those on the other side basing their denials on more of an emotional response.
Can't help feeling it's switched around now. There seems to be a huge subtext of "they broke my heart and I can never trust them again, the bastards".
Thoughts?
[b]Cha****ng [/b] Disagree
Some of the same things we heard being trotted out by the doping-deniers, when everyone with any sense knew LA was doping (eg after the Simeoni affair), are being said again here on this thread.
I'd argue that it is more that we know now
1) how rife doping has been
2) how many tarnished support staff are still involved
3) how suspicious some performances are
4) how almost impossible it is to catch people on PEDs
This means that it is rational to suspect doping, and the emotional response is clinging on to an unrealistic belief in the goodness of heroes to make blanket insistances that it [i]cannot [/i]be happening in Sky.
Wish it were different. One day we will know.
