doesn't detract from the enjoyment of watching the racing though
This a million percent
If they all dope or none dope or some don't it's still a great sport/event and 99% of the drama isn't with the GC boys
doesn't detract from the enjoyment of watching the racing though
unless your name is Lance. 🙄
[quote=pondo ]While we're (kind of) talking about, when teams have a train on the front, why do they keep a rider there until he's burned out, why don't they TTT it?
If you're talking about coming in to the finish then they're probably not actually doing turns any longer than they would in a TTT and it makes sense to burn them out as they won't be needed again - in such a situation it would cause a lot of confusion if you had chaps trying to circulate back in.
If you were talking about earlier in the stage then they're not doing TTT pace, and generally the guys aren't burned out by their turn on the front and come back for another go. If you're talking about the climbs then it's a lot different to a TTT as only the very strongest on the team will survive to near the end. The weaker guys will blow up even if they're sitting in the pack, so you might as well get them to do useful work as long as they can, which allows the stronger domestiques to pull a bit further up the climb than they'd have managed if they'd been on the front working earlier.
thanks to the guys who replied to my previous question.
I think Froome looked a bit vulnerable yesterday. Contador and Valverde couldn't make moves stick but eventually nibbles got one to hold and Froome looked briefly in trouble.
I'm more concerned by the way G keeps coming back, I suspect he may be microdosing, and demand his samples be checked immediately for traces of kevlar, concrete, girders and nails.
I don't think Froome looked in trouble at all yesterday and Nibali is no threat to anyone. I guarantee that if he'd been a minute behind Froome in the GC it would have been a different story but someone who is 8 and a half minutes back and has a descent to do isn't going to do that much.
doesn't detract from the enjoyment of watching the racing though
I'm envious of those of you for whom this is true. For me, unfortunately it does affect the enjoyment. The hard graft and lack of shortcuts to sporting success is what makes events like the TdF exciting for me. If you change that by providing shortcuts (ie doping - yes, I know you still have to train silly hard but it's still a shortcut), it changes the core of what the sport is.
I'm envious of those of you for whom this is true. For me, unfortunately it does affect the enjoyment.
It does and it doesn't for me.
The current race, not at all - well apart from the distraction that all this Sky conspiracy stuff is causing.
That Vuelta where Chris Horner dominated by riding up all the hills stood up was like a pantomime though and utterly ruined.
doesn't detract from the enjoyment of watching the racing though
I want to believe in my heroes. I want to know that what I'm seeing is real. Simples.
Anything less than that undermines the whole sport.
When you see crazy stuff like Horner or 50rpm attacks in the Tour of Turkey then you just have to laugh. How is that not entertainment in itself? 😆
Where we at, Froome still doping but Sagan's clean?
Nah, Froome's a Brit so he's clean. Sagan is a foreigner riding for that Oleg bloke so he's obviously on the juice.
When you see crazy stuff like Horner or 50rpm attacks in the Tour of Turkey then you just have to laugh. How is that not entertainment in itself?
Well I do love a good panto, but only at Christmas time.
If you are on this thread you find some entertainment with the doping gossip.
If you really believe the majority are now clean then I can see how the odd bit of news would disrupt your viewing. If you can take it all for what it (most likely) is then it makes watching much easier.
Pinot Power Data
If you really believe the majority are now clean
Do you really believe the [b]majority[/b] are dirty Dan W?
Awesomez, I could beat Pinot in a 30 second sprint. No wonder he's getting his arse handed to him 😉
If doping doesn't detract from your enjoyment of the sport, how would you feel if a rider won by, say, shoving another rider into a ditch? Would that spoil the race for you?
If the answer is yes, why is that different from doping? It's just gaining an advantage by breaking the rules.
If you answer no, where would you draw the line? What would someone have to do to spoil the Tour for you?
You'd (well - I'd ) just think it would be more efficient to have one bloke on the front going full chat for, say, two minutes, then rotate him out and have someone else on the front for another two minutes, etc etc. There must be a logical reason why they don't, I'm damn sure they know a lot more about it than I do.
You're assuming the other 150+ riders on other teams in the peleton will graciously move out of your way to allow you join nicely back into the rear of your own train...
[i] What would someone have to do to spoil the Tour for you?[/i]
Switch the tele off?
[s][i] What would someone have to do to spoil the Tour for you?
Switch the tele off?[/i][/s]
It's not my fault!
You're assuming the other 150+ riders on other teams in the peleton will graciously move out of your way to allow you join nicely back into the rear of your own train...
They might not, but the gentleman in yellow at the rear of the Sky train probably would.
If you're talking about coming in to the finish then they're probably not actually doing turns any longer than they would in a TTT and it makes sense to burn them out as they won't be needed again - in such a situation it would cause a lot of confusion if you had chaps trying to circulate back in.If you were talking about earlier in the stage then they're not doing TTT pace, and generally the guys aren't burned out by their turn on the front and come back for another go. If you're talking about the climbs then it's a lot different to a TTT as only the very strongest on the team will survive to near the end. The weaker guys will blow up even if they're sitting in the pack, so you might as well get them to do useful work as long as they can, which allows the stronger domestiques to pull a bit further up the climb than they'd have managed if they'd been on the front working earlier.
Thankyousir! Very interesting and entirely logical. 🙂
If doping doesn't detract from your enjoyment of the sport, how would you feel if a rider won by, say, shoving another rider into a ditch? Would that spoil the race for you?If the answer is yes, why is that different from doping? It's just gaining an advantage by breaking the rules.
If you answer no, where would you draw the line? What would someone have to do to spoil the Tour for you?
If someone gets popped then they are dealt with accordingly, just the same as if someone pushed another rider in to a ditch it would be dealt with. What we are moaning about is the *idea* that rider x, y or z may be up to shady stuff without any real knowledge. Until they are shown to have cheated in any way I'm happy to just watch the racing. The lack of knowing for sure doesn't bother me.
Pinot Power Data
It seems like a very flat profile to me. ~5w/kg at Z1 then ~6w/kg FTP (if you take 95% of the 20 minute power). Crazy ability to be able to ride at will at around 310-410W 😯
The lack of knowing for sure doesn't bother me
That's not what I'm getting at. My question is directed specifically at anyone who is happy to accept that doping is taking place (without sanction) and says it doesn't detract from their enjoyment of the sport: "I don't care if they are doping".
If you think like that, I'm asking if there is any form of cheating that would invalidate the sport for you, and if there is, why is doping a special case among the various forms of cheating?
Why should any form of cheating completely invalidate the sport? Maybe it invalidates an individuals achievement at the time but cheating happens in all walks of life and will always happen despite any checks or sanctions in place. If something was invalidated as soon as someone cheated then there wouldn't be too much left to cling on to!
Sky have released their version of the data from stage 10.
http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/07/sky-releases-chris-froomes-srm-data-from-stage-10/
Again, this is their data that they have chosen to release, so the naysayers will say it's manipulated/selective.
Interesting that Brailsford is consistently very open and clear on record about being clean (maybe it's the media focus but seem to rarely hear this from other teams). Either he's telling the truth, is VERY confident of never getting caught, or just plain brazen.
And as expected it's done nothing to help their case. The doubters are quoting that CF was riding faster than others at lower W/Kg figures (Yates, Gesink, etc). Then questioning the 6% correction figure sky are using for the oval rings and so on.
It's just silly. There are numbers all over the place, estimates of weight that make a massive difference and assumptions on relative performances.
If you've ever tried to argue with a proper conspiracy theorist you'll realise it's utterly pointless. There is always a "but that's what they want you to think" kind of excuse.
I think that's what they're dealing with here in some of the online naysayers.
Would anyone on this thread be brave enough to admit that they've changed their mind though?
In which way?
As I've said before some of the numbers, results, tactics and similarities to past circumstances do concern me but I'm offsetting that with Sky and others saying and to some extent doing the right things to show they're clean.
That said, Sky haven't helped their cause by making big pronouncements in the past (we'll only use British doctors, free of doping taint, etc) and then not sticking to them or being evasive/conflicting (Tramadol, ketones)
(apologies if already posted)
I know that there are accusations that Walsh has "gone native" but this is an interesting excerpt from an interview with him by the BBC
David Walsh - Sunday Times chief sports writer
"I've also spent a lot of time looking at the people around Chris Froome, looking at what's going on in Team Sky. We're now three years into the Froome story. At the three-year point into my investigation into Lance Armstrong I had six people in his team who told me he doped.
"I haven't had one person, who works with Sky now or who was sacked by Sky, who has given me anything to go on or investigate. In fairness to Chris Froome my conclusion has to be that I've seen nothing that indicates he dopes and I'm inclined to believe him when he says he doesn't. It doesn't mean I know, but I certainly believe his claims."
It's nuts, isn't it, really - a physiologist goes on telly in France and claims he's worked out Froome was banging out over 7 watts per kilo, Sky release data which shows he WASN'T banging out over 7 watts a kilo, and FB is alive with doubters saying "Sky haven't done enough, they need to prove more". What about the tin-hat wearing feller who reckons he can work out power figures from watching television? He hasn't proved jack shit - he should never work in the sport or media again for making career-threatening claims like that. In contrast, this is the clincher for me, from David Walsh -
"I've also spent a lot of time looking at the people around Chris Froome, looking at what's going on in Team Sky. We're now three years into the Froome story. At the three-year point into my investigation into Lance Armstrong I had six people in his team who told me he doped. I haven't had one person, who works with Sky now or who was sacked by Sky, who has given me anything to go on or investigate. In fairness to Chris Froome my conclusion has to be that I've seen nothing that indicates he dopes and I'm inclined to believe him when he says he doesn't. It doesn't mean I know, but I certainly believe his claims."
Sky's figures indicate fairly conclusively for me that Froome is performing at an entirely realistically high level, and no-one around him is muttering to journos that anything's amiss. It's not scientific proof, but it's a load closer to scientific proof than anything Sallet's spewed out.
Edit - ah, beaten to the Walsh quote. 🙂 I think the argument he's Sky's man only works if you think he would actively ignore or overlook evidence of doping, and I have sufficient respect for him that it's not the case.
Sky release data which shows he WASN'T banging out over 7 watts a kilo
But that's the thing. They haven't. It's a question of trust, isn't it? Exactly as it was before the data was released. If this was Lance, they'd have just released adjusted figures to show whatever they wanted. To be clear, I'm not saying that's what Sky have done but what would have stopped them doing so? As such, it [u]proves[/u] nothing.
Well ....I belive Froome is clean!!....there I've said it!!
Th bloke has a weird riding style .....so to ride like he does is weird too...super human even.... Doesn't mean he is a cheat.......
It's just sour grapes coz the Brits are winning...FROOME!!!!
Aaa, ok. Well, if we think they're just telling lies, the whole exercise is pointless. Other than saying what the figures are, what can they do? If they hung you from a helicopter so you could look over his shoulder at the figures on his computer as he rides, there's no way of proving that they haven't been skewed, shirley.
Ever watch Michael Johnson running? Most ungainly style ever, but it certainly worked for him.
Doesn't have any impact on if he was clean or not, though. (FWIW, I think he was. )
But you can't PROOVE an absence of drugs, short of sticking a GoPro on Froome for every minute of the Tour and taking blood out of him every 10 minutes.
At the end of the day, Froome has cycled for over 2 weeks and managed to cover the a couple of thousand of km in 3 minutes less than anyone else in the race. If he is the only doper in the field, those drugs ain't working terribly well are they!
So you either accept the simplistic perspective - he's as clean as anyone else in the race, just a bit better, or you continue with paranoia.
One is easier for me to accept than the other!
@CaptainFlashhear - or Paula Radcliffe.
Froome COULD be being dragged along by the force field of an invisible alien spaceship, Sky haven't produced any data to disprove it.
As such, it proves nothing.
You need to accept that you can't have proof.
I have no problem with that. I just thought it utterly pointless Sky releasing the data to the press. If there was some form of 'power passport' that could be shown to be robust and managed independently (sealed power units given to riders before the stage and collected on the finish line) then yes, it's useful, otherwise, it leads to the same conjecture as before just with a veneer of it being valid because you're talking about 'facts' (ie numbers) rather than ideas regardless of the reality that it's largely meaningless.
If there was some form of 'power passport' that could be shown to be robust and managed independently (sealed power units given to riders before the stage and collected on the finish line)
They already have that:
[img] 
[/img]
That's exactly what these things are; they are currently only used as GPS transponders but given that all power meters communicate via eithe ANT+ or bluetooth, the ability to capture that data (and transmit it live) is on the bikes right now.
There are a couple of snags. Osymetric chain rings act a little bit like a foreign currency where the exchange rate is not 1:1 (so 1 watt measured on non round chain rings does not equal 1 watt as measured on round ones). The other is that you need to zero the unit each time you use it. So for example I use a Stages power meter. If I don't do a zero offset calibration at the start of every ride I get the kind of power readings that would suggest I'm a first cat rather than a borderline third cat.
Absolutely but it's not being done, is it? FWIW, it doesn't particularly need to be done live. They'd also need to be on the same system across the board.
And as you've pointed out, there are calibration issues that would need to be worked out. I suppose that could be part of the sign on process though at races.
As the title of this thread is "Le Tour doping/speculation/rumour/conjecture thread" I'll throw one out there.
TVG, bad blood bag. Rest day transfusion, not taken well, means low red cell count and generally feeling rubbish with no energy. Based on nothing more than him dropping out combined with his association with Lance.
Ooh! Good conspiracy theory! 🙂
BMC - run by Jim Ochowicz who may or may not have known all about USPS's doping regime.
Absolutely but it's not being done, is it?
No, quite, it's not. But you know what, before we even get there, the sport could make a really big advancement in ethics by, you know, just enforcing the rules as they are now.
Why is Astana still competing in the world tour series? Five riders have tested positive for doping and they still haven't had their license revoked.
And then their knut of a DS, Alexander Vinaknutof a convicted drug cheat himself, then goes on record to say that if Nibali doesn't pull his finger and get results he'll fire him, whether he has a year left on his contract or not.
I guess we shouldn't be surprised that known cheat would basically light the blue touch paper of the rocket that is the principle motivation to cheat but we could at least ban his team from racing.
No-one else in his team seem affected either so it MUST be something only he took/ate. Quick flight over the Spanish border, dodgy transfusion, flight back, sorted. The 90's are back.
[img] 
[/img]
Well I think Astana still competing, abhorrent as it is, is good news in the sense that the sport is actually following proper processes. Admittedly I reckon those processes/rules need to be changed to allow the likes of Astana to be chucked out much more easily (it's not 5 cases for the Astana Pro Tour team as you probably know even though really it should be considered that way) but it's still a positive change that the governing body is actually following its own rules and is surely a basis for a more ethical sport in the longer term?
I just thought it utterly pointless Sky releasing the data to the press.
I don't think there was much else they could do - you had tin foil hat physiologist saying on TV that he's watched the stage with a pen and paper and worked out that Froome was producing EPO-tainted levels of power, their choices were to either continue the denials or try and do something about it. "Over 7w/kg, you say? Actually it was 5.78 - thanks for coming, good night". What else could they do?
Admittedly I reckon those processes/rules need to be changed to allow the likes of Astana to be chucked out much more easily (it's not 5 cases for the Astana Pro Tour team as you probably know even though really it should be considered that way) but it's still a positive change that the governing body is actually following its own rules and is surely a basis for a more ethical sport in the longer term?
Yeah, I agree with that. And as much as people have raised about Sky's use of TUEs, every step of it has been done within the bounds of the rules. Sure, get rid of TUEs and stop it from happening, but don't critical of Sky for using them if it's legal.
You may be right on the power data - I suppose it will win some over.
But I disagree slightly on the other point - Sky have said they'd be clean in word and deed and suggested that they'll be whiter than white. For me at least, Tramadol and potential abuse (but within the rules) of TUEs isn't keeping to that.
I guess the problem is, if everyone else is using "finishing bottles" with Tramadol in them do you say "It's legal so lets go" or "Lets hand the competition an advantage" ?
If you've said you're going to be whiter than white you don't.
Or you do but you make clear you are because that's transparency.
Sky undermine themselves by not being transparent even when they don't really have something to hide.
If you've said you're going to be whiter than white you don't.
There's no blot on their copybook, the TUE thing was entirely within bounds.
Lunge - that is a fantastic theory. Got to hope it isn't true though
Not if it's being abused - eg compliant doctor prescribing a drug for reasons that aren't genuine so that they can get a TUE for it and a legal benefit.
Besides tramadol wasn't TUE, it's just not on the list of banned substances even though many would suggest it's an omission by circumstance rather than deliberate
In both those cases, you're making an assumption without evidence that the intention is nefarious and in neither case has any rule been broken. The automatic assumption that something nasty is at work is Armstrong's legacy, it's sickening really. 🙁
heh, glad I wasn't the only one who thought TVG was suffering from a dodgy bag.
Well, tramadol wasn't being used for theraputic use - it was a finishing aid - I don't think there's been a claim by Sky that it was used for a headache or similar. For me, that's not whiter than whiter and their handling of the questions about it was anything but transparent.
Regarding the TUEs, I'm not saying that doctors prescribing for fake reasons IS definitely happening, I'm saying that Sky originally claimed that they would withdraw riders if a TUE was necessary. Then they've got Froome on an inhaler which he never mentioned previously and a steroid in order to finish a race.
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/sky-uci-scrutiny-chris-froomes-steroid-tue-127529
What has happened to the team’s belief that TUEs should not be sought for riders in competition?” David Walsh wrote in the Sunday Times newspaper. “Team Sky like to portray themselves as the most ethical team in the peloton. The evidence says otherwise.”Sky’s general manager, David Brailsford said last Sunday, “we’ve always stayed within the rules, so we’ve got nothing to hide.”
It's certainly the legacy of the Armstrong era (to be fair, not just Lance) but then we probably should be sceptical to some degree when the likes of Astana, etc continue to race. Similarly, if Sky are going to make the claims they did then we should subject them to scrutiny.
And your next bit of mindless speculation, Geraint Thomas is a genetic experiment by British Cycling to make the perfect bike rider, one with great aerobic capacity, hard as nails and and excellent endurance to all combined with a strong anaerobic system, they almost succeeded but failed to remove the crashing gene.
Adam Blythe came out of the same experiment but came out lacking the required mental toughness to be as good as he should be, see also Josh Edmundson.
LOL.
It's not speculation, it's comment on the situation and Sky's handling of it. As I've said, I struggle to believe that they're cheating but there are certainly enough things out there that concern me from a logical and factual perspective.
Just getting back to this after watching the Tour today - I see the physiologist feller has been quoted thus;
Sallet said: "I'd be happy if he is unique but we need more information."
The head of Athletes for Transparency, a not for profit anti-doping agency, told BBC Radio 5 live: "I don't say Froome is a doping athlete. If we have more detail, we can easily say it is a unique profile or doping,
"It could be a unique profile, classical doping - using haematological drugs, like EPO - or mechanical doping which is using a motor in your bike. People need to know."
And Sallet pointed out that he was only focusing on Froome because he is in the yellow jersey.
"If the yellow jersey was a French athlete, we would put in the same energy," he said. "It's not against Froome. We want to understand."
I think and accept there must be a lot of context missing from that quote, in terms of whatever calculations he's used to arrive at his conclusion, but two things;
1 - If he wants more information from Sky to prove Froome's innocence, he needs to say what info would convince him - at the same time he must accept that, by insinuating Sky's data does not sufficiently prove the normality of Froome's performance, his own figures can equally be disregarded as lacking a sufficient degree of proven detail to prove his argument.
2 - More broadly, is it to be understood that, by definition, the person in the yellow jersey is displaying a superior athletic ability to their competitors and must therefore prove they're not doping and don't have an engine in their bike? Because that way madness lies. Froome's performances have been superior but they have NOT been dominating. How come Quintana's not been getting piss flung in his face? He ain't that far off the pace, he MUST be doping (or have a motor in his bike), right?
"If the yellow jersey was a French athlete, we would put in the same energy," he said. "It's not against Froome. We want to understand."
What utter tosh, I've just done a quick Google search of "Sallet Nibalie", "Sallet Contador", "Sallet Quintana" and "Sallet Astana" and funnily enough there's no results. Pretty sure Nibali was in yellow last year for a couple of days....... Yes none of them are French, but when was the last time a Frenchman was in yellow.
Sky are damned if they do and damned if they don't, considering that their relative equanimity in the matter is quite impressive!
There's an issue with Sky and it's not just they're a bit hypocritical. Something about Team Sky, be it the sponsor, the coming in and changing the way things are done has rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way. I think there's a good point in the INRNG article today about how so many journos bought the whole Lance era doping completely that they and the new breed are overly keen to prove they're cynical and chasing what they think of as dopers whether they have any evidence or not.
lunge - MemberAnd your next bit of mindless speculation, Geraint Thomas is a genetic experiment by British Cycling to make the perfect bike rider, one with great aerobic capacity, hard as nails and and excellent endurance to all combined with a strong anaerobic system, they almost succeeded but failed to remove the crashing gene.
So they've created the perfect mtber??
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02xq0nw ]Five Live Interview with French physiologist[/url]
This is really interesting. The scientist does actually come off well and it's apparent that there is an apples and oranges issue here. He, the French physiologist, is saying that Froome's power to weight of 7 watts/kg is based on maximal aerobic power whereas Sky's figure of 5.8 watts/kg is based on average power (up the climb where Froome gaped his rivals).
The French physiologist is saying that his figure for maximal aerobic power is indeed estimated, but the data that Sky have released is consistent with that figure (i.e. if you can average 414watts up that climb then the figure of around 470-490 watts maximal aerobic power is consistent with that).
Interestingly this guy says he is in complete agreement with the numbers that Sky have released.
Re welsh cyclist genetic experiments you might have a point there given Becky James & George North and Luke Rowe & Dani King
Luke Rowe & Dani King
Don't tell Luke's brother and Dani's boyfriend, Matt Rowe, that Dani's being bred with Luke... 😉
Jess Varnish and Liam Phillips, not Welsh but imagine the sprint potential their offspring could have. I believe Lizzie Armitstead and Philip Deignan are also dating, more good genes there.
It like the Soviet Union again (allegedly...).
Not to mention Laura Trott and Jason Kenny...
That's all taking marginal gains to a whole new level. Talk about British Cycling playing the long game!
Read the excellent Faster - genes are where the new gains are at...
at least with the GT genes there is some media friendly/savvy included.
anyone backing froome for sports personality of the year popularity vote?
Ross Tucker tweeted
Post doping ban, Valverde's best ever #tdf15 at front of the race inspires almost as much confidence as Gatlin at the front of the 100m/200m
NIbali said
I had never seen Alejandro Valverde in such form, he is stronger than ever.”
Is it any coincidence that that old guard have rediscovered their form once it became clear that nighttime testing couldn't be carried out in France?
Seeing Valverde up there doesn't bother me that much. The "big names" haven't been firing on all cylinders this year. Nibali had a tantrum early on, Froome has just nipped a few seconds consistently early on, TvG has abandoned, Quintana lost time early on and Contador is clealry tired post-Giro. Valverde has just managed to be there or thereabouts consistently rather than set the world alight. If you look at the group he finished with today for example you can say he's climbing pretty ok but nothing crazyily amazing. Gee is a cracking rider but when you think he has been up at the top of the GC until very recently it tells you more about the other big names failings than someone like Valverde's "superhuman" ability IMO
Astana rider knocking a well known Spanish athlete 😉
Nemisis...doh