Tomorrow's l'Equipe headline;
Quintana rode up a hill quickly. He MUST be doping. Come on, look at it, he must be.Oh and a French guy won, so we're awesome wooyay!
Then again, perhaps not....
FFS. Where's the hate for Quintana? Fastest climber on the Tour, team employs a convicted doper too. The "fans" we're dickheads today.
So... trivia time (of the stirring variety) 😀
How many multiple Grand Tours winners are there out there who haven't been found to be a little naughty during their careers?
Hinault
Lemond
Indurain (jurys out)
Roche (not "guilty" but strongly implicated outside statue of limitations)
The guys pre anti doping control didn't break any rules but were not "clean"
Nibali TBC
Froome TBC
... not a big list!
Weird, where's the calls for Quintana's power data? I mean, it's important that Movistar are transparent isn't it? They employ a convicted (unrepentant) ex-doper after all. Why've we not seen a hundred posts frothing about Quintana's obvious doping, he rode away from the entire field and was the fastest climber of the Tour, that's all we need to be positive about someone doping ain't it...
How many multiple Grand Tours winners are there out there who haven't been found to be a little naughty[b] during their careers?[/b]
Lance Armstrong
How many multiple Grand Tours winners are there out there who haven't been found to be [b]a little[/b] naughty during their careers?
Lance Armstrong
Lots of folks saying Froome is dirty but didn't Quintana so very nearly beat him....
Double standards much?...
Hinault
Lemond
Indurain (jurys out)
Roche (not "guilty" but strongly implicated outside statue of limitations)
The guys pre anti doping control didn't break any rules but were not "clean"
Nibali TBC
Froome TBC
This is so depressing. It's not 'TBC'. It's proven guilty, or innocent.
Anybody listening to R4 this morning?
Discussions about the recent doping allegations at 8 o'clock and Cookson dragged out to defend... 😯
Indurain (jurys out)
I think it's pretty much accepted. Seeing a 'fat boy' sprinting up hill is pretty much all the proof you really need. However there is a radio or TV recording of an interview where Mig is warned that he'll be asked about doping and advised that silence would be taken as tacit admittance and during the interview itself.... silence.
I cant understand why people are going after Froome on this, other than people not liking him personally or because he is english?
Not only has he passed all the tests but the way he has ridden in this TDF has shown nothing superhuman, if anything it has shown he is not as strong as Quintana etc but had a better team and better tactics?
That's come later though. At the start he did appear to be a level higher than anyone else with his early time gains. People felt that was going to continue through the race and had killed it off.
Of course, we saw that he progressively dropped down to and below the level of Quintana eventually but by then the 'narrative' in the media was out there and facts weren't going to change that...
Besides, most people in France don't feel like that - I've asked the question to people in France and particularly after the Alpe stage, people generally seem a lot more positive and the French people I've spoken to generally seem rather embarrassed about all the booing let alone the piss throwing... A bit like we'd feel about British football 'fans' I guess.
There have been "incidents" on the tdf for years, tacks on the road, Eddy Merckx was badly hurt after being punched in the back by a spectator, Froome isn't even the first rider to have piss thrown at him. I saw two incidents against Quintana on the way up AdH.
Some riders have been liked, others not so. This isn't new or anti-british as some sectors of the british media are trying to play it, and many of you are lapping up.
Of course, we saw that he progressively dropped down to and below the level of Quintana eventually but by then the 'narrative' in the media was out there and facts weren't going to change that...
Funniest thing I heard was the suggestion that Froome and Sky were on a go slow the last few stages to try and quieten the speculation!
On the subject of speculation, the rise of Griepel to Tour sprint domination in the twilight of his career doesn't seem to be getting much comment. Maybe I've just missed it all. I guess you could argue that the rest of the sprinters were somehow misfiring, and Griepel did seem to have the best functioning train, and he'd probably have a long list of second places had Kittel been racing, etc.
Can't seem to find it now but saw an article earlier today showing relative performance of the sprinters. The suggestion was that Greipel has largely stayed the same while Cav has dropped to his level. Kittel seemed to be the one on the upwards path (until this season)
EDIT - found it
http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2015/07/26/cavendish-kittel-or-greipel-who-is-the-fastest-man-in-the-peloton/
[img] 
[/img]
Froome started well and faded (slightly) at the end of three weeks.
Quintana kept his level the whole way through and became stronger towards the end.
Obviously there are different forms of doping but in the days of EPO, Quintana's steady performance would have raised more eyebrows than Froome? It'd be interesting to see the power data and see the trends over the three weeks.
Double post
It'd be interesting to see the power data and see the trends over the three weeks.
We're all different obviously, but I couldn't think of anything more boring.
Apart from one of Froome's post race interviews maybe.
My intuition is that none of the main GC players looked like they were "on another planet" and that's enough for me.
So have any of the cynics changed their minds now? Out of interest.
Right, to try and help all of you who can't understand why some people don't like Froome and why they question him.
1. He showed no real promise until the veulta in '11 when he got selected only because someone else dropped out of the squad (Froome was coming to the end of contract and was going to be let go) then, boom, he's 2nd and could even have won if 'let off the leash' earlier. So zero to hero. Under contract renewal... Now, we've seen this before....
2. Balharzia, a weird blood disease that nobody has ever heard of before (and I can't even spell, 😉 ) that's supposed to explain it all away. But would just so happen to explain away any blood irregularities, my, how convenient. And it wasn't discovered by doctors as such, it took Froome to request a test for it....
3. He's put in some serious 'out there' performances reminiscent of some of the good old days (i.e. doped rider days) that have had some people say are impossible clean (hence the alien w/kg claims). Seeing sky ride tempo all day at the front of a mountain stage, having domestiques beating the other teams best climbers of the day before Froome attacks off the front and everybody else is either 'tired' or having a bad day. Yet his official w/kg is less than people he beat by over a minute... ETA: by his own admission he's beaten Armstrongs best time on the Madone.... 😯
4. He looks god awful on a bike. Yet he's supposed to be the most efficient?
For some of us it just doesn't add up, and using Occam's razor, the simplest answer is? He must be doping. It's been the answer virtually every time before, what has changed to make it untrue this time?
PS he's not even English.
5. I just don't like the guy. It's irrational and has no basis but I just dislike him.
Now just accept some people don't like your guy (the same way you probably dislike 'dirty' Bertie, etc) and not get butt hurt about it.
So have any of the cynics changed their minds now? Out of interest.
Err, no. I mean where's your [i]proo[/i]f.... 😉
If you don't believe the cycling is clean now mantra then you [i]expect[/i] other riders to be doping too, no?
Balharzia, a weird blood disease that nobody has ever heard of before
Or one of the most common parasitic diseases on the planet depending on your level of ignorance.
Or one of the most common parasitic diseases on the planet depending on your level of ignorance.
And yet soooo common that it went totally undetected for a couple of years (apparently) by sky's doctors and the UCI blood passport. Looks like I'm in good company... 😀
If you don't believe the cycling is clean now mantra then you expect other riders to be doping too, no?
Not sure what you are asking. That's not my mantra. Cycling is [i]cleaner[/i] though - almost everyone agrees.
I expect some riders are doping, absolutely without a shred of doubt. It's established fact. Froome and Sky are not on my list of suspects though.
There is some kind of doping in most professional sport, cycling has been at the forefront of it, and Lance A is the most infamous sports doper in history.
The main reason people find it hard to trust cycling now is the governing bodies swore to clear it up in the 2000s, but didn't, infact the doping accelerated.
I.e. the governing body, along with the teams, was corrupt.
In Sky I think we have a team which is not corrupt. I'm still not sure about the governing body.
But overall I think cycling is now finally on the right path re doping - which is not something I would say about most professional sports at this moment in time.
@chaka: what I mean is if one is cynical then you'd be [i]looking[/i] for other dopers (confirmation bias). So seeing someone else ride better doesn't mean the other guy is clean.... just that he got his *preparation* wrong 😀
I wasn't implying you specifically.
metalheart - MemberOr one of the most common parasitic diseases on the planet depending on your level of ignorance.And yet soooo common that it went totally undetected for a couple of years (apparently) by sky's doctors and the UCI blood passport. Looks like I'm in good company
Blood borne parasitic diseases are amongst the most difficult to diagnose and detect, both because of their complexity and the fact that being primarily found in "developing nations" there's not too much research done into their detection &/or management
Look guys I'm impressed at everyone's in depth knowledge of third world parasitic diseases but the point is that it has been viewed as a convenient excuse for doping. You can choose to dismiss this or you can entertain it as a possibility.
This is the doping thread after all, not the myriad of sky fanboys ones.... :-p
Look guys I'm impressed at everyone's in depth knowledge of third world parasitic diseases but the point is that it has been viewed as a convenient excuse for doping. You can choose to dismiss this or you can entertain it as a possibility.
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. Froome hasn't 'used' his Bilharzia to explain biological passport irregularities. SOME people have suggested that his improvement in results from 2011 to 2012 could be explained by the treatment and subsequent absence of a parasitic illness sapping a few watts which seems reasonable to me.
Bilharzia is very common, to the extent that many schools in the more Westernised parts of Africa (E.g. Egypt) have treatment for all children. It's endemic in the same way Chicken Pox is in the UK. Now, I doubt that Froomey spent his childhood swimming naked in dirty dams like the average African but for someone who grew up in Africa it's a common occurrence to pick it up. It can make people very ill, so it's no surprise that a lesser form of the illness could reduce one's power output.
Anyway, I think you said it best here:
I just don't like the guy. It's irrational and has no basis but I just dislike him.
FYI people dislike Bertie, Astana, Valverde etc because of their association with doping, not because of some inherent dislike of their personality which I personally find a bit weird.
FYI people dislike Bertie, Astana, Valverde etc because of their association with doping, not because of some inherent dislike of their personality which I personally find a bit weird.
Perhaps some of us might just be ahead of you on the curve, you thought of that?
And I put in the bit about disliking him as a declaration of vested interest so to speak, just so you guys knew. I'm sorry, but it human nature I guess. Some people you like, some you don't. Who knows, if I actually met him I might change my mind. that's never going to happen though is it... For the record, I'm no fan of Tom Cruise either, go figure 😀
I think this thread goes to show that it's a lot harder to prove that you're clean and to change people's opinions in the absence of that proof, than to prove that you're not clean.
what is really sad though is that people think that any outstanding performance must be questioned even when there is no shred of evidence against the rider, his team or his associates.
Perhaps some of us might just be ahead of you on the curve, you thought of that?
your arguments might be weak, but you have tenacity which is admirable and the benefit of being able to ride on the wave of doubt that surrounds professional cycling.
This [url= http://rouleur.cc/journal/riders/laurens-ten-dam ]Rouleur[/url] piece about Ten Dam is quite interesting. Had a journalist follow him for a year. Gave all available data to an independent expert who still couldn't say for sure if he was or wasn't doping.
There now follows a link to a summary of the tour according to Antoine Vayer.
[url= http://mobile.lemonde.fr/tour-de-france/article/2015/07/27/le-moteur-du-maillot-jaune-bride-apres-les-pyrenees_4700455_1616918.html ]http://mobile.lemonde.fr/tour-de-france/article/2015/07/27/le-moteur-du-maillot-jaune-bride-apres-les-pyrenees_4700455_1616918.html[/url]
I feel sullied by linking to this hypocrite, but it does site how some corners of the French press have no qualms when it comes to stirring shit about non French riders. Vayer himself doesn't exactly hide his anglophobie either.
[quote=mrblobby ]Funniest thing I heard was the suggestion that Froome and Sky were on a go slow the last few stages to try and quieten the speculation!
My post here? http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/tdf-final-day-etiquette-tradition/page/2#post-7066795 I'm impressed at how seriously people have taken it 😉
[quote=badnewz ]Lance A is the most infamous sports doper in history.
I know of a Canadian bloke called Ben who might dispute that.
I'm impressed at how seriously people have taken it
Haha, no, don't flatter yourself 😉 Wasn't on here.
your arguments might be weak
Unlike the one the other day (on he Froome thread I think) which *explained* that Froomes low max HR was due to him being [i]born at altitude[/i].... Absolute genius, damn my parents for being at sea level...
By the way, what's [i]your[/i] explanation for Froomes transformation?
This is so depressing. It's not 'TBC'. It's proven guilty, or innocent.
Not depressing at all. Lots of people have said here that they aren't fussed on who is more shady than who they just enjoy a bit of gossip 😀 It was also a bit of a tongue in cheek reference to history showing we typically enjoy a GT for 10-15 years then get bad news. Also, as SKY are doing a great job of showing (and as mentioned for ten Dam) it is almost impossible to prove yourself innocent.
Froome, Hinault, Lemond, Nibali - The only multiple GT winners to be "clean" vs 49 doping their way to these multiple GT wins... are Nibali and Froome part of the majority or minority? Can't say I'm bothered either way but it is a curious thing to think about
By the way, what's your explanation for Froomes transformation?
I'm confused why it desperately needs an explanation? It could be as simple as the dude just got his shit together and stopped ****ing about.
You're the worst kind of doping conspiracist, you seem convinced Froome is doping because you hate him, it's kinda sad. I'm not a fan of Froome but the frothing is unreal, treat them all the same and ask for power data/transparency from all the riders or stop throwing wild accusations around, or at least start questioning Quintana's performance or Nibali's amazing return to form.
Monkeyfudger +1!
There now follows a link to a summary of the tour according to Antoine Vayer.
Just read that, it's pretty frothy stuff. I'd hope there's a lot more info than just what's in that table if it's meant to convince anyone that Froome is doping but the French guys aren't?
So Pinot at 406, not suspect. Froome at 410, suspect. Hmm. Seeing as everyone supposedly did 412 up Beille, the only figures that jump out from that table as being a bit of a step up are Quintana's Alpe number and Contador's 2009 tour number.
Oh, and Monkeyfudger +2.
Didn't Quintana lose time on the flats because he and his team got caught in the wrong group and couldn't bridge?
So Froom then was not actually the best rider on the tour..?
I'm not a fan of Froome but the frothing is unreal, treat them all the same and ask for power data/transparency from all the riders or stop throwing wild accusations around, or at least start questioning Quintana's performance or Nibali's amazing return to form.
I agree with the sentiment MF but Power data and "transparency" doesn't really help anything- cheats will always cheat one way or another. If you change the parameters of what is "normal" then they'll just work around the updated definition. Also as others have already said, you can have all the info in the world and it is still nigh on impossible to accurately and reliably pick out something suspicious.
@monkeyfudger: wrong I don't hate him. Read what I wrote 'dislike'. It's you who is getting in a froth.
I'd counterclaim that these are not wild accusations, they are reasoned suspicions from having followed pro-cycling from the mid eighties (and reading just how easily US Postal managed to avoid getting popped).
You want a wild conspiracy one? okay, the miraculous transformation of Froome just happens to coincide with sky hiring Geert Lienders (who has subsequently been banned from cycling for his part in facilitating doping at Rabobank)... Somebody might want to question exactly what he was hired for. That is one major sky **** up.
And what makes you think I don't question other riders? And why don't you question how Froome manages to beat Quintana and Nibs (clean) if they're doping? Let me guess, you think they are clean to? And contador?
Fwiw my own personal opinion is that nothing has really changed that much, dopers still find ways to beat the testing and the UCI don't try too hard to find them. (hell even Froome has complained about the lack of testing).
So Froome then was not actually the best rider on the tour..?
This has been done to death so I won't rehash it but the biggest factor for me this year was the part the rest of the SKY team played. The had the perfect strategy (and fortune) throughout and did well to use the team to full effect in the pursuit of plan A.
If Movistar were half as switched on and Valverde was capable of riding in Support of Quintana at the key moments then it *could* have been different. Likewise if Vino wasn't being a d1ck to Nibali half the time and gave him some decent morale and support then it could have been different. If BMC didn't give TvG a dodgy blood bag.... I digress 😆 Lots of "ifs" but SKY's performance as a team won Le Tour for Froome as much as Froome won IMO.
Ritchie did try and take Froome out right at the end though so all the good work could have come undone at the final moments 😀
[img] 
[/img]
the biggest factor for me this year was the part the rest of the SKY team played.
I agree.
And why don't you question how Froome manages to beat Quintana
He didn't, really.
On the subject of speculation, the rise of Griepel to Tour sprint domination in the twilight of his career doesn't seem to be getting much comment.
Nah, he did a Froomey, he just stopped ****-ing about and got his shit together. Hey, it happens all the time.... 😆
Dear France,
Your last Tour winner was a doper.
Yours etc,
Everyone else.
M. Flash heart,
Va te faire enculer.
Merci,
La France.
😛
On the subject of speculation, the rise of Griepel to Tour sprint domination in the twilight of his career doesn't seem to be getting much comment.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread it has been years since a sprinter got popped. They are either better at cheating, cheat less, or no-one gives a wotsit about them to check properly 😀
Dear France,Your last Tour winner was a doper.
Yours etc,
Everyone else.
Copy/ paste every year pre 2005*
*It is different now honest, we got the bad man
🙂
@ the above. I'm not 100% convinced they're all clean but I'm not prepared to throw around wild accusations based on nothing but "ZOMG teh dopinz are strong 'cos he attacked once and beat the people he needs to beat!!1!"
I reckon they're cleaner than Lance, no way is it the same racing, you'd watch Lance (a dude with as much muscle as Greipel) stood up for an age attacking like a mentalist.
What I hate is the inconsistency in the attacks on Sky calling for power data/transparency yet nothing from Movistar when he thrashes Froome two days in a row. Most of the time I'm fairly convinced the most vocal haven't even watched the racing.
just said during the San Sebastian highlights that Valverde was ill with a "fever" after the final Paris stage last week, didn't attend the after party…….
Meanwhile the IAAF appears to be having a Verbruggen/McQuaid moment according to Auntie.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/33749208 ]BBC Athletics[/url]
Pretty depressing stuff if you are a clean athlete. It is "as bad in Athletics as cycling was during the Armstrong era".
That BBC story is no news to many in athletics. Doping has been going on for years in many countries including the UK. There have been well know UK coaches involved in doping, though that does not put the cheating at the same level as the state sponsored levels we have witnessed.
As I recall there were 200 blood samples found in Operation Puerto, 49 cyclists, who were all the rest? Tennis, Football, Athletics were all well represented in those samples. We'll never really know because the Spanish state suppressed the evidence for what reason I'm not sure. I do note with interest though that some of there better know athletes and teams are not doing as well as they were.
Is it really that surprising? The reference to Armstrong like levels of cheating is quite funny- systematic doping has been done way before LA (probably even *better* in other sports!) and will continue long after. Why do we give that nobber the credit of benchmark cheating 😆
DanW very true that.
When you consider what they got up to in East Germany and a number of other countries not so long ago, LA was playing around. Better drugs though.
I was once shown round a lab in the former East Germany which was a very very sophisticated setup for making radioactively labelled molecules "in former times". I didn't understand at the time why they had been making those types of compounds there because it was nothing to do with the other activities on the site and then, a few days later, the penny dropped- that was where they had been developing the PEDs for the state sponsored doping programme.
Not sure if this is relevant to this TdF doping thread or should maybe go into that long-running Lance thread but his story is taking yet another twist:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/33798247