Contador Back Froome as Clean

Home Forum Bike Forum Contador Back Froome as Clean

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 141 total)
  • Contador Back Froome as Clean
  • Article I just read and found interesting, fits well here I think.

    Not seen it posted on the Tour threads so….

    http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/07/can-performance-be-used-as-an-indicator-of-doping/

    IIRC the caffine effectiveness thing was proven to be in the head? So the same dose of caffine to a coffee drinker and a non coffee drinker both had the same effect on their performance, but the non-coffee drinker noticed it more.

    Premier Icon metalheart
    Subscriber

    It would appear that Ricco and Rasmussen are less than impressed.

    How does the real dopers league add up now then?

    IIRC the caffine effectiveness thing was proven to be in the head?

    Some evidence back along to suggest that something ‘over your regular dose of caffeine’ (ie loads if you drink coffee, not a lot if you don’t) slightly alters the ratio of ATP and stored glycogen you use at a not-breathing-out-your-arse heart rate, meaning if you have a little bit of blub (ie not Froome) you can theoretically go for slighly longer before you bonk in endurance races as you use more of your beer gut relative to what you also ate last night. And that in the same way it would help you lose body fat at a slightly better rate in cardio exercise/training as long as you also watch what you eat before and recover with. But I read about it at Nursey-school ten years ago (iirc in some highfaluting sports science journal), can’t remember whose research it was now.

    joeydeacon
    Member

    Couple of interesting comments on Cycling News articles relating to Froome / Sky – first is about a not-yet-banned performance enhancing substance, second is just sceptical of Froome’s rapid transformation from a mediocre rider to world class climber / TTer.

    The new drugs are “metabolic modulators” AICAR + GW1516 (which is banned and at2013 tour have tests for)…. BUT… Telmisartan is purported to be just as effective if not more and is NOT ACTUALLY BANNED YET.. WADA is still considering it…

    EPO and blood doping concentrate on oxygen delivery… but that’s only half of the battle.. your cells need to take that oxygen an nutrient and convert to kinetic energy… that’s what these new drugs do… they can flip muscle fiber type, increase mitochondrial density etc… even in the absence of training (exercise in a pill).. with training the effects are that much greater… mice sedentary for 1 mth have shown 30-70% greater endurance than mice exercised for that one month etc…

    so Sky and Froome could very well be taking PEDs and not ‘technically’ cheating… but still getting an unfair advantage… other are also free to use it and maybe they are, but as we saw with Armstrong some people are hyper-responders to certain drugs or methods…

    “J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Mar;26(3):608-10. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31824301b6.
    Telmisartan as metabolic modulator: a new perspective in sports doping?
    Sanchis-Gomar F, Lippi G.
    Source

    Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Valencia, Research Foundation of the University Clinic Hospital of Valencia/INCLIVA, Valencia, Spain. fabian.sanchis@uv.es
    Abstract

    The World Antidoping Agency (WADA) has introduced some changes in the 2012 prohibited list. Among the leading innovations to the rules are that both 5-aminoimidazole-4-carboxamide-1-?-D-ribofuranoside (peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-? [PPAR-?]-5′ adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase [AMPK] agonist) and GW1516 (PPAR-?-agonist) are no longer categorized as gene doping substances in the new 2012 prohibited list but as metabolic modulators in the class “Hormone and metabolic modulators.” This may also be valid for the angotensin II receptor blocker telmisartan. It has recently been shown that telmisartan might induce similar biochemical, biological, and metabolic changes (e.g., mitochondrial biogenesis and changes in skeletal muscle fiber type) as those reported for the former call of substances. We suspect that metabolic modulators abuse such as telmisartan might become a tangible threat in sports and should be thereby targeted as an important antidoping issue. The 2012 WADA prohibited list does not provide telmisartan for a potential doping drug, but arguments supporting the consideration to include them among “metabolic modulators” are at hand.

    PMID:
    22130396
    [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE] “

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22130396

    also velonation.com/News/ID/11395/Doping-AICAR-Telmisartan-and-the-need-for-vigilance.aspx

    and

    OK,most of it I wrote here somehow before, so sorry if it upsets you.

    I am one of these “sad people” as you labeled me.
    I have only 1 medal from national championship of my country (europe mid size country) so I quess I qualify for “couch dweller with no cycling experience”

    Chris Froome is unbelievable (this is key word)

    Chris Froome was rubbish, rubbish not even mediocre, rider and basically overnight (by joining SKY) he is superman.

    SKY rising is explained by “marginal gains”, but these marginal gains cannot explain total riders makeovers. before 2010/11 Froome had NO mentionable results in anything (1 stage victory in tour of Japan is marginal succes in D-class race), now he is super human. He climbed Ax 3 Domaines and now Mont Ventoux as fast as Armstrong when he (Lance) was chemicalized to the max.
    This guy who came from nowhere after 3 years is as fast as Pantani, Ulrich, anybody.
    There is such a deja vu.

    Yes, they did not test positive, because they must have something new. Neither Ullrich, Lance, Festina, Fuentes’s guys, Indurain tested positive. none of them. Testing is useless. Even Gewiss after Fleche-Wallone 1994 were negative – if you do not know it, google it. None of the big doper were caught be testing. if there is test, this dope is obsolete. Positives are only if they mess up (Landis, Hamilton), wrong dosage, bad bloodbag etc.

    Froome has not history of excellence (like Nibali, Cancellara etc. others who rose year after year from obvious talent – outstanding juniors). again. He was rubbish, overnight, superhuman. UN-BELIEVABLE.
    There is fairy tale about parasite (that was supposed to eat his red blood cell to make him not performing, when he was cured, suddenly superman)?
    Before and after completely different guy, illness in between? Where did I hear it before? yes, Lance.

    Froome does not mind cheating, he was expelled from Giro few years ago for holding motorcycle so he could even get to the summit at Mortirolo. now he would be probably faster that motorcycle.

    Nothing about Froome looks credible, believable, real. Even his talking, he sounds like he is brainwashed and only says PR/marketing sweet talk Sir Brailford injected him. I believe he works hard, sure. But others dont? It is not only thing he does. Same applies for Porte. Or Wiggins (similar mid-carreer transformation)

    there are other scary similarities to history (Lance Armstrong and USPS team):

    Training in places where inspectors will have a hard time surprising you. Why did Sky train in Tenerife? They certainly have good excuses, but it is one of the puzzle pieces

    Hidding data, dismissing any unpleasant questions

    Hanging out with crooked doctors

    Deny everything and treat your audience as if they were stupid – E.g., Froome’s comments on Vayer (former french coach confronting Froome with his power numbers and climbing data bettering all of dopers from past)

    dismissing any unpleasant questions like “they are just haters” (Lance style) etc.

    Yes I believe that cycling (post Armstrong) is much cleaner, cleaner than ever before.
    But even so, that is why non-clean standout even more.

    why do I think so (it cleaner that before)?
    -they look “real – pain and suffering, they look tired. in EPO era they just looked plastic.
    – colombians are back – natural advantage shows – it was eliminated by drugs in 90s.
    – there are bad days – in stage races, sometimes even really good riders underperform in 1 day. in EPO era, that never happened, they were just robots. unlike SKY. they look plastic. Porte gives interview after stage and he looks like he just been for walk with dog.
    they keep “top shape” for whole season round. UN-BELIVABLE.

    never tested positive in not valid argument – e.g. blood transfusions are not detectable. only if you got someone elses bloodbag by accident. only way how they would “catch” them would be (like all big doping cases before) not by testing (you cannnot test something if you do not know what you are testing for – You cannot find anything if you do not know what you are looking for) but police – listening to the phones, emails, “follow the money”, payments, secret funds. Somewhere at the end of the chain, there will be crooked doctor, genetics labs or something we do not even ever heard about.

    I am not hater. I just hate when sport that I love is raped and disgraced (again), as I think it is so shamelessly done by SKY.

    Again, neither are my comments, and maybe it’s just me, but I can’t help but be suspicious of a rider who has come from absolutely nowhere, in the middle of a pretty unremarkable career, and suddenly started dominating both climbing and time trialling in a sport which is so riddled with doping. I hope I’m wrong, but can’t think of a single instance in cycling where this has happened before, without the aid of doping.

    Personally I think Sky are not using banned substances, but are using a lot of “currently legal” substances that achieve the same effects, that WADA are still mulling over.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    Anyone who comes good would be accused of taking drugs. There’s more than one possible explanation for what Froome’s achieved. I don’t think we can automatically choose the worst one, can we?

    fizzicist
    Member

    Interesting that Wiggins is accused of having a ” mid career transformation” after a glittering career in track cycling and quite publically giving up a life on the piss to finish 4th on TDF, next year bust his collar bone and then win year after. Hardly coming from nowhere.

    Whether it’s totally clean? Who knows. It’s cleaner than it was and cleaner than most sports.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    Interesting that Wiggins is accused of having a ” mid career transformation” after a glittering career in track cycling and quite publically giving up a life on the piss to finish 4th on TDF, next year bust his collar bone and then win year after. Hardly coming from nowhere.

    Yeah – I thought the comment about Wiggins discredited a lot else of what he said. Wiggins’ development is not surprising at all.

    Junkyard
    Member

    That discredited it …yes apart from that it was a pretty cogent smear with an absolute absence of evidence and some circumstantial “similarities” between LA /Postal and Froome/Sky

    Its a rambling, yet oddly coherent. piece of nonsense basically

    Premier Icon madhouse
    Subscriber

    I’m getting fed up with all these doping arguments, all these armchair experts that have read a couple of articles seem to suddenly know whether someone is doping or not just because they’re better this year than a couple of years ago. That’s up to WADA to work out, they can test all they want, ask all the questions they want and get the answer – whatever that is.
    Until proved otherwise I will continue to believe that Team Sky and Chris Froome are clean – Dave Brailsford and the rest of his team have done great work with GB and Sky to bring them to the forefront of world track and road cycling and I believe that is because they’ve taken a fresh approach to training rather than take a trip to the medicine cabinet.

    slowoldgit
    Member

    I think even I could have a mid-career transformation if I were given the support of the Sky team, thirty-five years too late.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    Has anybody mentioned David Walsh on this (or other similar recent threads)? Only got around to watching yesterdays TdF coverage today, with the interview with him. Surely if he thinks they’re clean – when he’s the man who led a campaign against LA for so long, and is embedded in the team – then surely that’s the best opinion you can get?

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    SBS Opionon Piece on Sky/Doping accusations
    1st Claim/circumstantial evidence

    Froome climbed Ventoux at a speed only bettered by Armstrong
    True, but I’m not sure what that means. The climb has only been used a few time in the past 20 years, and there are many variables when comparing times up a mountain. Wind, and the way the climb is ridden are two major ones. Stage 15 was essentially a team time trial, with very little messing around, and an almost direct run to the finish. Full gas all the way, plus a tailwind to aid them. Here’s Sky’s own explanation from the rest day press conference.

    From team boss David Brailsford:

    1) Froome’s major accelerations came on the ‘false flats’ towards Chalet Reynard.

    2) There was some motorbike drafting, particularly at that point, then later after the Chalet, because the bikes didn’t move out of the way

    3) The road surface is completely different to 2000 (Armstrong), when final section had ruts and pits and was rough aggregate.

    4) There was a headwind in 2000, a tailwind yesterday.

    Premier Icon metalheart
    Subscriber

    But Wiggins did have a mid career transformation on the road. He ‘discovered’ he could suddenly climb with the best in the Giro one year! Not quite the Riis conversion obviously, but look who was positions 1 and 3 when he was 4th. If he was some Johnny foreigner would you be so ‘sure’?

    I think joeydeacons cut and paste is a decent summary of the ‘objections’. These are some ‘red flags’ for sure.

    Look at the history of the world of professional cycling (esp. the last 20 years). Now remove your Union Jack tinted specs and ask yourself, why is this different from all the other times?

    I’d love to be able in pro cycling again, but I’m not prepared to believe in this (which is not the same as saying he’s definitely a doper, just I find it hard to believe). Especially after the usada reasoned decision, the Secret Race, and all the admissions of the the last year. If anybody else comes to to different conclusion fair enough. And that’s why I’ve deliberately not commented negatively on the the other TdF threads…

    Trying to catch drug cheats off the back of analysis of historical performances is a false positive. I think we have to assume that the majority of people up until recently were doping, so if Froome is clean then it is no surprise that his historical performances were not as good as his fellow doping riders. Maybe what we’re really seeing here is the difference between dopers and non dopers.

    Unfortunately now everyone is under suspicion, and quite rightly so. This is the pain the sport needs to go through after decades of a culture of doping. Cycling and doping have gone hand in hand – even the sports legends were dopers (e.g. Tom Simpson). It’s upto the sport and its participants to demonstrate and prove their innocents. This will take a long time. If Froome is truly clean he should not get upset about the continual question, he should be expecting them.

    joeydeacon
    Member

    The guy who wrote the second piece I quoted was indeed referring to Wiggins transformation, going from a world class 4 minute track rider who has quite handy in the TTs, but couldn’t climb at all, to a world class climber who could suddenly stay with Contador, Armstrong and the Schleck brothers in getting 4th (now 3rd) at the 2009 TDF.

    I’m not claiming to be the most knowledgeable on here, am sure there are some on here who know far more than me, but have followed road cycling pretty closely since around 1997/8, and I honestly can’t think of another rider who’s made such massive improvements mid career as Froome, but using clean methods. He’s dominating a world class field, that statistically will contain doping riders (granted none have been caught this year, but a couple did get popped at the Giro, and most of the contenders have a fair bit of history, Contador, Valverde, Kreuziger etc), as do many of the riders, staff and a doctor that Sky have hired since they first setup. Clean riders don’t dominate doping ones in a grand tour.

    I personally believe the phrase “marginal gains” extends to using performance enhancing pharmaceutical products that are not yet on any banned list.

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    Jody deacon have a read of the link I posted it addresses some of the froome points you make.

    joeydeacon
    Member

    Mikewsmith – Had a quick look – re: Ventoux – pretty sure the commentators said there was a headwind, as did Ten Dam, and the footage from what I remember showed a pretty strong cross wind – don’t recall it having much of a tailwind.

    Re: “Sky is far too strong to be believed” paragraph – I don’t think Sky are doing anything that the rest are not – all the stuff they claim to have pioneered, altitude training, wind tunnel testing, training blocks designed to build form for 3 weeks in July etc has been around for years. Saxo hired Rogers solely to get an insight into Sky’s training secrets, so they’ll have a pretty good idea of what Sky do, yet Contador still can’t match Froome.

    Re: “Froome has come from nowhere” paragraph – it uses Evans as an example of another rider who achieved little on the road in his early career – that’s because Evans was a world class mountain biker. Froome also rode MTB at the Commonwealth games. He got lapped, that’s how ordinary he was. In 2010 he got kicked out the Giro for holding onto a motorbike going up a climb. 3 years later he’s riding faster than the motorbikes. Name me one other cyclist who achieved so little up to the age of 26, and then suddenly turns into a world beater?

    Re: Quintana – no idea if Quintana is doping or not, but irrelevant – chances are a fair few of the rest of the contenders are, and Froome’s beating the lot.

    Froome is as dominant as Armstrong – again, name me one instance where a clean rider has dominated a grand tour like Froome has. Wiggins and Evans didn’t win by this much, and this easily, and Froome is arguably against better opposition – the Movistar and Saxo teams are v v strong, and each team has 2 very good leaders.

    The hiring of Geert Leinders is v suspicious. Brailsford is clearly v intelligent, and to suggest he knew nothing of Leinders doping work at Rabobank is bullsh*t. Whether he worked with CF or not is a different matter, but he wasn’t hired for nothing.

    As for the bitter ex employees – it took ten years for LA’s ex teammates to start talking, and they only spoke because they hated him. A lot of the riders/staff quoted there are still involved in cycling, and would still be part of the Omerta. Sean Yates walked away (from what I recall) a fair amount of money, under suspicious circumstances (nothing to do with the rest of the ex Sky riders with a history of doping?!) and nothing was leaked to the press about his history. The official line was ill health IIRC, so he’s hardly gonna start talking when he’s got away with a clean reputation.

    joeydeacon
    Member

    Couple more points – about Froome’s accelerations being on false flats – regardless of the terrain, it still doesn’t explain why no other rider’s could match them, and the rate at which he accelerated away from world class riders.

    Also re: Evans – Evans’ (whether clean or not) road career has a fairly normal trajectory to it – he shows gradual improvement and incredible consistency:

    Giro: 14 , 5, 3
    TDF: 8, 4, 2, 2, 30, 26, 1, 7
    Vuelta 60, 4, 3

    That’s 10 top 10 finishes in Grand Tours, and add to that winning a World Champs RR, La Flèche Wallonne, numerous other stage races, he’s been consistently good pretty much as soon as he started riding on the road, which followed an impressive mountain bike career. Granted his results are on the wane, but he’s 36 now so it’s fairly understandable.

    [fancies getting involved in the tin foil hatness]

    Maybe Wiggins wouldn’t ride for Froome this year ‘cos he knew he was doping!

    [/smells like chicken fat]

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    So are we now back at the stage where there is no viable testing for any of the drugs?

    If there is no way for a team or athlete to prove they are innocent we should probably call the whole thing off. I’d love to see WADA take sky up on the offer to move in with them and to see exactly what they do. Perhaps that is the only way to convince people.

    joeydeacon
    Member

    Dopers will always be ahead of the testers – they can only test for substances which they think riders have been taking, and have subsequently been banned – and with cases like Telmisartan, there’s no case to answer for as it’s not currently banned.

    There’s no easy answer – However Vaughters makes the most sense to me. Despite the fact he’s an ex doper, he’s one of the few in the sport that I actually trust:

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jonathan-vaughters/opinion-its-not-all-about-lance-armstrong-and-heres-how-we-can-fight-doping

    Junkyard
    Member

    I’m getting fed up with all these doping arguments, all these armchair experts that have read a couple of articles seem to suddenly know whether someone is doping or not just because they’re better this year than a couple of years ago.

    THIS
    Every year folk with limited knowledge, no hard facts and claimsso strong they need to use arguments like this

    If he was some Johnny foreigner would you be so ‘sure’?

    I think joeydeacons cut and paste is a decent summary of the ‘objections’. These are some ‘red flags’ for sure.

    Look at the history of the world of professional cycling (esp. the last 20 years). Now remove your Union Jack tinted specs and ask yourself, why is this different from all the other times?
    ITs very emmotive and hints at me being a racist or nationalist for disagreeing 🙄 but it is utterly bereft of facts. Its an emmotive BS basically

    Name me one other cyclist who achieved so little up to the age of 26, and then suddenly turns into a world beater?

    Preety sure that will stand up in court as proof – Really is this the best it gets?

    name me one instance where a clean rider has dominated a grand tour like Froome has.

    Hinault, Mercyx,Indurain [ contentious I accept] …do you want more?

    it still doesn’t explain why no other rider’s could match them, and the rate at which he accelerated away from world class riders.

    Yes that Bolt fella seems to be able to do this and Mo Farah, tjose British Triathlete brothers also dominate …in fact in all the races i watch someone finishes first and beats the rest … are all the winners drugs cheat – is that the “point” you were making

    nothing to do with the rest of the ex Sky riders with a history of doping?

    could you name names here ?

    It straw clutching and often ill informed and using poor “principles” of reason and logic.

    None of you have even a hint of a grassy knoll let alone a smoking gun hence it is this level of debate..its like debating with conspiracists tbh and you have the same amount of overwhelming evidence

    I for one cannot be arsed rebuffing such vague, lazy and sometimes humorously ill informed comments for example

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    I for one cannot be arsed rebuffing such vague, lazy and sometimes humorously ill informed comments for example

    If we all took that attitude these threads would never get going 😉

    I do feel some of it is not even clutching at straws, more thin air trying to work out why there is a pile of straws on the floor.

    Junkyard
    Member

    Its all circumstantial.
    I can see why it would happen give the sports history but please produce some evidence slightly stronger than saying we are all blind because they are Brits. the argument is basical Froome is the fastest, LA was the fastest Therefore they are both drug cheats

    Its a non sequitor as you have no prove and what LA did does not prove Froome does

    joeydeacon
    Member

    About 6 months back I was having similar discussions with Armstrong fans. Look how that turned out.

    Preety sure that will stand up in court as proof – Really is this the best it gets?

    Again, you can’t come up with a single example. Miracles of this nature do not happen in cycling.

    Mercyx failed drugs tests, Indurain was almost certainly doping considering he was winning in the early 90’s. Even if Hinault was clean, that was 35 years ago – cycling has become a lot faster since then, look at the average speeds.

    I don’t massively follow athletics, but recall a couple of high profile sprinters being caught this very week, which kinda undermines your argument slightly.

    Ex Sky riders/staff fired include Barry, Julich, Steven de Jongh, Leinders (doctor), also Juan Antonio Flecha and Yates left under suspicious circumstances.

    joeydeacon
    Member

    the argument is basical Froome is the fastest, LA was the fastest Therefore they are both drug cheats

    The argument is more along the lines of how does a relatively unknown rider show absolutely no promise up to the age of 26, then suddenly start beating Cancellara and Tony Martin in the TTs, and decimating the world best climbers (many of whom are dopers / ex-dopers), whilst riding clean?

    Junkyard
    Member

    bout 6 months back I was having similar discussions with Armstrong fans. Look how that turned out.

    that is circumstantial evidence and there was some actual evidence about LA I have know he was a cheat for decades as has pretty much everyone

    Again, you can’t come up with a single example. Miracles of this nature do not happen in cycling.

    FFS its a miracle and therfore he must be cheating – yes that fact has convinced me…well done

    I don’t massively follow athletics, but recall a couple of high profile sprinters being caught this very week, which kinda undermines your argument slightly.

    Its your argument that as others cheated then Bolt [Froome] must cheat my argument is only undermined when you prove Bolt[Froome] has cheated and what you have “proved” is other do so he must because he is faster -its still a non sequitor and you still have no evidence

    Premier Icon Nobby
    Subscriber

    NEW TOP 50

    1. 2004: 55:51 Iban Mayo 23.10 km/h
    2. 2004: 56:26 Tyler Hamilton 22.86 km/h
    3. 1999: 56:50 Jonathan Vaughters 22.70 km/h
    4. 2004: 56:54 Oscar Sevilla 22.67 km/h
    5. 1999: 57:33 Alexander Vinokourov 22.42 km/h
    6. 1994: 57:34 Marco Pantani 22.41 km/h
    7. 1999: 57:34 Wladimir Belli 22.41 km/h
    8. 2004: 57:39 Juan Miguel Mercado 22.38 km/h
    9. 1999: 57:42 Joseba Beloki 22.36 km/h
    10. 2004: 57:49 Lance Armstrong 22.31 km/h
    11. 1999: 57:52 Lance Armstrong 22.29 km/h
    12. 2004: 58:14 Inigo Landaluze 22.15 km/h
    13. 1999: 58:15 Kevin Livingston 22.15 km/h
    14. 1999: 58:31 David Moncoutie 22.05 km/h
    15. 2004: 58:35 José Enrique Gutierrez 22.02 km/h
    16. 2009: 58:45 Andy Schleck 21.96 km/h
    17. 2009: 58:45 Alberto Contador 21.96 km/h
    18. 2009: 58:48 Lance Armstrong 21.94 km/h
    19. 2009: 58:50 Fränk Schleck 21.93 km/h
    20. 1999: 58:51 Unai Osa 21.92 km/h
    21. 2009: 58:53 Roman Kreuziger 21.91 km/h
    22. 2002: 59:00 Lance Armstrong 21.86 km/h
    23. 2013: 59:00 Chris Froome 21.86 km/h
    24. 1994: 59:02 Richard Virenque 21.85 km/h
    25. 1994: 59:02 Armand De Las Cuevas 21.85 km/h
    26. 1994: 59:02 Luc Leblanc 21.85 km/h
    27. 1994: 59:02 Miguel Indurain 21.85 km/h
    28. 1994: 59:02 Roberto Conti 21.85 km/h
    29. 2009: 59:03 Franco Pellizotti 21.85 km/h
    30. 2000: 59:05 Marco Pantani 21.83 km/h
    31. 2000: 59:05 Lance Armstrong 21.83 km/h
    32. 2009: 59:05 Vincenzo Nibali 21.83 km/h
    33. 1994: 59:07 Pascal Lino 21.82 km/h
    34. 1999: 59:08 Tyler Hamilton 21.82 km/h
    35. 1999: 59:08 Roberto Laiseka 21.82 km/h
    36. 2009: 59:10 Bradley Wiggins 21.80 km/h
    37. 2004: 59:12 Levi Leipheimer 21.79 km/h
    38. 2004: 59:24 Michael Rasmussen 21.72 km/h
    39. 2004: 59:27 Stéphane Goubert 21.70 km/h
    40. 2013: 59:29 Nairo Quintana 21.69 km/h
    41. 2000: 59:30 Joseba Beloki 21.68 km/h
    42. 2000: 59:34 Jan Ullrich 21.66 km/h
    43. 1999: 59:35 Txema Del Olmo 21.65 km/h
    44. 1999: 59:43 Kurt van de Wouwer 21.60 km/h
    45. 2009: 59:46 Jurgen Van Den Broeck 21.58 km/h
    46. 2004: 59:47 Oscar Pereiro 21.58 km/h
    47. 2006: 59:47 Denis Menchov 21.58 km/h
    48. 2006: 59:47 Christophe Moreau 21.58 km/h
    49. 2009: 59:49 Andreas Klöden 21.57 km/h
    50. 2004: 59:50 David Moncoutie 21.56 km/h

    The revised top 50 on Ventoux shows that this

    Froome climbed Ventoux at a speed only bettered by Armstrong

    is untrue.

    Obviously most of those times were set in different circumstances i.e. weather, race distance etc with the fastest being an ITT up the mountain. Many of those in the top 20 have since been shown to be dopers but not all of them**.

    I find it sad, yet understandable, that any great performance in road racing is almost immediately met with speculation of cheating rather than admiration. When you consider that nobody raised any concern at the Olympics when track cyclists were breaking their own world record every time they ran it seems a very focussed reputation.

    If you take the “marginal gains” philosophy and roll that forward from 2004 (the last TdF stage with super fast times) then it is entirely feasible that developments in equipment, training methods & fitness levels can explain the current performance levels, IMHO.

    This doesn’t mean there’s been no cheating but it could just be that they’re clean.

    **Yet

    joeydeacon
    Member

    that is circumstantial evidence and there was some actual evidence about LA I have know he was a cheat for decades as has pretty much everyone

    You have a pretty short memory. Besides which, the argument you are using here is “I know he was doping therefore he was doping”, which is the very argument you’re (unfairly I feel) criticising me for using.

    I’ve backed up every point with facts, and you’re still yet to answer several of my points.

    Regarding Bolt – I do not know if he is clean, but over a 10 seconds race, it may be that his physical advantages (I assume freakishly long legs, given his height?) may be the difference between him and the rest. However given that 8 out of 10 of the fastest men in 100m history have doped, then there is a high probability that he may not be clean.

    bspoked
    Member

    It will be interesting when l’equipe put today’s paper article on their website, but early reports are that they are happy with the data.

    joeydeacon
    Member

    To be fair, it was someone else’s comment about Froome’s Ventoux climb time (I was quoting it), and in the above list I can’t see many clean athletes. Setting roughly the same time as a peak doping Lance Armstrong is pretty suspicious in my eyes.

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    I’ve backed up every point with facts, and you’re still yet to answer several of my points.

    It could be said you have arranged facts around your statements, something LA did, therefore you must too be a drug cheat 🙂

    Junkyard
    Member

    You have a pretty short memory.

    No idea what theat means – Have i started to be part of your slurs now as you have no facts?

    Besides which, the argument you are using here is “I know he was doping therefore he was doping”,

    I think there was actual evidence against LA what with the filaed doping tests, the know fact of EPO , the old samples tested etc- you know some actual EVIDENCE

    which is the very argument you’re (unfairly I feel) criticising me for using.

    I am criticising you because your argument lacks the crucial element of evidence

    I’ve backed up every point with facts,

    Chuckles – you really think you have done – I cannot see any facts except unrelated ones you claim prove something – they dont ie nonsequitors

    and you’re still yet to answer several of my points.

    What circumstantial facts that dont prove your claim would you like me to refute?

    I am not doing Bolt as well as Froome as neither has any evidence though this is your main claim and it lacks proof

    given that 8 out of 10 of the fastest men in 100m history have doped, then there is a high probability that he may not be clean.

    Thats an opinion with no facts to back it ..it is basically lots cheated therefore he probably does.
    I can see why you think it and it is not without merit but it is without evidence whether applied to Froome or to Bolt

    Setting roughly the same time as a peak doping Lance Armstrong is pretty suspicious in my eyes.

    There is no where for this debate to go as your fact is true but your conclusion is false- one would expect folk to get faster after nearly 20 years of the sport given all the advancements. All records get broken over time and he has still to break it
    he is also 1 min 11 seconds slower than LA best time which is not that close in a race tbh

    joeydeacon
    Member

    Yeah but TBF Lance’s “facts” were mainly spin (500+ tests etc) – as far as I’m aware mine are all true – although feel free to correct me if I have made any mistakes 🙂

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    I think there is only 1 person who can come to this thread with anything new and definitive. So far I can’t find any “Where to buy oval chain rings that fit on my pinarello” threads and “Will I look silly going to the shops in my Sky gear” so I’m guessing Chris Froome isn’t on here.

    Until he either goes on Oprah or Fails a test he is innocent. Thats how the rules work in the race. If you have credible evidence then package it up and send it to WADA/the mail/anyone else who will publish it.

    Junkyard
    Member

    he failed one at his first TdF and then got a back dated doctors note – not in his original submission – for saddle sore cream
    Testoreone iirc.
    Not in dispute but it was in breach of the rules

    joeydeacon
    Member

    Junkyard you argue with a complete lack of logic. In every post I have included facts, you’ve just seemed to have completely dismissed them.

    You asked for ex Sky riders/staff who doped, I provided names.

    You stated Mercyx was clean – I corrected you by pointing out he failed drugs tests.

    You used athletics as an example of clean sport – I pointed out 2 cases this very week of world class athletes getting caught.

    At the end of the day, it seems I’m not going to change your mind, and you’re not going to change mine, but wish you well all the same, and hope you enjoy the remainder of the Tour.

    Oh and re: Armstrong – the evidence that you quote was completely dismissed at the time by the majority of cycling fans, and the courts – hence Lance winning court cases against the Times, and the insurance company etc. It was fairly obvious he was doping, but until various riders came forward, and he actually admitted it then it wasn’t proven.

    Junkyard
    Member

    Junkyard you argue with a complete lack of logic. In every post I have included facts, you’ve just seemed to have completely dismissed them.

    your facts are he cheated therefore Froome cheated it is circumstantial and your facts leads you to a a non sequitor ;you are not top of my list for “logic” lessons

    You asked for ex Sky riders/staff who doped, I provided names.

    I did not ask for this list you gave it as proof Froome cheats – does it prove it?

    You stated Mercyx was clean – I corrected you by pointing out he failed drugs tests.

    fair point but two out of three aint bad and Mercyx cheating [ worth readin Wiki on it mind]does not prove Froome cheated

    You used athletics as an example of clean sport – I pointed out 2 cases this very week of world class athletes getting caught

    I have said this one explicitly but let me try it again in the jope you get why I brought it up. I never claimed athletics was clean in the 100m [ who would be that stupid?] I used your “evidence” to prove that Bolt is also a cheat- whihc you think is a probability despite the absence of any evidence. I was trying to “prove” your argument was rubbish by using another sport with a poor doping record. Yes others cheat in the 100 m but it does not mean Bolt has or does. A fact you dont seem to get no matter how often or how explicit it is made

    RE LA whist ir ewmained unproven for some time – and for some till he actually admitted it- there was still nonetheless actual evidence be it the etests, the team mates, the masseuse etc saying it. the fact the sport took a long time to do something about it is shameful

    I see no smoking gun with froome and you have yet to provide it despite your “facts” none of which include the fact he cheats just that he might which is true of anyone

    Premier Icon Nobby
    Subscriber

    Setting roughly the same time as a peak doping Lance Armstrong is pretty suspicious in my eyes.

    Then again, it was slower than Armstrong’s time in 2009 which, by all accounts, was his only clean one. Wasn’t it?

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 141 total)

The topic ‘Contador Back Froome as Clean’ is closed to new replies.