Froome is a proven doper.

Well clearly he isnt.

editted = pointless arguement

editted = pointless argument

Have you been bodysnatched TJ? 😁

Anyway, can we now open a sweepstake on when Froome will be DQ’d from all three grand tours? 😛

He’s got a lot of experience riding dirt roads in Africa, which perhaps explains why he felt ok to Take chunk of time on the descent.

The descent is tarmac. It’s only unpaved one way. According to Dumoulin, it was him waiting for Pinot/Reichenbach that meant they were slower – something like “Reichenbach descends like an old lady”.

Did anybody else hear Froome shouting at the camera bike, “Never mind those apples, Lance, what about these?”  😁

Re the “form” business – its a classic sign of reverse periodisation, which is how Froome has trained for the last 2 years.  The athlete won’t be doing race like efforts leading up to the race, so enters the race apparently undercooked, building pace and strength as the body “remembers” and starts to utilise the trained systems again.  Reverse periodisation is basically “stronger for longer”.   If you use this Giro as analytics, you can see that in Froome.  Its also likely that all the other teams know this, so Yates er al deliberately pulled out time on Froome in week 1 attempting to be ahead of his curve and taking advantage of his accident.

Before the Giro, Froome himself said his power numbers where up in training and that he’d have to “wait” to see how that manifested itself – there’s the first clue.   The initial crash was obviously a set back, with with improved sleep and energy away from the healing systems together with the above effect he’d probably feel pretty turbo charged right now compared to week 1.

There really is no point in arguing is there, everyone has their own opinion and facts aren’t going to change that are they?

Well done Froome-dog, a truly epic ride yesterday. Carlton Cliché et al must feel proper stupid. Only two days ago in commentary they were saying the race was over and riders would be defending their places. Ha ha ha.

I’ve no idea what any of them are on. If they stick to the letter of the law that will do me. But this sort of up and down racing where a rider puts a big effort in then suffers a few days later is what I’d expect in a cleaner peloton. What was spooky was when Lance could win the prologue, drop everyone in the mountains and still win the final time trial. Froome losing time in the first week, being just behind the pure testers in the time trial then being a couple of percent faster in a big mountain stage in the final week is at least believable.

I’ve never said Froomidge is a doper, never. What I said was whilst there is an investigation underway the rider shouldn’t be allowed to enter ANY event until a decision/conclusion has been reached. If the conclusion is no infringement has been incurred then the rider is free to enter any event thereafter, if the decision is the opposing view then there is already a mechanism in place for riders bans.

I think that about ANY rider, in ANY event under the UCI sanctioned events.

What I DO NOT want to see ever again is the Lance/Contador scenario where riders continue to enter events, place well or win, then have those placements redacted after the event causing a Farce only beaten by lying politicians.

If a rider enters an event and an adverse analytical finding surfaces, they are rightly booted off the event. That is correct, that should stay the same.

Quite why I’m having to clarify a simple ethical position is daft, it means some people can’t grasp the methodology that even the president of the UCI is calling for…. plus many more sanctioning bodies in all aspects of professional sport, and plenty of supporters of sport.

guilty till proven innocent then. Meanwhile, an innocent athlete loses the chance to participate while at his peak, because (for example) a lab **** up the test method.

Yes, the risk is that a doped athlete rides, wins and then is stripped of the result, and in the past history I can see why some want to avoid that but sadly we have to have the lesser of two evils, and that is not pre-emptive bans before any trial is held.

And as noted above; this is only an issue because of the leaked info. This should all be being done in private, and we don’t know who else if anyone is riding under similar circumstances.

Strict liability is the rule in sports doping.  Hence the failed test means he is guilty of doping.  Its really that simple.  Baxter lost his bronze medal for what was clearly an accidental ingestion of a banned substance in tiny amounts that could not possibly have affected his results.  Others have as well.

It has to be this way to stop the contadors getting away with doping using bullshine excuses.

and if a lab has messed up the test?

and if a lab has messed up the test?

They process B samples fairly quickly don’t they?  Or do you mean they got it wrong twice?

The UCI’s methodology is rubbish though. Froome gets most of the flak but it’s the UCI’s glacial speed at sorting it out that should be flamed. People should direct their gaze at the real issue.

Meanwhile, an innocent athlete loses the chance to participate while at his peak, because (for example) a lab **** up the test method.

That is your view, it’s not one supported by the majority of organisational bodies in today’s environment.

Have you an example where your scenario has actually occurred? Or is is hypothetical?

It’s unusual for him to go off on one, so I’m left wondering why and what was the motivation

Shit or bust? He has no interest in a mere podium position and only two days in which to pull back a huge deficit if he wants to win. It also appears he has spent a fair bit of time in the Sestriere area training and knows Finestre quite well. Dumoulin and Yates were both in decline having knocked spots off each other for two weeks.

I’m not a huge Froome fan, but that was a special ride. After all that expenditure of effort, today’s stage could still offer up some interest.

+1 for what @slowoldman said ^^

Yates – while he’s almost certainly going to be a GC contender in future years I don’t think ever went into this expecting to win it. He’s ridden smart (little bonus seconds here and there) knowing that he was going to have to ride the TT of his life to survive but I suspect there’s a little bit of the old Thomas Voeckler about it – when TV was in yellow by virtue of ending up in the breakaway that got 30 minutes on the peloton) and he rode his heart out to stay in yellow day after day while the advantage was ruthlessly chipped away at by Lance and co. Took them about 10 days though!

I reckon the TT probably emptied him completely whereas for TD it’ll have been a walk in the park.

Froome had a whole load of bad luck at the start which probably made him look worse than he actually was. That said, he’s always been there or thereabouts in the GC and knows how to do the “reverse periodization” that @Kryton57 described a few posts above. Team GB do that on the track in Team Pursuit as it’s become the only way to ride it. Start slow, finish stronger. Froome was forced into a more obvious position of that due to also recovering from his TT crash. It’s amazing how shit he can look on a bike in technical situations (cobbles, tight TT courses) and still descend like a rocket. He took over a minute out of the chasers on the Finestre descent alone. And yes, he does know the descent very well, he’s done a lot of training in and around Sestriere.

Great move though – I think people are only surprised by it because of the impression that Team Sky just sit there looking at their power meters which is actually not true. Today should be interesting – will TD accept 2nd place or try to attack? Realistically, barring disasters for them or miracles for the others, they’re the only two in contention for the win. I’m wondering what happens in Rome if they’re within a few seconds of each other, will it really be a ceremonial stage or will they be out to grab bonus seconds?

https://youtu.be/GTwi97SGjs

Yates understandably looked heart broken after the stage

How do I imbed video now?

Hence the failed test means he is guilty of doping

You can keep saying it but it wont make it true!

It’s not reverse periodisation though is it? Periodisation is making the workouts more like your A race the closer it becomes. Using the first two weeks of a stage race as prep for the third is surely the very definition of normal periodisation??

He’s just aimed the peak at week three 🤷🏻‍♂️

http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2013/10/reverse-periodization.html

AA – it is true.  strict liability for doping ie any adverse test is a doping fail.

The principle of strict liability is applied in situations where urine/blood samples collected from an athlete have produced adverse analytical results.

It means that each athlete is strictly liable for the substances found in his or her bodily specimen, and that an anti-doping rule violation occurs whenever a prohibited substance (or its metabolites or markers) is found in bodily specimen, whether or not the athlete intentionally or unintentionally used a prohibited substance or was negligent or otherwise at fault.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/questions-answers/strict-liability-in-anti-doping

There’s some discussion now on EuroSport commentary as to exactly what George Bennett meant when he said that Froome “did a Landis”.

There’s some frantic backpedalling going on now in the Team Lotto Jumbo!

it is true.  strict liability for doping ie any adverse test is a doping fail.

So how is he currently winning the giro?

I just saw that crazy legs. What a plonka to make a statement like that . Didn’t he follow it up with “Ridiculous, he shouldn’t be here”?

If you actually look at the Prohibited List, salbutamol is not a prohibited substance in all circumstances. Its presence at concentrations above the specified threshold (which is what Froome had) is an Adverse Analytical Finding and requires explanation. Froome has not committed an anti-doping rule violation according to the definition above.

You can argue this is legalistic pedantry but it is also the current rules.

I am actually a huge Froome fan, and that was a special ride. After all that expenditure of effort, today’s stage could still offer up some interest.

FIFM.

I’ve always been a great admirer of Froomidge, I remember his epic ride in the Vuelta all those years ago when in Barlowworld colours, you could tell back then that the guy had a very special talent.

Does Tom do a Froomidge today? Shit or Bust as you say ??

Exciting end to a very up and down Giro, for sure.

dpfr

The principle of strict liability is applied in situations where urine/blood samples collected from an athlete have produced adverse analytical results.

The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL or formoterol in excess of 40 ng/mL is not consistent with therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete proves,through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of a therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above.

My bold- he is in the process of trying to prove the abnormal result is due to legitimate use, therefore not guilty at this point

Ok we get it tj. You believe anyone who produces an AAR should be immediately suspended and branded a doper. Fair enough thats your take on it, i reckon it’s a rubbish view but your entitled to it. But cycling doesn’t share your view and that’s all that matters. Why can’t you just have your say and leave it at that ??

Have you an example where your scenario has actually occurred? Or is is hypothetical?

Hypothetical.

Just as it’s currently hypothetical that Froome’s AAF is because he overdosed on his allowed medication.

It should be being reviewed in private, why it was released I don’t know.  And why it is taking so long, don’t know either.

guilty till proven innocent then.

Not really. It’s akin to an employee being suspended pending the outcome of an investigation.

Reverse periodisation

Apologies but this phrase does my head in. Reverse periodisation suggests an athletes starts their preparation with race like efforts and then makes his training less like the race as it approaches. Which is nonsense, especially as he raced in the Tour if the Alps on the run in.

He did however seem to have planned to peak for the final week, much like the Tour last year.

whine all you like about the doping side of things…

fantastic days racing, the like of which is not seen often enough.

great work froome.

And what happened to the moving roadblock Sky employ?

you wait til todays stage

You can knock George Bennett all you like but he’s right, Froome did do a Landis. It’s not to say Froome isn’t clean but it was a Landis move, and it’s OK to say that IMO.

Not really. It’s akin to an employee being suspended pending the outcome of an investigation.

True….. except the penalty for a suspension in cycling and (in this case) being forced to miss a race that comes once a year, and which you can’t necessarily enter every year based on other targets…. it’s not like spending 2 weeks on gardening leave followed by an apology.

a rolling roadblock, or another killer move by froome whereby he puts another 5mins into Dumoulin.
I actually hope for the former, with froome clearly hurt by yesterdays effort and doing everything in his power to cling on… its only for one day, so hardly ‘killing’ the race

Not really. It’s akin to an employee being suspended pending the outcome of an investigation.

But if you were suspended from work, couldn’t complete a major project, lost any chance of bonuses and it had a huge effect on your future career. Then the investigation showed you’d done nothing wrong, would that be right ??

Ta DPFR – thats a clarification I didn’t know.

Yes I do believe all dopers should be banned immediately.  Its a real shame UCI does not do this as it allows dopers to continue riding and thus further damages a sport known worldwide for doping.

No, but in that case I suspect you’d have a reasonable chance of claiming some form of recompense. They won’t rerun the Giro because an AAF turns out to be wrong.