Le Tour doping/speculation/rumour/conjecture thread

Why would it be out by 50W?
That was the error quoted by Boardman on power meters

Power meters are nowhere near that inaccurate – 3% at worst, and you’d hope that Pro teams have them all calibrated properly!

What would it take to convince you?

Well for a start, a wholesale change to Therapeutic Use Exemption. Sure, if you’re really ill, you can take what you need to get better, and you won’t get busted for that drug. However, let’s say withdrawal from competition from the date of the first prescription to three months after the end of treatment.

Porte is hardly a shit climber. Thomas is not just a classics specialist but one of the of best allrounders in the sport.

I’m not a fan boy of sky or froome (though I am of gee), but really struggling to see the smoking gun here.

Comment above about the next few days being the real test is spot on.

Nemesis – old article. It has now happened.
Google it. Can’t post link from this phone sorry

There’s night time testing been done this year, the UCI reported that 4 (?) tests had been carried out but wouldn’t say who was tested or which team.

MSP – it’s been shown that you can microdose and not fail tests or the bio passport

Hmmm, not really, it was “proven” it could beat the bio passport for a short amount of time, about 6 months, but that doesn’t prove that you could keep on beating it forever. Blood values are monitored over years now, I’m not sure anyone could realistically keep their blood values perfect through micro dosing all year long every year through 120 days of racing every year.

Hatter – good theory – credible but I’m not sure that the big gamble is so much Sky’s way of thinking even though there’s some logic to it.

A: Thanks

B: Considering how strong and stacked with superb climbers the team is and how they’ve managed to come out of the first week largely unscathed it was not a huge gamble to think that they could smash it yesterday, the gamble comes from whether they’ve managed to smash the other teams hard enough that they won’t have their bluff called.

If one of the teams that did relatively little yesterday (i.e. BMC) hits today’s stage hard and turn the screws on Sky then yesterday’s fireworks could still backfire badly.

That’s the ‘gamble’ element of Brailsford’s calculations IMHO, but so far it seems to have paid off, Astana and Saxo-Tinkoff have pretty much been knocked out of the GC race, that’s two of the strongest dangers gone in one fell swoop.

Again all this makes sense only if you’re assuming that the team are racing clean and didn’t spend all last night being pumped full of every banned variety of recovery juice going.

Ah, had missed that. Good news.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tour-de-france-night-time-doping-tests-done-before-the-race/

Maybe that’s why AC’s struggling… What are the odds that lots of riders got tested on the rest day night.

As Hatter and myself have said, Sky’s tactics seem to have been to put the effort in early so that others have to make even more effort from now on.

The comment about TUEs is valid: if you are ill enough to require medical treatment then why are you racing? A bit tough if you develop something on the eve of a race but substitutions should be allowed (if they aren’t already) up to the signing on point.

However, let’s say withdrawal from competition from the date of the first prescription to three months after the end of treatment

So if you have Any condition that requires treatment every day, like asthma, you career is over

yesterdays stage was an obvious one for Froome. Snap the elastic on the climb. Pull away on the flatter bit where your faster than Quintana

The big problem (for me) with taking Froome seriously as a clean athlete will always be his ascent without trace at the beginning of his career, not the performances he’s laying down now. To go from Chris down the pub, the skinny bloke who likes cycling, to second in the Vuelta just seems impossible without some form of assistance.

I can accept a bit of give and take with doping, though – if there’s a sort of narrow window of opportunity that people are exploiting around the testing regimes then I’m not especially arsed. This must be happening – movable battlelines and all that. It would only be if Sky were up to their balls in doping and brass-necking the whole world that I’d find it outrageous.

Porte did no more than I’d expect Porte to do yesterday. He got dropped by Quintana then slowly TT’d his way back on, it’s classic Porte. Thomas has been building to this position for the last 2 or 3 years, I remember when SKY initially signed him he was being spoken about as Brad’s successor. He did his job on the lower slopes then sat on the wheels of a group that were trying to limit their losses. Again a great performance but not blowing the field apart.

Also I may be naive but I think doping on the level of a TdF team has to come from the top and be very structured and controlled which would mean Brailsford knowing about it and I just don’t see that at all.

And just as a side note, I’m not in denial about doping at all.

I would bet my house on the fact that there are juiced riders in the tdf.

I just have no reason to suspect sky based on their performance so far.

Except that’s not what happened is it. Watch the Froome docu from ITV and have a look at his palmeres, he was impressing very early on when he was turning up off his own back and he finished strongly on a few stages for Barlowworld.

If you read his biography, there’s credible explanations for his improvements (basically the Vuelta was one of the few times that things all came together without him being ill/injured or crashing) but of course the problem is we’ve heard that before so it’s hard to know how true it is.

Similarly things like his TUE for asthma that had never been mentioned until it was ‘outed’ via the media don’t do much for credibility.

And then add in the bilharzia and while it’s all circumstantial, it’s not surprising that people piece it together to lead to a conclusion of doping.

I think it’s more a case of pretty much every other unbelievable ride over the last 20 years has later proven to be due to doping (Vino TT, Landis solo, Armstrong, Pantani etc) combined with Sky’s hiring policy, and huge transformations – why would they hire the world’s leading blood doping doctor? How did Froome go from this to what happened yesterday? The whole bilharzia thing seems to be a convenient excuse for the dramatic transformation of an average rider into the world’s best climber/TT.

If they were transparent and released all racing data so Ashenden and other experts can analyse it, that would go some way to helping.. and stopping with the bullsh*t claims like they’ve never even measured Froome’s VO2 max etc

MSP – it’s been shown that you can microdose and not fail tests or the bio passport

The science of the tests are pretty solid, especially for EPO, and you have to understand what the benefit of microdosing is, you don’t just do it for one day, you do it for a few months so you can train harder and make the gains.

The area where the biggest current problems lie is in the testing regimes. There are rightfully big questions being asked about Kenyan and Ethiopian runners as they face no winter testing as they train on drugs, then come into race season clean.

It is fairly solid but it’s not beyond challenge which casts reasonable doubt – Kreuziger for example recently. And again, it’s been shown that you can work around it – even if that was for a short period – and get significant (at this level) improvements.

Yep, true enough and again to be fair to Froome, he’s been one pointing out times when he hasn’t been tested at exactly the times when he should be.

dirtyrider – Member

is there a live link for the video anywhere?

https://vimeo.com/133412409

monkeyfudger – Member

Except that’s not what happened is it. Watch the Froome docu from ITV and have a look at his palmeres, he was impressing very early on when he was turning up off his own back and he finished strongly on a few stages for Barlowworld. Aye, Chris had a hard paper round but Uncle Dave saw the potential – give over mate. What those early performances showed was that Froome, with a bit of luck, might, maybe, have what it takes to be a professional cyclist on a tier 1 team (something that was in jeopardy prior to the Vuelta when Sky were thinking of cutting him) – not that he had the potential to be the best cyclist in the world.

Agreed, he was showing incredible promise from a very early age and doing what, in context, were seriously impressive performances riding for Kenya.

Put that together with the the long term bilharzia that was only diagnosed in 2011 and took 2 years to properly treat and you do have a rational explanation for his rise since joining Team Sky. When you combine an exceptionally gifted physique with a very disciplined, driven mind and then place both in the custody of possibly the most advanced, scientific performance programe cycling’s ever seen and off you go.

Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ask questions, but does mean there are justifications for a rational conclusion beyond ‘they all on it’.

But he’s not the best climber and tt in the world is he? If he was on his 7th Tdf win I could understand these comments but he’s won one Tdf and podiumed at the vuelta. He rode like a sack of xxxx all last year. He’s put in one attack on the first hill of the tour. Hes got a good palmeres but nothing more. Also sky has won 2 grand tours and messed up a vuelta for its £40m a year. Is that really a super team?

How did Froome go from this to what happened yesterday?

It sounds like he had a bad knee, did you not read the article? 😛

ye, Chris had a hard paper round but Uncle Dave saw the potential – give over mate. What those early performances showed was that Froome, with a bit of luck, might, maybe, have what it takes to be a professional cyclist on a tier 1 team (something that was in jeopardy prior to the Vuelta when Sky were thinking of cutting him) – not that he had the potential to be the best cyclist in the world.

In your opinion eh mate, which team you working for again? So Froome was talking to other teams on a contract year? ZOMG doping!

firestarter – Member

Reminded me of the landis attack from years back

I disagree with this simply because the day prior to Landis’ mental victory climb he was properly broken, to then pull out the performance the following day was just ridiculous.

Froome hasn’t had that turnaround at all here, in fact he’s backing up what was done on the smaller climbs up the two Murs.

No offence Hatter, but that last post reads similar to the ones five/ten years ago justifying Armstrong’s transformation to Tour Winner.

Froome did nothing prior to 2011, then burst onto the scene as a world beater – what are these impressive results you speak of?

Has anyone read much about GW1516? It seems relevant to mention it, especially given Basso’s news yesterday.

An old link. http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/04/the-new-epo-gw1516-aicar-and-their-use-in-cycling/

Man with undiagnosed serious illness is nevertheless an excellent rider.
Man cured of serious illness turns into world-beater.
Sounds about right.

Innocent until PROVED guilty, not just suspiciion & slander.

You’re right. The last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics: I’m sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. I’m sorry you don’t believe in miracles.

Moses – Member
Man with undiagnosed serious illness is nevertheless an excellent rider.
Man cured of serious illness turns into world-beater.
Sounds about right.

You mean Lance and testicular cancer?

Are those riders the best climbers or were they?

That’s what I keep coming back too – maybe we put too much emphasis on class/past performance and not enough on form. Be interesting to see how it pans out today. I don’t think GT is a top climber, but yesterday he made a sustained high effort without having to push the group on. RP is a class act, and clearly in that transition from super domestique to having a go for himself. So I don’t think yesterday was that surprising… 3/4 more times then hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

richardk – Member
The papers have given up on Froome already, he’s now ‘Kenyan born’ or ‘African’ rather than British.

I’ve always considered Froome to be Kenya’s first TdF winner. From what I’ve read, he’s there as much as possible and I wouldn’t be surprized if he stays there, once his pro career is over.
😐

Froome did nothing prior to 2011, then burst onto the scene as a world beater – what are these impressive results you speak of?

All here under the ‘2007-2010: Early years” section, mind how young Froome is at this point Wikipedia

As I stated in my original post; this doesn’t mean we should stop asking questions but the way he rode with a blood parasite was a sign of his immense potential. Once he was diagnosed and treated the ‘limiter’ came off.

Very different from Lance who was an established top level pro (and World Champ) before he was diagnosed though I can see how the two situations get conflated.

LS – Member

Power meters are nowhere near that inaccurate – 3% at worst, and you’d hope that Pro teams have them all calibrated properly!

tested them have you?

they’re just strain gauges, results can be all over the place.

in the world of force-measuring kit, bicycle power meters are at the cheap end.

Yeah, there’s nothing there – compare 26yr old Froome to 26 year old Contador

So Froome was a good rider who improved once he didn’t have a blood parasite, and Contador was off his tits even then? 😉

GT was possibly under orders not to push on as it would help the other riders he was with. He went with Valverde when the latter broke from the group they were with but was happy to (perhaps could only) sit on his wheel.

well based on all this we should really piss in his shoes.

Moses – Member
Man with undiagnosed serious illness is nevertheless an excellent rider.
Man cured of serious illness turns into world-beater.
Sounds about right.

Innocent until PROVED guilty, not just suspiciion & slander.

That’s funny in a thread about doping. You know Basso’s a doper, yes?

It’s relevant because this a drug – or perhaps a new family of drugs, I don’t know – that is suggested to give huge increases in performance but causes cancer. I sincerely hope that this isn’t what Basso has done.

After the Giro an anonymous pro wrote about the riders who were performing at a far higher level than expected. I can’t remember whether he used the term ‘two tiers’ but it was certainly implied. Just like when EPO first appeared . Imo there are new drugs on the scene which we, the casual viewers,have no idea about yet. It’s unlikely to be GW1516 (I hope), but it’s worth reading about it.

Froome showed no potential whatsoever (he got kicked out the Giro for holding onto motorbikes), then suddenly turned into a world beater. Contador may well have been (and in all probability probably still is) doping, which leads us to how an average rider suddenly turned world class and started beating known dopers?

which leads us to how an average rider suddenly turned world class and started beating known dopers?

First thing I’d do is join the one team who had a massive anti doping policy. I’d certainly not go anywhere near the ones that have a massive pharmacy sign outside.