Le Tour doping/speculation/rumour/conjecture thread

Its the infallibility of Froome (for example, Nibbles last year) No down days, not going bang on one of the big climbs. That’s the bit I find incredible.

There has been one big climb where he’s shown his hand, and two days in the mountains… 😕

wheres the highlights for tonight on the itv player. I missed them live at 7, theyre usually on the player by 10. No sign of them yet 🙁

Sky performance is certainly well up there but they have been quite active in looking for alternative training and psychology methods that could make a difference across the entire team. Froome appears to have a different physiology and it will be interesting to see how strongly Sky team support his commitment to independent testing more widely in the team.

But at the same stage what seems to have been missed from much scrutiny is that Nibali’s and Contador’s performance drops markedly when overnight testing starts; both of whom have a lot more tangible doping related questions previously. Quintana was a bit more knackered by the final climb from the efforts Movistar were putting in pre-climb. Naively I believe he is clean too.

Porte looked burst in the hills today which points more to a real rather than chemical effort. Or clever cover story, as an option for the cynics.

Its the infallibility of Froome (for example, Nibbles last year) No down days, not going bang on one of the big climbs. That’s the bit I find incredible.

Quoted for OMG’z.

You miss my point, Nibali didn’t go bang last year. Like Froome won’t this year that’s what I find incredible, total dominance whomever that may be. The best man, if your that way inclined or the best ‘prepared’

Nibali had a lucky year last year his main rivals crashed out and he was able to control the mountain stages at his pace.

Froom hasn’t “gone bang” this year YET, they have only ridden two mountain stages. He did on his last victory and got punished for Porte going back and getting him a gel.

Froome has also been lucky and it is very early days. His main competition is a sick and over tired Contador, out of form and out of favour with his team Nibali, Quintana who won’t ever worry anyone outside the climbs and TvG, the only man who believes TvG is a Grand Tour contender. To win a Grand Tour you kind of need the stars to align and so far things have been going in Froome’s favour.

Sky performance is certainly well up there but they have been quite active in looking for alternative training and psychology methods that could make a difference across the entire team.

The approach is reminiscent of other historically successful GT riders ( 😉 ) in that you take a strong rider and put them through extreme weight loss. How the weight loss is acheived, how they maintain power and if the power element of the equation receives any help would be the questions. I feel this approach is doable at the whiter shades of grey that exist in the peleton but who knows

And so it continues…

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-faces-scrutiny-for-employing-former-us-postal-soigneur

…only posting as my real interest in the doping stuff (as a Media Studies teacher) is in the feeding frenzy around the TdF – no interest in condemning Froome or anyone else.

FWIW, I would like to believe that Sky are clean and until clear evidence arrives have to assume they are working within the rules (whether or not that makes them truly clean is another question…).

You could of course look at the suspicions of doping the other way. Maybe they were doping when they were the best climbers in the world, and the testing regime is now getting too tight for them to do as much…

Ned Boulting on the ‘counter offensive’.

.@nedboulting's column on Chris Froome's predicament is terrific. So good we flag it up on our front page. #tdf15 pic.twitter.com/iNO89tqX6q

— metrosportHQ (@metrosportHQ) July 15, 2015

For me the most worrying aspect of yesterday’s stage is the fact that two Sky domestiques Porte and Thomas were out climbing Quintana, Contador, Nibali, Valverde, Rodriguez, Gesink, Kreuziger, Uran etc

I think it does them no justice to imply they’re simple domestiques – Richie’s off to lead a pro tour team next year and G’s unique breadth of talent is well reported, he’s great if not outstanding at everything. In contrast, the Movi guys were on the gas all day, Bertie was fairly busy in Italy earlier in the year and Nibbles – well, Nibbles rides for Astana, make your own conclusions.

…until clear evidence arrives …

What would you find acceptable?

pondo – Member
…until clear evidence arrives …

What would you find acceptable?
Lets start with a failed test (Even the masked man LA failed tests – and the likes of Merckx)
After that maybe somebody coming forward to say they have seen stuff thats breaking the rules.
You know evidence.

Lets start with a failed test (Even the masked man LA failed tests – and the likes of Merckx)
After that maybe somebody coming forward to say they have seen stuff thats breaking the rules.
You know evidence.

Yeah, I get that – the post I quoted was on about “clear evidence of no foul play”, would love to know what would constitute clear evidence of that. Sorry, I could have made that much clearer.

Impossible to prove, proving a negative doesn’t work – you could shadow the riders 24/7 and make them sit naked the entire time and people would either suggest you are in on it or that they got doped via special rays beamed through the window.

You know that, I know that… It’s why I asked the question in the first place.

you could shadow the riders 24/7 and make them sit naked the entire time and people would either suggest you are in on it or that they got doped via special rays beamed through the window.

This is it, exactly. After umpteen years of doping, we’ve all become sensitised to the fact that if someone does something a bit special, then they *must* be doping, because everyone who did something good in the past was. And if they aren’t then they’ve invented some new doping system so really they are, it just isn’t known about yet.

I realise that there’s a lot of trust to be won back, maybe it will take ten years of clean as CB suggested (and every fail in the meantime resets the clock again) but as supporters of the sport i think we’ve got to lead the way in that. If Froome says he’s clean, and in the absence of anything to say otherwise other than the fact he’s the best rider by a mile, I’m happy to say he’s clean. And if subsequently I’m wrong and he, Wiggins, Brailsford, Hoy, Pendleton, Peters, Thomas, Cavendish, Sutton, etc. are all implicated I’ll be handing up the nails for their crucifixions; it’ll make US Postal look amateur.

What gets me is I’m incredibly frustrated by all the ‘yeah but, it’s all drugs again’ on here; I’m frustrated that i can’t talk to non-cycling mates or colleagues without it being ‘yeah, but drugs’; and it’s only a hobby to me. If you’re Froome, or G, or Richie Porte, and you KNOW you’re clean, just that you’ve prepared incredibly well (and I mean in the proper sense of prepared) and now all those months and years of prep are coming to fruit – I’m surprised a few journalists haven’t been ejected through press conference windows already.

He’s already pretty well said that once the tour’s over he’s going to tell us all what the secret is. He can’t in advance as that’ll tell us all where he’s weak and how to beat him. I can’t see at this stage what else he can or needs to do?

It used to be the rational, open-minded fans who were cynical about doping, with those on the other side basing their denials on more of an emotional response.

Can’t help feeling it’s switched around now. There seems to be a huge subtext of “they broke my heart and I can never trust them again, the bastards”.

Thoughts?

Chapaking Disagree

Some of the same things we heard being trotted out by the doping-deniers, when everyone with any sense knew LA was doping (eg after the Simeoni affair), are being said again here on this thread.

I’d argue that it is more that we know now
1) how rife doping has been
2) how many tarnished support staff are still involved
3) how suspicious some performances are
4) how almost impossible it is to catch people on PEDs

This means that it is rational to suspect doping, and the emotional response is clinging on to an unrealistic belief in the goodness of heroes to make blanket insistances that it cannot be happening in Sky.

Wish it were different. One day we will know.

I agree. But like being cheated on by your spouse, if you can never forgive them and will always suspect they’re doing the dirty again, you’d be better walking away now. Hanging around being jaded and cynical will just destroy the enjoyment of the relationship anyway*.

If you’re staying, do so in good faith. If that trust gets abused again, then be out of the door in an instant.

* to extend the analogy a bit further; there are a few that’ll hang around despite the suspicions because the racing / sex is mindblowingly good and you can ignore the indiscretions because of that. But if you’re one of them, you can’t then also decry the racing for not being clean.

theotherjonv a good analogy, and a reason why I haven’t watched more than tiny amounts of the TdF coverage in the last few years 🙁

This means that it is rational to suspect doping, and the emotional response is clinging on to an unrealistic belief in the goodness of heroes to make blanket insistances that it cannot be happening in Sky.

Wish it were different. One day we will know.
My hope as you call it from Sky is that coming from the BC track programme and standing up at the front as not being up for any of the doping stuff. Setting out their stand on that etc. In some ways the in the bad old days the bigger problem was ignoring and not testing properly. To have got this far through a tour without a DQ for PED (coke not a PED really) either says the field is cleaner or the testing is pointless.

A few years ago it looked as though the Tour de France in particular was really going after the dopers. We had scandal after scandal and even those thought untouchable were brought down. But all that negative publicity meant that sponsors and broadcasters pulled out and the public in general thought that cycling was uniquely dirty.

So, now (in my opinion) cycling is trying to do what every other big sport does; manage the PR while trying to keep the doping under control. So, those that take the piss still get busted, as an example to others, but the main aim of the “anti-drugs policies” is to reassure the public and certainly not to wash any dirty laundry in public. We tried that and it didn’t work.

Yeah, I get that – the post I quoted was on about “clear evidence of no foul play”, would love to know what would constitute clear evidence of that. Sorry, I could have made that much clearer.

Clear evidence isn’t very clear sometimes. Some people still think Contador is eternally clean and hard done by during his ban

When the riders claim they are ‘clean’, what are they actually saying though? Clean in a ‘i don’t take drugs that are banned but do take a concoction of drugs that are not yet on the banned list and improve my performance’? Clean in a ‘i only eat chicken, pasta and protein shakes’? Or cynically, clean in a ‘we’ve spent so much time and money on techniques to mask our cheating ways, you’ll never twig on’?

My hope as you call it from Sky is that coming from the BC track programme and standing up at the front as not being up for any of the doping stuff. Setting out their stand on that etc.

Why do we assume the trackies don’t live in a world of grey too?

One thing I find interesting is that in recent years there have been few sprinters getting popped.

Maybe they routinely went down the EPO etc route because it was just what cyclists did and now they know they can get away without it or maybe they are on other stuff all together from the GC/ climber type guys which is even more poorly tested or understood…. who knows

The only sprinter I can think of who courted controversy (rather than received a ban) is Kittel and the only recent ban is someone like Matt White (who incidentally started on the track) although his indiscretions themselves weren’t recent

I know a former Aussie sprinter who was sick of the drugs everywhere but maybe I’m incredibly naive and BC are just a massive pharmacy like everyone else. But they seem to be playing it honestly, the data was given to the french press, Froome is off to be tested independently to satisfy the need to bring it all down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling
The UK does seem a little under represented in the list so either they are much better at it or not doing as much.

The UK does seem a little under represented in the list so either they are much better at it or not doing as much.

Given the number of guys who’ve made it to the Pro-Tour level (hardly any) the percentage caught must be roughly similar to other nations 😕

Millar, Simpson, Yates, Staite, JTL spring to mind. Are the likes of Wegelius and Hammond who just so happened o nothing and know nothing about what went on in teams like Discovery, T-Mobile, Mapei and Liquigas

Considering that would cover the biggest medal haul from the last few Olympics there are a few up there. But I see what you are doing, you have decided, no offer of evidence to back it up, no defense to information that does not agree and nothing will change your mind. You are JHJ and I claim my £5 😉

When the riders claim they are ‘clean’, what are they actually saying though? Clean in a ‘i don’t take drugs that are banned but do take a concoction of drugs that are not yet on the banned list and improve my performance’?

I often hear this argument, or variations of it i.e. they are getting round the rules by taking some new drug that hasn’t been banned yet. But if you look at the WADA list of banned substances, number one on the list is:

“Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited at all times.”

There is also a lot of talk about grey areas, but as far as I’m concerned there are no grey areas. WADA produce a detailed and comprehensive list of all the things you can’t do and substances that you can’t take. Anything not on that list is fair play. Indeed it is the job of a professional athlete and their support teams to try and get any advantage that they can without doing anything that is explicitly banned. If WADA don’t like it they can put it on the list and the athlete has to stop doing it, but it’s all pretty black and white as far as I can see.

Grey areas = TUE – it’s been and probably still is massively abused.

There is also a lot of talk about grey areas, but as far as I’m concerned there are no grey areas. WADA produce a detailed and comprehensive list of all the things you can’t do and substances that you can’t take. Anything not on that list is fair play. Indeed it is the job of a professional athlete and their support teams to try and get any advantage that they can without doing anything that is explicitly banned. If WADA don’t like it they can put it on the list and the athlete has to stop doing it, but it’s all pretty black and white as far as I can see.

You should apply for a job as the director of performance at a Pro team- they’d love you 😀 Read about Kittel as an example of “grey”.

Also, as above, TUE. Funny old world when you can take a banned substance with a note from a doctor

Funny old world when you can take a banned substance with a note from a doctor approval from a committee that “should include at least three (3) physicians with experience in the care and treatment of athletes and a sound knowledge of clinical, sports and exercise medicine”

To be strictly correct.

Considering that would cover the biggest medal haul from the last few Olympics there are a few up there. But I see what you are doing, you have decided, no offer of evidence to back it up, no defense to information that does not agree and nothing will change your mind.

Was that is response to my comment?

Why do we assume the trackies don’t live in a world of grey too?

All I was getting at is why do we instantly assume “doping” only happens on the road?

The other thing I was trying to get across is maybe the answer could be “yes, it is mainly on the road” as there don’t seem to be too many sprinters (on the road) being naughty nowadays so maybe the risk doesn’t outweigh the reward (performance gains) for these shorter efforts

To be strictly correct.

True, but then if you really want to be naively pure about things then you can make the argument that if you are competing with these substances then perhaps you are too unwell to compete.

At the end of the day all of this is about what you want to believe. Froome got in a spot of bother recently but it was ok because he had a TUE. Mr. Mo has a coach who may of arranged some TUE’s and he faced no end of media attention. Not the whole story, but at least how it appears in the general public’s eyes

Millar, Simpson, Yates, Staite, JTL spring to mind.

Which Simpson? Tommy?
2 in the last 10 years.

How long does it take for the tales of doping to usually emerge?

It is only recently a decent number of Brits have been on the road together at Pro-Tour level

A high percentage of the big name Brits before this boom have been found to have doped.

We like to think of it being the Spanish or the Italian or the Americans or *insert nationality* that are a load of cheaters but we don’t have thaaaat great a record either

It’s all personal opinion isn’t it, but, as I said, as far as I’m concerned, these aren’t grey areas. This is professional sport. It’s the job of those taking part to try everything they can within the rules to win. It’s the job of those who write the rules to make the game fair and to protect the participants. Of course, it’s also up to us to decide whether we want to watch the spectacle. But, unless you are doing something on the banned list then, as far as I’m concerned you are not cheating.

TUEs are a classic case of an area where the rules might need tightening, but as long as riders/teams are complying with the current rules then, again, they aren’t cheating. They key part of TUEs as far as I can see is the part that states:

“After the UCI Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee has reviewed the application, you may be given authorization to take the needed medicine”

In other words, you have to apply for the TUE before using the substance and a committee has to agree that its use is merited. If you think TUEs are being abused then maybe that committee isn’t doing its job properly, but it’s still not cheating to take something that a UCI committee has said that you can take.

🙄

So basically everyone is they just haven’t been caught yet.
My point with the comparison was that there were large numbers of other nationalities who were being caught each year while there were very few Brits. Analysis would say there was a reason for that.

theotherjonv – Member
I agree. But like being cheated on by your spouse, if you can never forgive them and will always suspect they’re doing the dirty again, you’d be better walking away now. Hanging around being jaded and cynical will just destroy the enjoyment of the relationship anyway*.

That makes sense but the suggestion is that it only happened once. Cycling hasn’t just done the dirty on us, its slept with the rugby team, bedded our best friends and turned a celibate monastery into sex maniacs. And that’s just the stuff we know about. 😉