Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not

disgruntledgoat

frenchfighter wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/539351/fdj-trainer-chris-froome-s-performance-looks-legitimate.html

Doesn't convince me either way

Decent read. Interesting that he says: The hotter is gets the harder it is to reach and maintain really high power outputs, as on Saturday it was ridiculously hot. Sweat was dripping off the riders even the Spanish ones. Which is just one more thing to add to the list against Froome.

Kenya, of course, noted for it's chilly climate.

Runtothehills

disgruntledgoat wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/539351/fdj-trainer-chris-froome-s-performance-looks-legitimate.html

Doesn't convince me either way

Decent read. Interesting that he says: The hotter is gets the harder it is to reach and maintain really high power outputs, as on Saturday it was ridiculously hot. Sweat was dripping off the riders even the Spanish ones. Which is just one more thing to add to the list against Froome.

Kenya, of course, noted for it's chilly climate.

and according to the commentators some people were asking why team sky put water on their hands at the bottom of the climb, apparently hands have high blood flow so are good for losing heat through. Along with those awful jerseys (the semi see through ones) and probably a load of other measures we don't know about I can believe that Froome could deal with the heat better than most.

I would also like someone that thinks that team Sky is doping to answer one question - Do you believe all the teams are doping and omerta is still in place or do you think that Sky have pulled the wool over all the other teams eyes and that people like David Millar have been completely fooled?

If the former lets look at the peleton as a whole, if the latter then why do you think you know more than people who are employed in cycling?

dish_dash

+1 to Runtothehills' question.

Not just are Sky fooling everyone else, but why have Mick Rodgers, Cav, Dowsett not taken any of the secrets with them? At least Rodgers was a core member of last year's dominant team.

LeicesterLad

I'm not only concerned with Sky - other teams and riders worry me too, which Is why I don't spend so much time on the Sky doping threads anymore. It's futile.

With regards to Sky - I think if Froome was doping he'd turn out to be a rogue rider acting by himself - not a team wide things though they do have other riders which raise my eyebrows.

I'm not convinced Froome is doping but I'm also not convinced he isn't - that's just the state of cycling at the minute I'm afriad. On the one hand I can see Froome is an incredibly talented rider that suffered in the past with a lack of tactical nouse, his illness and the right team to progress his talent. On the otherhand his appearence from relative obscurity to where he is now is somewhat a meteoric rise but as i stated his set-up and circumstance go some way to alleviate this. His monstering of TT's surprises me a little especially given his relatively rough riding style - my biggest worry is that he is winning races right now in the same manner that Contador was winning them pre 2011, even the best of the best can't keep up with him though of course there are reasonable explanations for this too (aging riders, others without right team etc.) but what I do know is if Contador was monstering races right now in the same way Froome is there would be many a poster on here condemning him as Satans own.

Looking at his numbers in depth there doesn't appear to be anything out of the extra-ordinary and as we all know they are open to interpretation with quite wide margins - for sure if he had beaten Martin in the TT yesterday and taken the fastest ever TT title I would have been far more sceptical than I am now.

Main problem regarding Froome comes back to the Sky PR machine - as SportsScientist blog mentions Sky can't have it both ways. IE. Saying they want to prove the Tour can be won clean and do it with transparency and at the same time refusing to release power data (and I'm not talking releasing power data to the public - I'm talking to those who can analise it properly and possibly some of the trusted cycling press). Until Sky do start being as transparent as they said they would be, then questions will always be asked.

Is Froome doping? Probably not. Can i say that with 100% conviction? No, can anybody? Regardless of the team set-ups riders can always act alone on the snide. If Froome is motivated by riding stronger than Wiggins perhaps he would take extraordinary steps to achieve it but I doubt it, he doesn't seem the type however he does sometimes come accross as quite a difficult personality to judge - I often imagine him to have a dark side even though he comes accross as sweetness and light in every interview he does, he can obviously get pretty pissed and mean (like attacking his team leader at the Tour/ Elbowing contador when he attacks etc.)

All the same can be said of Richie Porte - I like his character even less after his Quintana comments but he has at least blown up a little bit and doesn't look 'unbeatable'. How long can Froome keep up his unbeatable status? He's been on top form since February and that worries me.

All in all I'm 75% sure Froome isn't doping. But until evidence is provided either way (a positive test or some Sky transparency) then I refuse to say 100%.

frenchfighter

Runtothehills wrote:

I would also like someone that thinks that team Sky is doping to answer one question - Do you believe all the teams are doping and omerta is still in place or do you think that Sky have pulled the wool over all the other teams eyes and that people like David Millar have been completely fooled?

If the former lets look at the peloton as a whole, if the latter then why do you think you know more than people who are employed in cycling?

I think 95% of the peloton is clean.

frenchfighter wrote:

I don't think Sky have institutionalised doping in the traditional sense.

I do think Sky are using advanced and shady techniques though. Along the lines of oxygen tanks, simulation of altitude and various other un-sporting and unnatural methods which I have no idea about.

It is most certainly not normal to have two speeds in the peloton all year unless there is something different to the rest of the teams.

They don't even have the best talent in the peloton. In fact I would go as far as to say they have a lot of average talent that has been turned into ET talent.

Also note that riders can dope even if there is no doping in the team. The team could turn a blind eye to this also.

Froome and Porte are another step up this year - Porte particularly so. They live in the same place and train together and by all accounts love each other (Froome stares at Porte's back wheel all day) and so I would certainly not be surprised if big bad Froome was on the jungle juice for two years and has roped in his australian friend Porte.

Macaloon

LeicesterLad wrote:

Main problem regarding Froome comes back to the Sky PR machine - as SportsScientist blog mentions Sky can't have it both ways. IE. Saying they want to prove the Tour can be won clean and do it with transparency and at the same time refusing to release power data (and I'm not talking releasing power data to the public - I'm talking to those who can analise it properly and possibly some of the trusted cycling press). Until Sky do start being as transparent as they said they would be, then questions will always be asked.

Brailsford said he'd be happy to release data to an expert panel in his ITV interview http://www.itv.com/tourdefrance/features/millar-brailsford-kimmage-discuss-doping-in-cycling-tour-de-france-itv-feature/. As did Kerrison in this Cycling Tips interview http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/07/can-performance-be-used-as-an-indicator-of-doping/. The trouble from a transparency perspective is that scientists don't agree that you can derive a rider's physiology purely from his power output. However, from a PR perspective, what more can they do?

ddraver

Bo Duke is right, but I actually like Rich's suggestion

goonz

LeicesterLad wrote:

I'm not only concerned with Sky - other teams and riders worry me too, which Is why I don't spend so much time on the Sky doping threads anymore. It's futile.

With regards to Sky - I think if Froome was doping he'd turn out to be a rogue rider acting by himself - not a team wide things though they do have other riders which raise my eyebrows.

I'm not convinced Froome is doping but I'm also not convinced he isn't - that's just the state of cycling at the minute I'm afriad. On the one hand I can see Froome is an incredibly talented rider that suffered in the past with a lack of tactical nouse, his illness and the right team to progress his talent. On the otherhand his appearence from relative obscurity to where he is now is somewhat a meteoric rise but as i stated his set-up and circumstance go some way to alleviate this. His monstering of TT's surprises me a little especially given his relatively rough riding style - my biggest worry is that he is winning races right now in the same manner that Contador was winning them pre 2011, even the best of the best can't keep up with him though of course there are reasonable explanations for this too (aging riders, others without right team etc.) but what I do know is if Contador was monstering races right now in the same way Froome is there would be many a poster on here condemning him as Satans own.

Looking at his numbers in depth there doesn't appear to be anything out of the extra-ordinary and as we all know they are open to interpretation with quite wide margins - for sure if he had beaten Martin in the TT yesterday and taken the fastest ever TT title I would have been far more sceptical than I am now.

Main problem regarding Froome comes back to the Sky PR machine - as SportsScientist blog mentions Sky can't have it both ways. IE. Saying they want to prove the Tour can be won clean and do it with transparency and at the same time refusing to release power data (and I'm not talking releasing power data to the public - I'm talking to those who can analise it properly and possibly some of the trusted cycling press). Until Sky do start being as transparent as they said they would be, then questions will always be asked.

Is Froome doping? Probably not. Can i say that with 100% conviction? No, can anybody? Regardless of the team set-ups riders can always act alone on the snide. If Froome is motivated by riding stronger than Wiggins perhaps he would take extraordinary steps to achieve it but I doubt it, he doesn't seem the type however he does sometimes come accross as quite a difficult personality to judge - I often imagine him to have a dark side even though he comes accross as sweetness and light in every interview he does, he can obviously get pretty pissed and mean (like attacking his team leader at the Tour/ Elbowing contador when he attacks etc.)

All the same can be said of Richie Porte - I like his character even less after his Quintana comments but he has at least blown up a little bit and doesn't look 'unbeatable'. How long can Froome keep up his unbeatable status? He's been on top form since February and that worries me.

All in all I'm 75% sure Froome isn't doping. But until evidence is provided either way (a positive test or some Sky transparency) then I refuse to say 100%.

So does the fact he came second last year to Wiggo in the Tour and in the Olympics not count for anything? Would that mean Wiggo also doped?

I really don't think they would be doping especially after all the big fuss made over signing a disclosure prior to joining?

smithy21

LeicesterLad wrote:

I'm not only concerned with Sky - other teams and riders worry me too, which Is why I don't spend so much time on the Sky doping threads anymore. It's futile.

With regards to Sky - I think if Froome was doping he'd turn out to be a rogue rider acting by himself - not a team wide things though they do have other riders which raise my eyebrows.

I'm not convinced Froome is doping but I'm also not convinced he isn't - that's just the state of cycling at the minute I'm afriad. On the one hand I can see Froome is an incredibly talented rider that suffered in the past with a lack of tactical nouse, his illness and the right team to progress his talent. On the otherhand his appearence from relative obscurity to where he is now is somewhat a meteoric rise but as i stated his set-up and circumstance go some way to alleviate this. His monstering of TT's surprises me a little especially given his relatively rough riding style - my biggest worry is that he is winning races right now in the same manner that Contador was winning them pre 2011, even the best of the best can't keep up with him though of course there are reasonable explanations for this too (aging riders, others without right team etc.) but what I do know is if Contador was monstering races right now in the same way Froome is there would be many a poster on here condemning him as Satans own.

Looking at his numbers in depth there doesn't appear to be anything out of the extra-ordinary and as we all know they are open to interpretation with quite wide margins - for sure if he had beaten Martin in the TT yesterday and taken the fastest ever TT title I would have been far more sceptical than I am now.

Main problem regarding Froome comes back to the Sky PR machine - as SportsScientist blog mentions Sky can't have it both ways. IE. Saying they want to prove the Tour can be won clean and do it with transparency and at the same time refusing to release power data (and I'm not talking releasing power data to the public - I'm talking to those who can analise it properly and possibly some of the trusted cycling press). Until Sky do start being as transparent as they said they would be, then questions will always be asked.

Is Froome doping? Probably not. Can i say that with 100% conviction? No, can anybody? Regardless of the team set-ups riders can always act alone on the snide. If Froome is motivated by riding stronger than Wiggins perhaps he would take extraordinary steps to achieve it but I doubt it, he doesn't seem the type however he does sometimes come accross as quite a difficult personality to judge - I often imagine him to have a dark side even though he comes accross as sweetness and light in every interview he does, he can obviously get pretty pissed and mean (like attacking his team leader at the Tour/ Elbowing contador when he attacks etc.)

All the same can be said of Richie Porte - I like his character even less after his Quintana comments but he has at least blown up a little bit and doesn't look 'unbeatable'. How long can Froome keep up his unbeatable status? He's been on top form since February and that worries me.

All in all I'm 75% sure Froome isn't doping. But until evidence is provided either way (a positive test or some Sky transparency) then I refuse to say 100%.

Good post. Sums up a lot about cycling for me. There is always an element of - wont get fooled again- by believing too much in a rider. Maybe that will change in a few years too but that's probably too much to hope for.

r0bh

Macaloon wrote:

As did Kerrison in this Cycling Tips interview http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/07/can-performance-be-used-as-an-indicator-of-doping/.

Thanks for posting that link; a good, sensible summary of the issues.

TimB34

smithy21 wrote:

There is always an element of - wont get fooled again- by believing too much in a rider. Maybe that will change in a few years too but that's probably too much to hope for.

I know a few guys who take the position of "they're all doping". This lets them enjoy the spectacle, prevents them from being disappointed when anyone gets done (in fact it just reinforces their worldview) and has the bonus of bolstering their low self-esteem by explaining why they themselves have never made it as a pro/won any races/lost weight.

They are ready to believe anything from secret gene doping (apparently why Wiggins and Hesjedal pulled out of the Giro - a new test was coming online!!) to full government/wada/UCI conspiracies.

Actually trying to debate with them is very unsettling. It makes me feel that I'm hopelessly näive with regard to pro cycling for thinking that most riders are clean

RichN95.

The odd thing with releasing power data is that Froome's power file for the Vuelta '11 Time Trial (in which he was second, comfortably ahead of Wiggins & Cancellara) has been available online ever since then. However, it seems to be constantly ignored, maybe because the numbers - 405W, 5.8 W/kg - aren't numbers on which to build a doping story on.

http://www.trainingpeaks.com/av/Z3JDD63 ... SXNITPULAE

frenchfighter

RichN95 wrote:

The odd thing with releasing power data is that Froome's power file for the Vuelta '11 Time Trial (in which he was second ahead of Wiggins & Cancellara) has been available online ever since then. However, it seems to be constantly ignored, maybe becuase the numbers - 405W, 5.8 W/kg - aren't numbers which to build a doping story on.

http://www.trainingpeaks.com/av/Z3JDD63 ... SXNITPULAE

This is the one Michelle keeps releasing.
1. One example from one stage in 2011 has little relevance to the next couple of years with respect is he doping or not.
2. They could have selectively released the one file that shows him in a favourable light.
I`m sure you will agree.


Why was her HR so high yesterday during the TT? Because of the huge scrutiny her man would have experienced post beating Tony Martin?

RichN95.

frenchfighter wrote:

This is the one Michelle keeps releasing.
1. One example from one stage in 2011 has little relevance to the next couple of years with respect is he doping or not.
2. They could have selectively released the one file that shows him in a favourable light.
I`m sure you will agree.

One set of data proves nothing - I've been banging that drum quite a bit. However, it never seems to even be mentioned despite being a sustained one hour effort against the very best in the world. While it may be favourable, it was sufficient to beat Wiggins & Cancellara comfortably - so an indication of what is required at that level..
It's the fact that it's never referenced by those clamouring for figures that is interesting to me, rather than the figures themselves.

adr82

frenchfighter wrote:

Why was her HR so high yesterday during the TT? Because of the huge scrutiny her man would have experienced post beating Tony Martin?

Surely there's no real difference between Froome being 11s behind Martin or 2s ahead of him? If one time is somehow suspicious then the other one has to be as well, because they're both clearly in the same ballpark given the range of times everyone else posted! The fact that you're posting so much about this clearly illustrates my point, he hasn't really avoided much scrutiny at all, has he? So I don't know what you're trying to say here.

DeadCalm

LeicesterLad wrote:

Excellent stuff...

Really good, balanced post LL. That's pretty close to summing up where I am on the whole doping issue. I simply don't believe there is organised doping on Sky and don't think there is anything to suggest to the contrary. And that includes the performances of the teams as a whole. I think some of the early train tactics raised some eyebrows but they weren't doing anything that a number of other teams aren't capable of doing and indeed have done since. And if you look at the numbers, the people involved, the competition, there really is nothing there.

It's funny you mention that Froome reminds you of Contador in his prime. I was thinking the exact same thing last night. I really hope Froome is clean. I too think he probably is but his performances in the last couple of years have been so remarkable that, given the history of the sport, it is difficult not to feel a little uneasy.

RichN95.

DeadCalm wrote:

It's funny you mention that Froome reminds you of Contador in his prime. I was thinking the exact same thing last night. I really hope Froome is clean. I too think he probably is but his performances in the last couple of years have been so remarkable that, given the history of the sport, it is difficult not to feel a little uneasy.

The thing is if you are old enough, like me, it also looks reminiscent of LeMond or Delgado, and no doubt those older than me like Hinault and Fignon. Clean (or pre-EPO) and dirty cycling don't really look much different.

Macaloon

Macaloon wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Good post but to illustrate one form of analysis to avoid.
Which is why you have relatives as well as absolutes and don`t base your reasoning on one fact.

Facts are solid. Would you mind listing just a couple of facts that lead you to your "unbelievable/ET" reasoned decision on Froome? Worth reading this while you cogitate:

"Physiologically, 6.4 W/kg for 24 minutes does not ring any alarm bells in and of itself. Remember, the origins of this approach are basically that performance implies physiology. Therefore, you can work backwards from power to estimate the physiology driving it."

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/tour-rest-day-pondering-unanswerables.html

Since you have the time to spew innuendo about a rider, FF, can you please answer the above question? Ta

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

It's funny you mention that Froome reminds you of Contador in his prime. I was thinking the exact same thing last night. I really hope Froome is clean. I too think he probably is but his performances in the last couple of years have been so remarkable that, given the history of the sport, it is difficult not to feel a little uneasy.

The thing is if you are old enough, like me, it also looks reminiscent of LeMond or Delgado, and no doubt those older than me like Hinault and Fignon. Clean (or pre-EPO) and dirty cycling don't really look much different.

Unfortunately that's why the power debate keeps cropping up. Clean and EPO cycling both look pretty similar. The only real difference is that one is faster than the other. You can a few details about riders with fat arses flying up the climbs, but that's a bit trickier to quantify. Though I'm sure Vayer only got into power metrics when his normalized arse-width climbing coefficient wasn't taken seriously.

DeadCalm

RichN95 wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

It's funny you mention that Froome reminds you of Contador in his prime. I was thinking the exact same thing last night. I really hope Froome is clean. I too think he probably is but his performances in the last couple of years have been so remarkable that, given the history of the sport, it is difficult not to feel a little uneasy.

The thing is if you are old enough, like me, it also looks reminiscent of LeMond or Delgado, and no doubt those older than me like Hinault and Fignon. Clean (or pre-EPO) and dirty cycling don't really look much different.

Fair point. Sadly I am old enough to remember Hinault but I wasn't paying too much attention at the time. I didn't start watching cycling until Channel 4 started showing the TDF in the mid-80s and my viewing was very much restricted to the Tour until well into the EPO era.

salsiccia1

RichN95 wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

It's funny you mention that Froome reminds you of Contador in his prime. I was thinking the exact same thing last night. I really hope Froome is clean. I too think he probably is but his performances in the last couple of years have been so remarkable that, given the history of the sport, it is difficult not to feel a little uneasy.

The thing is if you are old enough, like me, it also looks reminiscent of LeMond or Delgado, and no doubt those older than me like Hinault and Fignon. Clean (or pre-EPO) and dirty cycling don't really look much different.

Absolutely - they could climb and time trial. They were the best riders and as such were good at all the disciplines, just as Froome is now. And if he is doping, you can't believe that others won't be. Including the 2 of the next 4 riders on GC that have previous.

disgruntledgoat

I may just start responding to any insinuation or allegation against any rider with the simple, two word request

"evidence please"

And anecdote, conjecture and hearsay aren't evidence.

dsoutar

Quick question / point and apologies if it's been made elsewhere. Does the panel think there is any possibility that whilst EPO etc were all de rigeur for pro cyclists (i.e up until 4-5 years ago, say) that actually very little was done to see what legally could be done to advance performance and that we might be reaping those benefits now ?

My feeling is that while EPO was on the go there was little incentive to advance sports science / medicine in an ethical way.

ddraver

It's a good point dsoutstar, we still see the effects of "tradition" in the peloton. There is also the reality that most teams (not all) do not train together and their riders all have different training styles, levels and efficacies

LL - Good post as usual. I agree with what you said. What irks me and sucks me into stupid arguments is A) people only asking questions of Sky, even when teams with confirmed and convicted doping pasts are presnet and B)People abusing science. One is a cycling thing, one I'm happy to admit is a general thing.

LeicesterLad

Salsiccia1 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

It's funny you mention that Froome reminds you of Contador in his prime. I was thinking the exact same thing last night. I really hope Froome is clean. I too think he probably is but his performances in the last couple of years have been so remarkable that, given the history of the sport, it is difficult not to feel a little uneasy.

The thing is if you are old enough, like me, it also looks reminiscent of LeMond or Delgado, and no doubt those older than me like Hinault and Fignon. Clean (or pre-EPO) and dirty cycling don't really look much different.

Absolutely - they could climb and time trial. They were the best riders and as such were good at all the disciplines, just as Froome is now. And if he is doping, you can't believe that others won't be. Including the 2 of the next 4 riders on GC that have previous.

You can't make that assumption though. Yes Piti and Bertie have previous but there is just as little evidence that they are at is right now as there is for Froome. Infact Piti and Contador are no longer the World Beaters. Froome is. Well, there is definately nothing suspicious about the way Contador is riding this year other than the fact that it lends itself to the probability he was doping pre 2012.

Tom Dean

frenchfighter wrote:

I think 95% of the peloton is clean.

And, following on from the other thread, that the 95% tolerate Sky doping as long as Froome lets Tony Martin win the time trial?

Macaloon

dsoutar wrote:

Quick question / point and apologies if it's been made elsewhere. Does the panel think there is any possibility that whilst EPO etc were all de rigeur for pro cyclists (i.e up until 4-5 years ago, say) that actually very little was done to see what legally could be done to advance performance and that we might be reaping those benefits now ?

My feeling is that while EPO was on the go there was little incentive to advance sports science / medicine in an ethical way.

"100Climbs Jul 10, 10:49pm via web
While everyone doped instead of training Sky trained. Now they have all stopped doping Sky beat them, time for them to start training."

In addition to this basic training edge (which may be not much compared to Movi), I'd expect Sky have a head start on any efficiency gains that can be had through different altitude work etc

disgruntledgoat

OnYourRight wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

I may just start responding to any insinuation or allegation against any rider with the simple, two word request

"evidence please"

You want evidence? I have evidence!

Who was David Millar dining with when he was arrested in that Biarritz restaurant? Brailsford!

What's that evidence of exactly?

above_the_cows

OnYourRight wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

I may just start responding to any insinuation or allegation against any rider with the simple, two word request

"evidence please"

You want evidence? I have evidence!

Who was David Millar dining with when he was arrested in that Biarritz restaurant? Brailsford!

Oh come on! That is nothing more than evidence that David Millar was having dinner with Dave Brailsford and that there is a restaurant that serves dinner in Biarritz.

FJS

frenchfighter wrote:

Also note that riders can dope even if there is no doping in the team. The team could turn a blind eye to this also.

LeicesterLad wrote:

With regards to Sky - I think if Froome was doping he'd turn out to be a rogue rider acting by himself - not a team wide things though they do have other riders which raise my eyebrows.

Be serious. Do you guys genuinely believe this? A team like Sky with its detailed training monitoring, anti-doping PR and national Olypmic team connections 'turning a blind eye' and keeping scope for 'rogue riders' to do their thing?
Although I personally believe it's extemely unlikely, I know better than to completely 100% rule out organised team doping on a well-organised big budget team. Again, I do not believe that is the case with Sky, but turning blind eyes to rogue riders, no certainly not. If Froome is doping, Wiggins and the Olympic track team are/were too, and Braislford is the new Bruyneel