Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not

milton50

NozzaC wrote:

Seems to me that "Errrm.....anyone want to change their opinion after that display?" implies people might want to change their mind to point to Froome doping due to his good performance today but apparently it doesn't?

Yes, that's what I was wondering. Whether people who had previously thought that Froome isn't doping have become more suspicious after that ride. That is quite a a long way from saying that every impressive performance is 'good' evidence of doping.

I thought Jan Bakelants was very impressive on stage 2. Doesn't mean I think that it's good evidence he is doping.

emadden

Froome climbed today with the 2nd fastest VAM Climbing Avg Speed ever after Pantani's #cycling #tdf #Ventoux according to RaiSport

mike6

emadden wrote:

Froome climbed today with the 2nd fastest VAM Climbing Avg Speed ever after Pantani's #cycling #tdf #Ventoux according to RaiSport

And.......your point is?

emadden

That Froome is probably the greatest climber that ever raced ffs mike6 :-)

r0bh

Even a sprinter is worried that someone might "calculate" his W/kg and label him a "mutant"...

Greg Henderson ‏@Greghenderson1 3m
Tailwind up the whole climb helped my watts per kilo guys so don't go getting too impressed by my time up Ventoux.

Macaloon

Science of Sport chap, Dr Tucker: "Slower than Wiggins a couple of years ago". Big-up for the absent diesel.

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/356425009620725761

dougzz

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/latest/article.php?id=46469 Well, what a shocker.

The thing with all this Sky are doping talk is that it will all come out in the next few years if they are. I believe for whatever it's worth that what we're watching now seems odd because after the last 20 years there is precious little standard to judge clean cycling against. Maybe Froome like dominance is what clean racing is like, one guy is just much better. Who knows, what are we going to compare it with, Bertie in 2007?

RichN95.

emadden wrote:

Froome climbed today with the 2nd fastest VAM Climbing Avg Speed ever after Pantani's #cycling #tdf #Ventoux according to RaiSport

That seems incredibly dubious information. Pantani only did one MTF on Ventoux and it wasn't a particularly fast time - plenty have gone faster including the likes of Fuglsang & Ten Dam today (for last 15km)

RichN95.

Macaloon wrote:

Science of Sport chap, Dr Tucker: "Slower than Wiggins a couple of years ago". Big-up for the absent diesel.

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/356425009620725761

I find that dubious too.

frenchfighter

2013: 242km at 42km/h av
2000: 142km at 35km/h av

emadden

Runtothehills wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

Just saw this, interesting timing based on how Froome compared to proven dopers of the past up Ax 3 Domaine:

The day before the climb up AX3, Team Sky Director David Brailsford told VeloNews, "At some point in time, clean performances will surpass the doped performances in the past."

Not really that interesting - in track and field, swimming and such like if a record lasts for more than 15-20 years it's considered remarkable. For example 100m runners are now running quicker than those doped up 20 years ago. Why should cycling be any different?, and Froome didn't surpass the doped performances of the past anyway.

In fact in terms of the time trial he hasn't even surpassed the non-doped performances of the past, the fastest ever long time trial in the tour is still LeMond!

Also what is the context of the quote, normally team directors are asked questions, the timing of the quote was probably question dependent not Brailsford choosingthe timing

Riiiiiggghhhhttttt... Just like Flo-jo's records :-)

emadden

RichN95 wrote:

emadden wrote:

Froome climbed today with the 2nd fastest VAM Climbing Avg Speed ever after Pantani's #cycling #tdf #Ventoux according to RaiSport

That seems incredibly dubious information. Pantani only did one MTF on Ventoux and it wasn't a particularly fast time - plenty have gone faster including the likes of Fuglsang & Ten Dam today (for last 15km)

I dont think the Raisport quote was limited to Ventoux, but more in general i.e. Pantani had the VAM record (I thought it was Contador, set at Verbier) and Froome is now second. Does seem strange - but waiting for someone to point me in the right direction

dougzz

The Mad Rapper wrote:

I think some of you need to wake up. There seems to be an air of 'Don't question what you see'. That strikes me as incredibly dangerous. I don't want to revert to the Armstrong days - if something seems wrong then we should say.
Froome's performance just wasn't believeable today. I can't prove anything but I can't accept that what I saw was natural.

But that surely is equivalent to saying unless they finish in a big pack the one at the front is doping. It's the same as Ax 3, he puts a relatively small amount of time into people like ten Dam and Nieve and some people act as if that's evidence of ET performance. If it's all about performance then point the finger at Nieve and Kreuziger who managed to beat that greatest GT rider of his generation up a mountain he'd have trashed them on in 2010, unless of course Bertie's performance has fallen off, I suppose he has got older.

RichN95.

frenchfighter wrote:

2013: 242km at 42km/h av
2000: 142km at 35km/h av

2000: Three cat 2 climbs & one cat 4 in the run up:

nozzac

Milton50 wrote:

NozzaC wrote:

Seems to me that "Errrm.....anyone want to change their opinion after that display?" implies people might want to change their mind to point to Froome doping due to his good performance today but apparently it doesn't?

Yes, that's what I was wondering. Whether people who had previously thought that Froome isn't doping have become more suspicious after that ride. That is quite a a long way from saying that every impressive performance is 'good' evidence of doping.

If it's different to applying it to every good performance then it begs the question of why apply it to Froome's.

RichN95.

emadden wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

emadden wrote:

Froome climbed today with the 2nd fastest VAM Climbing Avg Speed ever after Pantani's #cycling #tdf #Ventoux according to RaiSport

That seems incredibly dubious information. Pantani only did one MTF on Ventoux and it wasn't a particularly fast time - plenty have gone faster including the likes of Fuglsang & Ten Dam today (for last 15km)

I dont think the Raisport quote was limited to Ventoux, but more in general i.e. Pantani had the VAM record (I thought it was Contador, set at Verbier) and Froome is now second. Does seem strange - but waiting for someone to point me in the right direction

If it's all climbs then that's even more dubious as Ventoux is one of the longer climbs. Froome himself would have done better on shorter climbs.

dougzz

r0bh wrote:

Even a sprinter is worried that someone might "calculate" his W/kg and label him a "mutant"...
Greg Henderson ‏@Greghenderson1 3m
Tailwind up the whole climb helped my watts per kilo guys so don't go getting too impressed by my time up Ventoux.

I laughed at that too, as if getting a defence in first. We judge everything now.

Macaloon

RichN95 wrote:

Macaloon wrote:

Science of Sport chap, Dr Tucker: "Slower than Wiggins a couple of years ago". Big-up for the absent diesel.

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/356425009620725761

I find that dubious too.

I'm sure there's a table somewhere with all this climb data on it. No way a scientist would be pull a number like that out of his evacuation chute :roll:

hipshot

So reminiscent of the interminable Lance 'is he, isnt he' debate.

Turns out he was. And so is Froome.

nozzac

hipshot wrote:

So reminiscent of the interminable Lance 'is he, isnt he' debate.

Turns out he was. And so is Froome.

Well there you go. What more evidence could one possibly require than that? :roll:

hipshot

Not claiming evidence.

Just my opinion nothing more.

(It was right about Lance btw)

smithy21

hipshot wrote:

Not claiming evidence.

Just my opinion nothing more.

(It was right about Lance btw)

Woah. Paul Kimmage has arrived.

RichN95.

hipshot wrote:

Not claiming evidence.

Just my opinion nothing more.

(It was right about Lance btw)

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

hipshot

Dont get such a high nose. This is a pantomime 'oh no he isnt' debate dont forget.

Bo Duke

I HOPE YOU GUYS DON'T SPOIL A FANTASTIC RACE.

salsiccia1

Bo Duke wrote:

I HOPE YOU GUYS DON'T SPOIL A FANTASTIC RACE.

Stay off this thread. It's toxic, whatever side of the fence you're on

Macaloon

Bo Duke wrote:

I HOPE YOU GUYS DON'T SPOIL A FANTASTIC RACE.

Spoiler thread was mainly good. Ignorable noise near the end. Bit of a din at the moment. Blame Carlton's Bofroomian Rhapsody: "Superhuman performance"

RichN95.

With the whole world and his wife estimating power output on stages on twitter, I find it odd that nobody on there mentioned that Tim Kerrison told David Walsh what Froome did in the time trial (415-420W - estimated range as eliptical rings don't give particularly accurate readings)

Macaloon

Some 'clarification' of the Science of Sport Wiggins reference above:

Scienceofsport: @CensoredCyclist @festinagirl didn't he climb it in a mid 48 in Dauphine few years back? The complexity is in comparing tempo vs fast/slow

ddraver

Please could everyone welcome Athletics to the party. Help yourselves to a drink guys and make yourselves at home!