Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not

TMR

jonomc4 wrote:

The thing that saddens me in cycling now - is that anyone or any team that win are considered cheats - it is a fact of life that someone has to win the race they cant all be cheats? Thanks LA.

It's not whether they win or not, it's the manner of the victory that raises suspicions.

TMR

nic_77 wrote:

^This.
Someone has to win. There will be attacks - sometimes these will be spectacular and successful.

You can't detect doping visually! You can raise suspicion but that is far from the same thing.
If this internet witch hunt continues cycling will be dead - just remember how it is all paid for (sponsors), and be careful what you wish for!

That was the same argument used during the Armstrong era and it's unacceptable.

inseine

The Mad Rapper wrote:

jonomc4 wrote:

The thing that saddens me in cycling now - is that anyone or any team that win are considered cheats - it is a fact of life that someone has to win the race they cant all be cheats? Thanks LA.

It's not whether they win or not, it's the manner of the victory that raises suspicions.

That's what sad though isn't it, there either boring or dopers in some people's eyes. Can't win.

No_Ta_Doctor

powerbookboy wrote:

jonomc4 wrote:

The thing that saddens me in cycling now - is that anyone or any team that win are considered cheats - it is a fact of life that someone has to win the race they cant all be cheats? Thanks LA.

To be blunt - tough. We are where we are. You'd have to deluded to not have suspicions about any successful professional athlete. There's so much money at stake, the character-set of any ultra-successful and competitive person is typically that of a risk-taker, so why is anyone surprised that doping continues?

The real success of the last few years is not in my opinion that the testing for individual drugs is getting better, it's the biological passport is enabling the testers to more accurately identify the people to test and the windows to test in. It's reducing the window of opportunity and reducing the gains that can be made to such an extent that the whole risk/reward balance is tilting towards Sky's "marginal gains" from "needle up the bum".

Having said that, due to the performance differentials getting narrower, you could think there's an increased benefit to doping now compared to 10 years ago. If I can find a small edge from doping in this environment, it's likely to give me a larger relative gain than from 10 years ago.

Whilst my gut feeling is Sky are clean, I can't deny that when Froome spun away from Bertie I blurted "that's ridiculous" out loud. The gap that he pulled in such a short distance was astonishing. That it inched out over the next few k until the elastic finally snapped in the last k, was somewhat reassuring, but you can't be surprised that people have doubts about Froome. His story bears too many similarities to LA for people not to draw parallels.

But if it wasn't Froome, it would be someone else. If Bertie was leading, the story would be the same (with more basis in hard fact). If the Belkin boys where winning, we'd all be nodding and whispering "new sponser to impress, dirty Team". If Valverde was winning everyone would be choking in their beer. It goes on and on.

It's nothing personal against Sky, Froome or any rider. It's justified suspicion against the best endurance athlete in the world. They've earned our respect, but I don't think they can ever earn our trust during their career. They'll have to wait until they're old and fat before we can unequivocally give them that...

Top post.

While it looks like the peloton is cleaner than it has been for many years that leaves a vacuum for competitive advantage.

Personally I think Sky's marginal gains, coupled with some exceptional athletes and an approach to training that has no sacred cows from cycling traditions has allowed them to fill that cleanly - though as you say, there will always be suspicion.

But take a look around cycling today, lots of the things Sky/Team GB were doing (not necessarily the only ones or the first) that maybe looked a bit daft are being repeated all over the place. Warming both up and down on rollers, wearing skinsuits, covered helmets, huge death star with all mod cons, own mattresses, top notch chef etc. Sky put the whole package together, all the details, and set the standard.

RichN95.

The Mad Rapper wrote:

jonomc4 wrote:

The thing that saddens me in cycling now - is that anyone or any team that win are considered cheats - it is a fact of life that someone has to win the race they cant all be cheats? Thanks LA.

It's not whether they win or not, it's the manner of the victory that raises suspicions.

Before EPO riders used to win more emphatically than that. The likes of Fignon, LeMond and Hinault would ride away from everyone like that loads of times.

Don't say it 'looks like doping' if you can't remember what clean looks like.

TMR

Again post like this will not be tolerated

No_Ta_Doctor

The Mad Rapper wrote:

jonomc4 wrote:

The thing that saddens me in cycling now - is that anyone or any team that win are considered cheats - it is a fact of life that someone has to win the race they cant all be cheats? Thanks LA.

It's not whether they win or not, it's the manner of the victory that raises suspicions.

They raced conservatively to power meters last year for Wiggins and were accused of doping.
They race aggressively in the mountains this year and they're accused of doping.

I'm not really sure how they can race that would make them look clean - other than adopting the Cofidis model and completely disappearing.

TMR

RichN95 wrote:

Don't say it 'looks like doping' if you can't remember what clean looks like.

I don't think the sport has ever been clean. Or are you going to try and argue the toss about that as well?

TMR

No tA Doctor wrote:

They raced conservatively to power meters last year for Wiggins and were accused of doping.
They race aggressively in the mountains this year and they're accused of doping.

I'm not really sure how they can race that would make them look clean - other than adopting the Cofidis model and completely disappearing.

After everything that's happened, I don't trust any of the top GC riders full stop. I just can't believe anyone can look at Froome basically sprinting 7KM up Ventoux after 100KM of hard racing to get there and say "Yeah that's fine. Nothing to see, move along".

It's a joke.

RichN95.

The Mad Rapper wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Don't say it 'looks like doping' if you can't remember what clean looks like.

I don't think the sport has ever been clean. Or are you going to try and argue the toss about that as well?

Clean as in pre-EPO. You need to get it into your head that doped cycling looks exactly the same as clean cycling, just slightly quicker. You cannot judge by sight. Ever.

No_Ta_Doctor

The Mad Rapper wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

Yet on this forum you are not allowed to have suspicion...that is if it is about Sky

No go ahead, please be suspicious. Just don't present an idle suspicion as statement of fact, unless you have the evidence to support it. Be prepared to admit that it is fuelled by nothing but doubt and conjecture. The suspicions surrounding LA and USPS were, afterall, supported by several pieces of anecdotal evidence and testimony long before USADA.

Look fella - you and me are going to fall out.

Pin your f*cking ears back and listen because I won't repeat myself. It is not your place to dictate when or how people post; if people want to suggest someone is doping then that's up to them. If your sensitive little personality can't deal with the fact that the use of PEDs still exists in our sport, then either find another sport or block everyone that won't be brow beaten.

I won't be silenced by you or anyone else.

Boring. You remain unsilenced.

If your sensitive little personality can't deal with the fact that other opinions still exist on our board, then either find another board or block everyone that won't be brow beaten.

Want to move onto Hincapie?

bompington

The Mad Rapper wrote:

...angry rant telling someone not to post stuff... ...It is not your place to dictate when or how people post... ...more angry rant telling someone not to post stuff...

My irony meter just broke

davidof

> The likes of Fignon, LeMond and Hinault would ride away from everyone like that loads of times.

There was dope before EPO.

LeMond was on French TV yesterday at the summit of the Ventoux and was wittering on about power. Well here are some figures if anyone wants to crunch them:-

Bedoin to the Summit: 21.1km, 1574m of climbing giving an average grade of 7.4% (the real grade is 10% in places)
Froome weights 68kg and is 186cm. His bike weighs around 6.8kg
Ten Dam did the segment in 1h 1minute, Froome was 1m53 ahead.
There was a 20km/h cross wind after Chalet Reynard but they were riding in a group.

You should be able to estimate average power from that. Given that it is at the end of a 200km+ stage too. Power looks to be over the 400 watt level.

Of course you really need their crank torque readings to get a real idea of power.

TMR

RichN95 wrote:

You cannot judge by sight. Ever.

Of course you can. Common sense is common sense. I know what the body is capable of. Look at the difference in Contador pre and post ban. Where are the repeated attacks gone? He could do it before because he could recover far faster and attack again, he can't do it now because he's clean.

TMR

bompington wrote:

The Mad Rapper wrote:

...angry rant telling someone not to post stuff... ...It is not your place to dictate when or how people post... ...more angry rant telling someone not to post stuff...

My irony meter just broke

Don't like it, then you know what you can do. It's not rocket science chopper.

nferrar

Doping didn't start with EPO, far from it - although going way back it was legal. As for Froome - ofc it's acceptable that some people question if he's clean, given all that's happened in cycling in the past couple of decades you'd be naive to think it's no longer a possibility. That said I believe Froome is clean, I just can't see a situation where Sky/Team GB/Brailsford etc would have anything to do with doping, the risk is just too high and the consequences too severe.

Has anyone done an analysis on Froome's Ventoux ascent yet? Would be interesting to see how it compares with times during 95-05. Maybe if it really is a clean and level playing field now then natural ability + Sky's training methods are enough to produce rides that look exceptional?

I'll be watching Contador and Valverde's performances on Tuesday closely, I'm betting at least one of them has some fresh blood in them and does an unbelievable ride...

TMR

Post removed - Personal insults and abuse will not be tolerated on here

inseine

The Mad Rapper wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

You cannot judge by sight. Ever.

Of course you can. Common sense is common sense. I know what the body is capable of. Look at the difference in Contador pre and post ban. Where are the repeated attacks gone? He could do it before because he could recover far faster and attack again, he can't do it now because he's clean.

We don't know he's clean. I don't like the ex doper term (I know you didn't use it) but we can't assume anyone is clean especially the already busted. I hope contador is clean though, gives me more faith in the others.

ddraver

nferrar wrote:

Has anyone done an analysis on Froome's Ventoux ascent yet? Would be interesting to see how it compares with times during 95-05. Maybe if it really is a clean and level playing field now then natural ability + Sky's training methods are enough to produce rides that look exceptional?

Yes, but the numbers are all under 6 W/kg so funnily enough there is a lot less shouting about them this time...

Even that total wast of space @amorph-whatsit bloke has had to basically divide the climb into 500m segments to try and find one where Froome was quicker than Armstrong so he can justify his twitter account

I take it MR's Turbo ride didnt work then...

Bo Duke

The Mad Rapper wrote:

Want to move on to sucking my c*ck? F*cking idiot.

Ever been in a Turkish bath, son?

FatTed

davidof wrote:

> The likes of Fignon, LeMond and Hinault would ride away from everyone like that loads of times.

There was dope before EPO.

LeMond was on French TV yesterday at the summit of the Ventoux and was wittering on about power. Well here are some figures if anyone wants to crunch them:-

Bedoin to the Summit: 21.1km, 1574m of climbing giving an average grade of 7.4% (the real grade is 10% in places)
Froome weights 68kg and is 186cm. His bike weighs around 6.8kg
Ten Dam did the segment in 1h 1minute, Froome was 1m53 ahead.
There was a 20km/h cross wind after Chalet Reynard but they were riding in a group.

You should be able to estimate average power from that. Given that it is at the end of a 200km+ stage too. Power looks to be over the 400 watt level.

Of course you really need their crank torque readings to get a real idea of power.

Laurens Ten Dam Strava for the stage 396W for the Ventoux
http://app.strava.com/activities/67057155

jimmythecuckoo

OnYourRight wrote:

You’d have to be naive to say Froome is definitely clean, but you’d have to be malicious to say he’s definitely doping.

That's the post for me...

Would I stake my mortgage on Froome? No. But's that not based on him or his actions, its based on the historical failure of riders this dominant not to have been doped.

Plus the field he is beating being in the main led by riders still of that ilk. Contador, Schleck and Valverde.

(Have I just broken my no negative postings during the Tour rule? )

RichN95.

davidof wrote:

LeMond was on French TV yesterday at the summit of the Ventoux and was wittering on about power. Well here are some figures if anyone wants to crunch them:-

Bedoin to the Summit: 21.1km, 1574m of climbing giving an average grade of 7.4% (the real grade is 10% in places)
Froome weights 68kg and is 186cm. His bike weighs around 6.8kg
Ten Dam did the segment in 1h 1minute, Froome was 1m53 ahead.
There was a 20km/h cross wind after Chalet Reynard but they were riding in a group.

You should be able to estimate average power from that. Given that it is at the end of a 200km+ stage too. Power looks to be over the 400 watt level.

The wind isn't consistent, the road turns so it is different in different places. Did you measure it yourself? And what about the road - what is the rolling resistance? Was the pace consistent? Was the slope consistent? How much sheltering did each rider get? What is the individual drag of each rider? What was the air density?

If you can get an accuracy of +/- 10% you're a miracle worker. Even SRM is only accurate to 2%.

We have been told one power figure for Froome - 415-420W for the time trial. For the sake of argument, let's say that's correct. What does that tell you about the possibility of doping?

ddraver

FatTed wrote:

Laurens Ten Dam Strava for the stage 396W for the Ventoux
http://app.strava.com/activities/67057155

How do you see the power numbers?

t4tomo

So if Sky / Froome were so juiced up to the nines - how come Froome (who was sat just behind Cavendish) when the ecshalon split came on Friday couldn't get across the gap with Cav and then Sky couldn't bridge or clsoe the gap down later?

Very good ride by Froome yesterday, I think you have to ask not did he sprint up the mountain at an unfeasible pace, but is it feasible he could ride quicker than Contador up the mountain and be marginally quicker than a young columbian debutant in teh closing stages of a very high mountian stage?

Probably yes bertie hasn't been the same rider post ban, itys possible they are both now clean but bertie sin't as good a climber as froome. - been born at altitude probably helps him too.

ddraver

He was also pegged back almost single handedly by that renowned cyclist Laurens Ten Dam...

markwb79

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

OnYourRight wrote:

You’d have to be naive to say Froome is definitely clean, but you’d have to be malicious to say he’s definitely doping.

That's the post for me...

Would I stake my mortgage on Froome? No. But's that not based on him or his actions, its based on the historical failure of riders this dominant not to have been doped.

Plus the field he is beating being in the main led by riders still of that ilk. Contador, Schleck and Valverde.

(Have I just broken my no negative postings during the Tour rule? )

or......

The gap between him and others like Mollema and Ten Dam has stayed the same and the 3 you mentioned have all dropped?

TMR

t4tomo wrote:

Very good ride by Froome yesterday, I think you have to ask not did he sprint up the mountain at an unfeasible pace, but is it feasible he could ride quicker than Contador up the mountain and be marginally quicker than a young columbian debutant in teh closing stages of a very high mountian stage?

I think you are trying to justify what you saw to yourself. That's up to you obviously.

Macaloon

Nibali won the Giro by 4'43" over Uran with such a panachetastic display, that the margin would surely have been greater if the amount of climbing hadn't been reduced by the weather. I distinctly recall the tone of posts being respectful of the winner's dominance. Despite some characters with strong doping connections at the heart of Astana, posters seemed happy enough that there was no accumulation of anecdotal 'evidence' against Nibali. There the matter rested.

I suspect most posters would be happy for the same common decency to be extended to Froome. Similarly, I believe most posters would be all over any anecdotes from anywhere within the BC empire, not just Sky. The angst results from the repeated flinging of accusations in the absence of any smoking guns.

jimmythecuckoo

Markwb79 wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

OnYourRight wrote:

You’d have to be naive to say Froome is definitely clean, but you’d have to be malicious to say he’s definitely doping.

That's the post for me...

Would I stake my mortgage on Froome? No. But's that not based on him or his actions, its based on the historical failure of riders this dominant not to have been doped.

Plus the field he is beating being in the main led by riders still of that ilk. Contador, Schleck and Valverde.

(Have I just broken my no negative postings during the Tour rule? )

or......

The gap between him and others like Mollema and Ten Dam has stayed the same and the 3 you mentioned have all dropped?

I agree with that... Would that have been a more positive presentation of my point