Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not

Paulie W

frenchfighter wrote:

NervexProf wrote:

C Froome is not happy - understandably so in my opinion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... x-win.html

I can understand his frustration if he is clean. Unfortunately he is going to have to put up with it though, especially if you want to put in the performances he is. I do agree though that the journalists need to be more savvy about it and not just asking random/vague questions.

Again he trots out this:
"My team-mates and I have been away from home for months training together and working our arses off to get here, and here I am accused of being a cheat and a liar."
And wtf do you think everyone else is doing Chris?

Genuine question - what do you think Froome's reaction to the questions should be?

frenchfighter

Above The Cows wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

NervexProf wrote:

C Froome is not happy - understandably so in my opinion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... x-win.html

I can understand his frustration if he is clean. Unfortunately he is going to have to put up with it though, especially if you want to put in the performances he is. I do agree though that the journalists need to be more savvy about it and not just asking random/vague questions.

Again he trots out this:
"My team-mates and I have been away from home for months training together and working our arses off to get here, and here I am accused of being a cheat and a liar."
And wtf do you think everyone else is doing Chris?

It isn't that Froome thinks other people aren't also away from home, training hard, working their arses off etc. It's that they are not getting asked the same questions repeatedly, over and over and over and over again.

No I dont think it is at all. He is saying, and has said multiple times before, as well as Brailsford, that they work very hard. The insinuation being that they are so much ahead of their competitors because they are working harder than them.

Froboz

Above The Cows wrote:

It isn't that Froome thinks other people aren't also away from home, training hard, working their arses off etc. It's that they are not getting asked the same questions repeatedly, over and over and over and over again.

Perhaps that's because no-one else is performing in a way that creates suspicion? Just as a wild stab in the dark...

Paulie W

Froboz wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

It isn't that Froome thinks other people aren't also away from home, training hard, working their arses off etc. It's that they are not getting asked the same questions repeatedly, over and over and over and over again.

Perhaps that's because no-one else is performing in a way that creates suspicion? Just as a wild stab in the dark...

First post!! Welcome to the Board!!!

RichN95.

frenchfighter wrote:

No I dont think it is at all. He is saying, and has said multiple times before, as well as Brailsford, that they work very hard. The insinuation being that they are so much ahead of their competitors because they are working harder than them.

That response though, was in answer to a question about the frustrations of people doubting him, rather than an explaination of superiority.
(Full transcript on Mail Online)

dolan_driver

The suggestion by Dave B that an independent outside agency come into the team and examine the training practices in place at SKY is a good idea.

The belief that the media and wider public have some kind of God-given right to see SKY's training files is a load of crap. As has been stated before, if that data was released, all the so-called experts would crawl out of the woodwork with their "expert" views on how and where the figures prove that SKY are doping their riders. Even suitably qualified scientists can and do derive different interpretations from the same data on a particular rider.

I'm not sure if Greg Lemond is qualified to examine what is going on in the SKY team but it would be reasonable to assume that he would look at things in an impartial way and give an honest assessment of what he might see. David Walsh, I understand, has spent some time with the team at races but I haven't read his assessment of what he saw and Paul Kimmage apparently has little faith in the SKY team, so he mightn't be the best man for the job.

DD.

No_Ta_Doctor

frenchfighter wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

NervexProf wrote:

C Froome is not happy - understandably so in my opinion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... x-win.html

I can understand his frustration if he is clean. Unfortunately he is going to have to put up with it though, especially if you want to put in the performances he is. I do agree though that the journalists need to be more savvy about it and not just asking random/vague questions.

Again he trots out this:
"My team-mates and I have been away from home for months training together and working our arses off to get here, and here I am accused of being a cheat and a liar."
And wtf do you think everyone else is doing Chris?

It isn't that Froome thinks other people aren't also away from home, training hard, working their arses off etc. It's that they are not getting asked the same questions repeatedly, over and over and over and over again.

No I dont think it is at all. He is saying, and has said multiple times before, as well as Brailsford, that they work very hard. The insinuation being that they are so much ahead of their competitors because they are working harder than them.

Actually, what he's saying is "I've put my whole f@cking life into this, I've wanted this since I was a kid and worked bloody hard to get here and all I get is the same question, over and over".

We know why the question keeps getting asked, but it must be a complete gutter to sit there having just done your best ever ride, a ride that in other times would have been celebrated as magnificent the world over and to hear not "congratulations" but "you cheated, didn't you?".

He's showing far more patience than Wiggins did last year, presumably he's learned that if you get angry about it then people will finger you as a doper (Lance got angry sometimes). Unfortunately, if you don't get angry about it then people will still finger you as a doper.

This is a sport that eats it's own babies - understandable or not.

Macaloon

frenchfighter wrote:

Again he trots out this:
"My team-mates and I have been away from home for months training together and working our arses off to get here, and here I am accused of being a cheat and a liar."
And wtf do you think everyone else is doing Chris?

Serious question. Do you completely disregard the possibility that his training is more sophisticated, and that he is as dominant over this field as Nibali was in the Giro because he is a more exceptional athlete?

KieranHardman

One thing that doesnt add up is why other teams havent adopted the much lauded Sky marginal gains approach yet if it works this well. Or if they have why it isnt as effective as Sky's. If Brailsford did his presentation to the UCI and ex-sky riders told their new teams what they did that worked, the other super teams should be much closer.

FWIW I dont think there is anything illegal about Skys approach and everything is above board, they are just a year or so ahead of the curve and taking advantage of everything available to them thats on the limit of whats acceptable. Some of which I would like to see a ban on , e.g. altitude tents which seems to be the latest thing. Something morally grey about those, expecially as they clearly have a big effect.

jonomc4

OK - for those of you who are too busy making accusations based on no facts maybe the most important quote of the whole article is this by DB

Some have demanded that Sky release their power data - numbers which show the power output of their riders on the bikes - but Brailsford does not want to release the team's 'trade secrets' to rival operations.

Instead, he suggested the World Anti-Doping Agency could be invited in by the team and given full access to all their information.

"They can have everything we've got," he said. "They can come and live with us. They can see all of our data, have access to every single training file we've got.

"They can then compare that data on a consistent basis. And they could then tell the world whether they think this is credible or not."

Now really what more can they do than that - they for obvious reasons don't want other teams to see the power data but they have offered WADA access to everything and they can come live with them if they want - Jesus what more can they offer?

No_Ta_Doctor

Dolan Driver wrote:

The suggestion by Dave B that an independent outside agency come into the team and examine the training practices in place at SKY is a good idea.

The belief that the media and wider public have some kind of God-given right to see SKY's training files is a load of crap. As has been stated before, if that data was released, all the so-called experts would crawl out of the woodwork with their "expert" views on how and where the figures prove that SKY are doping their riders. Even suitably qualified scientists can and do derive different interpretations from the same data on a particular rider.

I'm not sure if Greg Lemond is qualified to examine what is going on in the SKY team but it would be reasonable to assume that he would look at things in an impartial way and give an honest assessment of what he might see. David Walsh, I understand, has spent some time with the team at races but I haven't read his assessment of what he saw and Paul Kimmage apparently has little faith in the SKY team, so he mightn't be the best man for the job.

DD.

The basic problem is that there is literally no organisation or group that has shown itself to be inherently trustworthy over the last decade or so. The UCI? Fat chance. The riders? Bad joke. WADA? Too politically motivated.

Where that leaves us is that we, individually as fans, have to verify every rider, every performance, ourselves. We use absolutely rubbish made up on the spot rationalisations of nationality, connections, what they looked like on a climb, power estimates - all pretty much a load of balls. It's a crap place to be, but nobody has been able to do it for us so far and we don't have any other tools available.

The general principle of handing the data over to experts is good enough. The only problem is that there isn't any objective peer reviewed science into how to spot doping from a power profile. There could be, with time, but this stuff is still seriously hypothetical, untested, based on estimations, approximations and noisy background statistics. All WADA could possibly do with the files is to burn them and say "we don't have any way of assessing this".

It's a little disingenuous of Brailsford to suggest such a handover would solve anything, he must know it's not a real option, but no more disingenuous than those that suggest the question would go away if they just published their data, or that there's a good way of resolving it if only we had access to the data.

bazbadger

If the journalists keep asking the same question, then Froome and Sky should give the stock, exact same answer each time. The journos would probably get bored with that. Winning in the Tour is starting to be akin to being given a hot brick to cuddle. Unpleasant to say the least.

Edit:

http://roadcyclinguk.com/blogs/comment-armchair-analysts-risk-tearing-chris-froomes-reputation-to-shreds.html?utm_campaign=newsletter_20130715&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter_rcuk

milton50

Jeez. What a strange thread.

mike6

okgo wrote:

Wiggins says in his own book that he is capable of 450w for an hour
Wiggins did 476 watts in the 2011 national UK 10 mile TT champs
Wiggins reportedly did 477 watts for the last 20 mins of the Giro TT where he lost out to Dowsett

These figures are mind boggling, if Froome is only doing low 400's then I cannot see the issue, the way in which he delivered yesterday wasn't 'orthodox' in as much as it wasn't a bike swinging contador style attack, it was a seated spin up, which seems to have riled people more than anything else, if that's his style, what is the problem...

Exactly. Each to there own. We all know from riding that out of the saddle uses more energy than seated. I learned, over time, to stay seated and spin a smaller gear, thus my climbing improved hugely. I only get out of the saddle now for the really steep hairpins, then sit down again as soon as the incline eases.
These guys spend there lives training, Froomes coach probably worked out from data that Chris was better off, on Ventoux at least,, sitting and spinning.

Spiny_Norman

No tA Doctor wrote:

This is a sport that eats it's own babies - understandable or not.

It's this that's most depressing about the whole affair. In the heat of trying to win the argument, a lot of people are getting angry, but it's depressing either way. Either the efforts of recent years have been for nothing, and 15 years on from Festina we have a new Armstrong, cheating his way to total dominance, or a clean rider is beating all-comers and everyone assumes that he must be a doper.

above_the_cows

Spiny_Norman wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

This is a sport that eats it's own babies - understandable or not.

It's this that's most depressing about the whole affair. In the heat of trying to win the argument, a lot of people are getting angry, but it's depressing either way. Either the efforts of recent years have been for nothing, and 15 years on from Festina we have a new Armstrong, cheating his way to total dominance, or a clean rider is beating all-comers and everyone assumes that he must be a doper.

Would you want to be a pro rider now? A pro rider that wins? I wouldn't. Not with all this crap.

frenchfighter

No tA Doctor wrote:

Actually, what he's saying is "I've put my whole f@cking life into this, I've wanted this since I was a kid and worked bloody hard to get here and all I get is the same question, over and over".

We know why the question keeps getting asked, but it must be a complete gutter to sit there having just done your best ever ride, a ride that in other times would have been celebrated as magnificent the world over and to hear not "congratulations" but "you cheated, didn't you?".

He's showing far more patience than Wiggins did last year, presumably he's learned that if you get angry about it then people will finger you as a doper (Lance got angry sometimes). Unfortunately, if you don't get angry about it then people will still finger you as a doper.

This is a sport that eats it's own babies - understandable or not.

I don`t really disagree here. He certainly has more composure than Wiggins (maybe due to his time in a privileged school). That same `attitude` from Wiggins though is what some people like. Personally I like a rider to be respectable but also to have passion. Chris certainly doesn`t show passion when he speaks but as I have mentioned before I am in a complete conundrum about him.

Do you disagree that it sounds insulting to the other riders working similarly hard?

It was quite the performance yesterday, albeit his funny attacks and attitude towards Quintana. I don`t think if Contador or a handful of other riders had done something similar that the journalists would be much different. Froome`s performances are pushing the boundaries so it is normal they have some skepticism. The question really is whether it is due to assistance of the old-school type, assistance of the new-school type or pure natural talent that has come to the fore due to guidance/recovery from illness/training. I`d like to know what some of the respected trainers would say about Froome`s natural abilities.

I would like to shout all about the performance yesterday and that of the last climb in general, but can`t really feel it inside me to do it genuinely. Ditto with the photo edits. It will also be met with odd responses from some on here too. I miss that feeling of excitement inside me when someone lights it up. I hope some of you Froomeites experience it though when he is doing is thing - lucky you!

Paulie W

Above The Cows wrote:

Spiny_Norman wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

This is a sport that eats it's own babies - understandable or not.

It's this that's most depressing about the whole affair. In the heat of trying to win the argument, a lot of people are getting angry, but it's depressing either way. Either the efforts of recent years have been for nothing, and 15 years on from Festina we have a new Armstrong, cheating his way to total dominance, or a clean rider is beating all-comers and everyone assumes that he must be a doper.

Would you want to be a pro rider now? A pro rider that wins? I wouldn't. Not with all this crap.

I'd probably just cry myself to sleep on my silk sheets in my emperor sized four poster in my solid gold house.

Team4Luke

SKY are cleaner than athletics, see latest news on the cheating runners

ddraver

I'd love WADA to come back with, Nah you re all right Dave there are 16 other teams in the Pro Tour that are Waaaaaay more dodgy than you. Can we have a look at them please?

RichN95.

Here's the problem with revealling data:

After the time trial there was much chatter about Frrome's power and some estimates. One Italian journalist estimated the average was 470W. This was tweeted and retweeted by decent jouranlists with little regard to its accuracy or believability. (It got enough traction for Marco Pinotti to state that if Froome had done over 430W he'd eat a live chicken).

Meanwhile, on Sunday David Walsh reports that Tim Kerrison said the TT power was in the range 415-420W. Barely anyone mentions it. (I know the Times is paywalled, but still)

This is the state of the cycling media. No-one actually wants to learn anything. They just want to cause a fuss.

trek_dan

Find it more suspicious how bad Contador, Valverde, Schleck et al have been since they stopped cheating. Sky are just better at training clean because they've been doing it longer than everyone else.

No_Ta_Doctor

frenchfighter wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Actually, what he's saying is "I've put my whole f@cking life into this, I've wanted this since I was a kid and worked bloody hard to get here and all I get is the same question, over and over".

We know why the question keeps getting asked, but it must be a complete gutter to sit there having just done your best ever ride, a ride that in other times would have been celebrated as magnificent the world over and to hear not "congratulations" but "you cheated, didn't you?".

He's showing far more patience than Wiggins did last year, presumably he's learned that if you get angry about it then people will finger you as a doper (Lance got angry sometimes). Unfortunately, if you don't get angry about it then people will still finger you as a doper.

This is a sport that eats it's own babies - understandable or not.

I don`t really disagree here. He certainly has more composure than Wiggins (maybe due to his time in a privileged school). That same `attitude` from Wiggins though is what some people like. Personally I like a rider to be respectable but also to have passion. Chris certainly doesn`t show passion when he speaks but as I have mentioned before I am in a complete conundrum about him.

Do you disagree that it sounds insulting to the other riders working similarly hard?

It was quite the performance yesterday, albeit his funny attacks and attitude towards Quintana. I don`t think if Contador or a handful of other riders had done something similar that the journalists would be much different. Froome`s performances are pushing the boundaries so it is normal they have some skepticism. The question really is whether it is due to assistance of the old-school type, assistance of the new-school type or pure natural talent that has come to the fore due to guidance/recovery from illness/training. I`d like to know what some of the respected trainers would say about Froome`s natural abilities.

I would like to shout all about the performance yesterday and that of the last climb in general, but can`t really feel it inside me to do it genuinely. Ditto with the photo edits. It will also be met with odd responses from some on here too. I miss that feeling of excitement inside me when someone lights it up. I hope some of you Froomeites experience it though when he is doing is thing - lucky you!

I don't think it is insulting to other riders Michael Creed was quite good on this, he said he saw the stats on what Sky were doing in training, the hours they put in (100 in a 25 day camp, including rest days) and couldn't quite believe it. They're out there being repeatedly whipped up the climbs in a mountain train, motorpaced etc. I genuinely think few teams are training as hard, or as effectively, as Sky.

Ironically, I think Contador probably did train with a similar focus pre Vuelta - mainly because he couldn't get form from racing.

frenchfighter

RichN95 wrote:

Here's the problem with revealling data:

After the time trial there was much chatter about Frrome's power and some estimates. One Italian journalist estimated the average was 470W. This was tweeted and retweeted by decent jouranlists with little regard to its accuracy or believability. (It got enough traction for Marco Pinotti to state that if Froome had done over 430W he'd eat a live chicken).

Meanwhile, on Sunday David Walsh reports that Tim Kerrison said the TT power was in the range 415-420W. Barely anyone mentions it. (I know the Times is paywalled, but still)

This is the state of the cycling media. No-one actually wants to learn anything. They just want to cause a fuss.

At least the 3rd time you have mentioned it though

The other problems with data are that the person on the other side can release what they like to support their case, the data could probably be modified and even if power is below what is supposed to be doesn`t mean someone is not doping.

ddraver

So we all agree it's useless then...

So next idea?

mroli

Interesting that Rich - because if Wiggo can bung out 450 watts for an hour, he would have taken Froome (and Martin) to the cleaners time wise. That would have stopped people from banging on about Froome.

above_the_cows

ddraver wrote:

So we all agree it's useless then...

So next idea?

Richmond Racer can move in with Titchy Richie and report back? Oh hang on that won't work, she's not very objective on that front.

Frenchie to move in with Froome and report back?

RichN95.

mroli wrote:

Interesting that Rich - because if Wiggo can bung out 450 watts for an hour, he would have taken Froome (and Martin) to the cleaners time wise. That would have stopped people from banging on about Froome.

I think Wiggo probably exaggerates a lot to be honest. In the 2011 Vuelta, Froome averaged 406W for nearly an hour in the TT and beat Wiggins. (I know he wasn't 100% fit and a bit heavier, but still)

frenchfighter

But it is different if you do that after a 30min warm up or after 220km of racing at close to 50km/h though. Not to mention being interspersed with multiple incredible accelerations on a hot day with little oxygen in the air. Or do we disagree?

RichN95.

frenchfighter wrote:

At least the 3rd time you have mentioned it though

I know. But with all this clamour for data, people seem to completely ignore it when it's there.