Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not

No_Ta_Doctor

frenchfighter wrote:

So I reckon the answer is this. The other teams need to do intervals. Really, really hard ones. Often. I reckon that will then take them from also-rans to GT ETs too. I`m surprised they

If Froome as a base rider is just a bit above average and the `Training` he does has turned him into the Kenyan Konkerer I strongly suggest the other teams who hold much better natural talent then Sky follow suit. They can race the same way just be faster when it matters.

Well if you think

Froome as a base rider is just a bit above average

then I can see where you're coming from. We don't really have a lot of info about what his "baseline" was though. He came 34th in the Giro looking like Tony Martin (see pics posted by Rich above, and yes, I know a picture can be deceptive, but the weight difference is still remarkable). He had bilharzia for some time, which is pretty rough. He was late to racing, showed potential (according to Brailsford) ad was generally thought of as a bit of a diamond in the rough. He's certainly well polished now, epileptic octopus in a spin drier style aside.

alihisgreat

frenchfighter wrote:

No comment. Just posting for info.

Two things Cyclingnews forums are good for:

1) having a good laugh
2) learning something new about doping - http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=14973 (be careful though.. eg. the Leinders connection isn't true)

Macaloon

ddraver wrote:

The topic combines 2 of my passions, cycling and science. When I'm not listening to cycling podcasts, I enjoy "sceptic" or "rational" podcasts that talk about how much science is attacked, missused and abused by people like creationists, homeopathists, chiropracters and their ilk.

Drat. I thought we'd seen the last of that radical fundamentalist fringe group, running around diluting everything.

MrSweary

ddraver wrote:

Richard Moore ‏@richardmoore73
Hearing rumours that Team Sky are using a new, undetectable drug from Czech Republic called Cake. #alarming

Retro, but made me giggle...

The cake is a lie!

Spiny_Norman

ddraver wrote:

Richard Moore ‏@richardmoore73
Hearing rumours that Team Sky are using a new, undetectable drug from Czech Republic called Cake. #alarming

Retro, but made me giggle...

"There's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact."

A different episode, I know, but it could have been satirising the Sky-Are-Doping mob on Twitter.

frenchfighter

No tA Doctor wrote:

Well if you think

Froome as a base rider is just a bit above average

then I can see where you're coming from. We don't really have a lot of info about what his "baseline" was though. He came 34th in the Giro looking like Tony Martin (see pics posted by Rich above, and yes, I know a picture can be deceptive, but the weight difference is still remarkable). He had bilharzia for some time, which is pretty rough. He was late to racing, showed potential (according to Brailsford) ad was generally thought of as a bit of a diamond in the rough. He's certainly well polished now, epileptic octopus in a spin drier style aside.

I agree his baseline is blurry which makes matters hard. His palmares prior is bad, not just average. I have not heard his name once from anyone saying he had the `a tout` to become a GT champion and most certainly not in the manner of this margin we are witnessing. As far as I am aware Sky were looking to get rid of him then he magically turned World Beater.

I am going to start a Chris Froome thread later and post some interesting info from an interview he gave in a French magazine for starters.

pedalpower

A few points that I don't think have been clearly enough expressed yet:
The argument that Froome is doping seems largely based on how easily he beat the opposition (comparisons with different years and what is biologically possible are a different matter) but there are several reasons why Sky's degree of dominance should not be implausible:
1) Froome and Sky have been the very clear favourite since last year's tour and it is possible that no-one else really felt they had a chance and were consequently demoralised and not prepared with quite the intensity they might.
2) Potential rivals are not as competetive as perhaps they might be: Evans is (probably) getting a bit old and did a hard Giro and perhaps has less motivation having now won the Tour, Schleck has never recovered from injury, Contador seems not to have recovered his form for one reason or another (although it appears his Ventoux performance might not have been so far from what he has managed in the past?), Wiggins and Nibali (surely the two most likely to challenge Froome) are not there and other challengers are young and upcoming.
3) The Sky/ UKcycling setup clearly is very impressive (leaving aside whether or not it is legit) as was USpostal. They have a lot of money and a proven track record of winning. Other promising riders in other teams are perhaps lacking this level of support and knowhow.
4) IF cycling has changed now, and IF Brailsford etc have always used clean methods, then many of the old cycling coaches and teams would be at a disadvantage in this brave new world, having been more experienced with the old methods. Therefore, they might well struggle to catch up with Sky who have lots of money and have recruited top sports scientists etc and been doing what they're doing it their own way for some time.
5) If doping is possible, why are the others (many of whom are thought to have doped before) not doing it too? Sky's dominance is only an argument for them doping if they are the only ones who are at it - oh, and Nibali. I suppose the argument is that they have some new method the others don't have, I find this a bit tenuous.
6) My impression is that in the past everyone knew pretty much what was going on but didn't want to break silence. Now it seems that while some have suspicions no-one really knows. Just watched Frankie Andreu interviewed by Paul Kimmage. Then there's David Millar's too. It really doesn't feel the same to me.

If Froome's performance really is that much better then Armstrong's etc in the past then this might be more cause for suspicion. I don't know enough about the science of these things but the positioning of the climb in the race and the wind would be key factors but also I don't think we can just complacently assume that it is impossible to exceed these performances legitimately.

Personally I feel pretty confident Wiggins is clean. While having no strong evidence i felt he was well known on the British scene, had been around long enough that we felt we could trust him. That's my strong gut feeling. Froome is much more of an unknown entity and gets the benefit of the doubt for me from his association with Brailsford etc (and of course from the complete lack of evidence against him).

bockers

This really is a fruitless exercise. In trying to put a counter reasoned argument people are immediately labelled as a Sky Fanboi.

Now I have worked for Sky, the company not the cycling team, and it is easily the worst place I have had the misfortune to be employed at. I am also no great fan of Chris Froome but I am a fan of justice and reasoned debate.

No amount of accusations by fans, or test by drugs agencies did anything to bring about Lance Armstrong’s demise. No, instead it was the testaments from his old team mates and those close to him that brought about his demise. The old saying is that you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can’t fall all of the people all of time came true. Once the evidence against Armstrong became overwhelming then so other evidence started to surface and the pretence of innocence collapsed. Let’s not forget that Armstrong was not the only rider on the sauce but he still won. This happened because he was better prepared with the sauce but also the team were better prepared and was built to support him

Now we have a team, IMHO that are not using drugs but who are adopting tactics of an organised team al la US Postal, and for those that have followed this sport for a longer time this was also done by La Vie Claire and countless others prior to blood doping, and in fact the Froome/Wiggins feud was remarkably similar to Lemond/Hinault one.

So I don’t like Sky, not a fan yet of Froome and also see their dominating tactics, but that does not prove they are doping. The hearsay and testament that caught out Lance has not appeared. This is remarkable when you consider the number of riders and support staff Sky have ejected due to dodgy past. I include Leinders in this, doping doctors are unscrupulous so the chance to make a packet by throwing some dirt would be way to hard and lucrative to resist. Sky have offered full co-operation with WADA should they want to see their data and David Walsh, the journalist who did most to help those with stories on Armstrong be heard, has been given an all access pass to the teams operation. So far he has stated that he has seen nothing to raise suspicion.

Now add is some other factors, Contador is clean but not at the best of his form this year, by his own admission he was 70% at the start. Cadel Evans is getting on a bit and Andy Schleck looks a shadow of his past self so the competition is pretty poor.

To win a tour and arrive at 100% form is tough as Froome rightly says. Bradley found this and says he cannot commit the effort, and the impact it had on his family, in order to win the tour again. This means that of the handful of riders capable, and the form at which they arrive at the tour, will mean that the race will be slung out in a clean era between three to four riders. Froome is one of those and easily the best trained and with a reasonable team too. His results in this light are not unexpected or remarkable.

So a team with the strongest anti-doping stance and one whom there is no evidence or even smoking gun get labelled by a bunch of armchair scientists as cheats.

Of course pointing this out to these people is like teaching a pig to dance, pointless and it annoys the pig. But please can these people please run and fart in someone else’s room and leave us to try an enjoy our sport which we are trying to regain thee trust in after some turbulent years. I believe cycling is cleaner now than it has been for years, yes there will still be cheats, there always has been, but it is no longer endemic and systematic.

If some evidence does emerge in the future I will be disappointed, but not shocked. But until then I will enjoy what I consider now to be a broadly clean sport.

ugo.santalucia

bockers wrote:

This really is a fruitless exercise. In trying to put a counter reasoned argument people are immediately labelled as a Sky Fanboi.

Now I have worked for Sky, the company not the cycling team, and it is easily the worst place I have had the misfortune to be employed at. I am also no great fan of Chris Froome but I am a fan of justice and reasoned debate.

No amount of accusations by fans, or test by drugs agencies did anything to bring about Lance Armstrong’s demise. No, instead it was the testaments from his old team mates and those close to him that brought about his demise. The old saying is that you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can’t fall all of the people all of time came true. Once the evidence against Armstrong became overwhelming then so other evidence started to surface and the pretence of innocence collapsed. Let’s not forget that Armstrong was not the only rider on the sauce but he still won. This happened because he was better prepared with the sauce but also the team were better prepared and was built to support him

Now we have a team, IMHO that are not using drugs but who are adopting tactics of an organised team al la US Postal, and for those that have followed this sport for a longer time this was also done by La Vie Claire and countless others prior to blood doping, and in fact the Froome/Wiggins feud was remarkably similar to Lemond/Hinault one.

So I don’t like Sky, not a fan yet of Froome and also see their dominating tactics, but that does not prove they are doping. The hearsay and testament that caught out Lance has not appeared. This is remarkable when you consider the number of riders and support staff Sky have ejected due to dodgy past. I include Leinders in this, doping doctors are unscrupulous so the chance to make a packet by throwing some dirt would be way to hard and lucrative to resist. Sky have offered full co-operation with WADA should they want to see their data and David Walsh, the journalist who did most to help those with stories on Armstrong be heard, has been given an all access pass to the teams operation. So far he has stated that he has seen nothing to raise suspicion.

Now add is some other factors, Contador is clean but not at the best of his form this year, by his own admission he was 70% at the start. Cadel Evans is getting on a bit and Andy Schleck looks a shadow of his past self so the competition is pretty poor.

To win a tour and arrive at 100% form is tough as Froome rightly says. Bradley found this and says he cannot commit the effort, and the impact it had on his family, in order to win the tour again. This means that of the handful of riders capable, and the form at which they arrive at the tour, will mean that the race will be slung out in a clean era between three to four riders. Froome is one of those and easily the best trained and with a reasonable team too. His results in this light are not unexpected or remarkable.

So a team with the strongest anti-doping stance and one whom there is no evidence or even smoking gun get labelled by a bunch of armchair scientists as cheats.

Of course pointing this out to these people is like teaching a pig to dance, pointless and it annoys the pig. But please can these people please run and fart in someone else’s room and leave us to try an enjoy our sport which we are trying to regain thee trust in after some turbulent years. I believe cycling is cleaner now than it has been for years, yes there will still be cheats, there always has been, but it is no longer endemic and systematic.

If some evidence does emerge in the future I will be disappointed, but not shocked. But until then I will enjoy what I consider now to be a broadly clean sport.

I believe team Sky has strong team ethics... at the same time I find it difficult to believe someone can go as fast as Tony Martin in a time trial and at the same time significantly faster than anyone else uphill.
There are phenomenal individuals, Usain Bolt being one of them.... maybe Chris Froome is a phenomenal individual, one in a generation, in the same way Coppi and Merckx were in their times... of course these days the competition is a lot tougher and to be able to stand out in that fashion is even more unusual, which of course leaves me a bit skeptical. Even more skeptical considering the guy has virtually no past... while Usain Bolt was a phenomanal sprinter when he was 16.
In recent years athletes coming from nowhere to shine always proved to be huge cheats, so the odds are against Froome, but as I said, there are phenomenal individuals and maybe he is one of them

rayjay

ddraver wrote:

ThomThom wrote:

ddraver wrote:

What in the doping thread? Never!

Is it, though?

Anyway, just saying..

Off Topic

I suspect you re just being miserable again rather than looking for an answer but I ll give you one anyway

The topic combines 2 of my passions, cycling and science. When I'm not listening to cycling podcasts, I enjoy "sceptic" or "rational" podcasts that talk about how much science is attacked, missused and abused by people like creationists, homeopathists, chiropracters and their ilk.

I'm fairly ambivalent about Sky if I'm talking to a human. I'm British and I want the British team to win but I'm realistic enough to know that Team GB are not above cheating (Brain Moore, Richard Hill, Stuart Broad, Linford Christie, Dwayne Chambers, Christine Ohurugu (sp?), John Terry etc), however when I read the absolute rubbish that is spouted by the Doping fanbois it offends both the scientist and the cyclist parts of me. When you combine my two passions I can go on a bit. You may remember a certain Trev the Rev who used be the absolute worst at this, He was someone that I could never ever let go (Rayjay and Rundy can only aspire to misuse science like that guy could!)

All I ve ever done is asked Rundy (and RayJay, Trev etc) to provide some evidence for their claims. For this I ve been labelled a blind fanboi, been called a liar and insulted for 3 years. You be the judge...

When someone shows me some evidence, shows me Sky's Emma O'Reilly, shows me Frooome's backdated TUE, his retrospective positive samples at a Swiss Lab, a slew of team mates testifying that Brailsford forced them to dope or I dunno even just a positive dope test, then I ll reconsider my position (Group 2)

Still waiting....

I would just like to say in response that I do not know you and I have not attacked you in any way that is personal. I have not called you a liar or insulted you in any way . Infact you have taken a much more aggressive style in your reasponses.
I have just stated the reasons that people are suspicious of Sky. I don't have access to take a samples of blood etc etc from the Sky team. Suspicions are aroused becasue we have seen the same thing before . When you add up the fast times, Leinders,past results etc etc there is a reason to question whats going on and thats what a lot of people are doing, its the same questions that were asked about Armstrong. In some cases Sky as in last years tour and other races got to the top of climbs with 3 or 4 riders still left where as the other teams only have their climber left. Thats a lot of riders from one team dropping the whole peleton. Armstrong would usually have one rider around him when they got that high in the climbs. As easily as you say we don't have proof, its as easy to say that what facts we know about Sky, suspicions have been aroused as they have been against many riders over the years i.e. Contador etc etc. I understand your very passionate about this subject but I would not lose sleep over it. I think an open mind is always the best option as things can come back and bite you in the ass. Lets hope Contador goes on a long one and gets the time back and we have a race on again.

davidof

Vayer claims that Froome was developing 418 watts between Saint-Estève and Châlet Reynard, 4 watts more than Armstrong and Pantani using the same methodology. He used this stretch as a comparison as it is sheltered from the wind. Still someone would have had to have measured the windspeed in the forest to confirm that, even a 10km/h breeze could make a difference and the wind would have been behind the riders from Bedoin to below the Chalet Reynard.

Interestingly Vayer spent quite a bit of time on the 10 July with Brailsford:

http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/201 ... _3242.html

tigerben

bockers wrote:

Now add is some other factors, Contador is clean but not at the best of his form this year, by his own admission he was 70% at the start. Cadel Evans is getting on a bit and Andy Schleck looks a shadow of his past self so the competition is pretty poor.

T.

very good post. Sums up my thoughts and in particular the comment above. The GC field is very poor this year - a hangover from the doping years hindering the development of genuine clean GC contenders.

I do not understand why people identify so strongly with the teams - they are just vessels for corporate promotion. They are not like football clubs - there is no sense of place and with the majority there is very little history. I like riders the individuals not the corporate wrapper that collects them together. Was at the tour last week and could not believe the number of people in Sky jerseys/ t-shirts.

rickyrider

tigerben wrote:

I do not understand why people identify so strongly with the teams - they are just vessels for corporate promotion. They are not like football clubs - there is no sense of place and with the majority there is very little history. I like riders the individuals not the corporate wrapper that collects them together. Was at the tour last week and could not believe the number of people in Sky jerseys/ t-shirts.

Yep - I don't get the whole I love team x either, be it Sky or anyone else. When I see someone out on the road in full Sky kit I always think "but don't you feel like a bit of a prat?" But then I've never understood football/rugby/cricket support either, even with clubs with history and tradition. But maybe I'm just a very poorly adjusted individual who has anti-social tendencies...

jimmythecuckoo

disgruntledgoat wrote:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/news/contador-says-froome-is-riding-clean-enjoying-fruits-of-the-work-he-puts-in_295260

Wow... That takes some admitting when he stands to gain a lot if Froome isn't clean. Contador going up in my estimation.

Macaloon

What's so remarkable about GC riders like Froome and Nibali being 4 mins up on their competitors, that it provokes this astonishing uproar? (Not talking about this thread, it's everywhere in Tour coverage). Each season seems to produce a different, utterly dominant, Classics performer: Boonen, Cancellara, Gilbert etc. Despite all the recreationals, Luigi, & cortisone blah blah, most are content to await something solid before lighting the pyre. Nothing on Froome & Nibali, and the sky is falling.

Are the disciplines so different that doping makes no difference to Classics performance? Is it mainly the scale of TdF? It can't be the teams, surely? Why?

Macaloon

Even Gilbert is trolling now: Edit -

"PhilippeGilbert 10:29am via Twitter for iPhone
Contador have always his best day the day after the second rest day. So remake of 2011? Nice stage for offensive"

jimmythecuckoo

Just visited that CN forums link a page or so back... what a scary place that is.

thomthom

rayjay wrote:

ddraver wrote:

ThomThom wrote:

ddraver wrote:

What in the doping thread? Never!

Is it, though?

Anyway, just saying..

Off Topic

I suspect you re just being miserable again rather than looking for an answer but I ll give you one anyway

The topic combines 2 of my passions, cycling and science. When I'm not listening to cycling podcasts, I enjoy "sceptic" or "rational" podcasts that talk about how much science is attacked, missused and abused by people like creationists, homeopathists, chiropracters and their ilk.

I'm fairly ambivalent about Sky if I'm talking to a human. I'm British and I want the British team to win but I'm realistic enough to know that Team GB are not above cheating (Brain Moore, Richard Hill, Stuart Broad, Linford Christie, Dwayne Chambers, Christine Ohurugu (sp?), John Terry etc), however when I read the absolute rubbish that is spouted by the Doping fanbois it offends both the scientist and the cyclist parts of me. When you combine my two passions I can go on a bit. You may remember a certain Trev the Rev who used be the absolute worst at this, He was someone that I could never ever let go (Rayjay and Rundy can only aspire to misuse science like that guy could!)

All I ve ever done is asked Rundy (and RayJay, Trev etc) to provide some evidence for their claims. For this I ve been labelled a blind fanboi, been called a liar and insulted for 3 years. You be the judge...

When someone shows me some evidence, shows me Sky's Emma O'Reilly, shows me Frooome's backdated TUE, his retrospective positive samples at a Swiss Lab, a slew of team mates testifying that Brailsford forced them to dope or I dunno even just a positive dope test, then I ll reconsider my position (Group 2)

Still waiting....

I would just like to say in response that I do not know you and I have not attacked you in any way that is personal. I have not called you a liar or insulted you in any way . Infact you have taken a much more aggressive style in your reasponses.

That's just the kind of responses you can expexct from BikeRadar's very own bully.

rickyrider

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Just visited that CN forums link a page or so back... what a scary place that is.

CN forums are a trainee psychiatrists wet dream

Froboz

Macaloon wrote:

What's so remarkable about GC riders like Froome and Nibali being 4 mins up on their competitors, that it provokes this astonishing uproar.

The time gap isn't the issue. The victories aren't the issue. It's the manner of the victories that's the issue.

trek_dan

rayjay wrote:

Lets hope Contador goes on a long one and gets the time back and we have a race on again.

So your anti-doping but support Contador over Sky/Froome? Hypocrite much?

Froboz

trek_dan wrote:

So your anti-doping but support Contador over Sky/Froome? Hypocrite much?

If AC is clean now, why shouldn't he?

fleshtuxedo

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I find it difficult to believe someone can go as fast as Tony Martin in a time trial and at the same time significantly faster than anyone else uphill.

I don't see why this so unlikely:

vs. Tony Martin
1. Tony Martin had been doing a lot of work for Cav
2. Tony Martin was/is injured
3. Sky are better prepared and resourced for TTs
4. CF has been close to TM in recent TTs, and he was close again, so what?
5. CF has come to win the TDF, his motivation is off the scale

vs. everyone else uphill
1. Quintana a 23 year old in his first tour, why should he be beating everyone at the TDF including last year's second placed rider who did pretty well uphill if memory serves
2. Contador is nowhere near his 'best' uphill, has been mainly wheelsucking Kreuziger and Nieve, not the hallmark of greatness is it
3. Sky have a proper plan in place for the MTFs, the train ending with Porte's upping the tempo before CF goes has obvs been rehearsed and CF is trained for it
4. Who else is there? Evans way off, dutchies never been serious threat before, anyone else? Who do you think should be the best rider uphill this year?

I'm no fan of Sky but I can't see any reason to not (as I always have done) believe riders are clean unless there's any reason to be suspicious.

Pross

davidof wrote:

Vayer claims that Froome was developing 418 watts between Saint-Estève and Châlet Reynard, 4 watts more than Armstrong and Pantani using the same methodology. He used this stretch as a comparison as it is sheltered from the wind. Still someone would have had to have measured the windspeed in the forest to confirm that, even a 10km/h breeze could make a difference and the wind would have been behind the riders from Bedoin to below the Chalet Reynard.

Interestingly Vayer spent quite a bit of time on the 10 July with Brailsford:

http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/201 ... _3242.html

My memory is hazy of Sunday's stage but I seem to recall Froome spent most, if not all, the wooded section riding in a group with the other favourites. I believe Quintana attacked before getting above the treeline so presumably his wattage was higher than Froome's and Froome then attacked on the open slopes.

ddraver

Pross wrote:

davidof wrote:

Vayer claims that Froome was developing 418 watts between Saint-Estève and Châlet Reynard, 4 watts more than Armstrong and Pantani using the same methodology. He used this stretch as a comparison as it is sheltered from the wind. Still someone would have had to have measured the windspeed in the forest to confirm that, even a 10km/h breeze could make a difference and the wind would have been behind the riders from Bedoin to below the Chalet Reynard.

Interestingly Vayer spent quite a bit of time on the 10 July with Brailsford:

http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/201 ... _3242.html

My memory is hazy of Sunday's stage but I seem to recall Froome spent most, if not all, the wooded section riding in a group with the other favourites. I believe Quintana attacked before getting above the treeline so presumably his wattage was higher than Froome's and Froome then attacked on the open slopes.

The cynic in me suggests that Vayer searched the whole climb until he found a segment where he could claim that Froome was doping rather than any problem with the wind...

Rayjay - no that sentence was nt directed at you...

jotko

FleshTuxedo wrote:

3. Sky have a proper plan in place for the MTFs, the train ending with Porte's upping the tempo before CF goes has obvs been rehearsed and CF is trained for it

This is it for me - in both Froomes MTF victories Sky have been on the front controlling things and setting exactly the pace they want and that they have trained for. Froome will have rehearsed that jump of Porte a hundred times, probably at the pretty much the exact wattage Porte is riding at. The climbs are being done entirely on Skys terms, and whilst they are I cant see anyone else beating Froome. Disrupt the plan and then see what happens, easier said than done though.

LeicesterLad

FleshTuxedo wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I find it difficult to believe someone can go as fast as Tony Martin in a time trial and at the same time significantly faster than anyone else uphill.

I don't see why this so unlikely:

vs. Tony Martin
1. Tony Martin had been doing a lot of work for Cav
2. Tony Martin was/is injured
3. Sky are better prepared and resourced for TTs
4. CF has been close to TM in recent TTs, and he was close again, so what?
5. CF has come to win the TDF, his motivation is off the scale

vs. everyone else uphill
1. Quintana a 23 year old in his first tour, why should he be beating everyone at the TDF including last year's second placed rider who did pretty well uphill if memory serves
2. Contador is nowhere near his 'best' uphill, has been mainly wheelsucking Kreuziger and Nieve, not the hallmark of greatness is it
3. Sky have a proper plan in place for the MTFs, the train ending with Porte's upping the tempo before CF goes has obvs been rehearsed and CF is trained for it
4. Who else is there? Evans way off, dutchies never been serious threat before, anyone else? Who do you think should be the best rider uphill this year?

I'm no fan of Sky but I can't see any reason to not (as I always have done) believe riders are clean unless there's any reason to be suspicious.

Whatever excuses Martin might have had for not putting in a good time is insignificant - fact is he put in a time milliseconds off the WORLDS FASTEST EVER TIME TRIAL. This wasn't a poor performance from Martin. it was a good performance from Froome.

fleshtuxedo

No, I didn't say it was a poor performance from TM, I'm just suggesting it mightn't have been his very best. Phenomenal average speed of course, but it was downhill, (predominantly) downwind, and relatively short at 32km.

RichN95.

LeicesterLad wrote:

Whatever excuses Martin might have had for not putting in a good time is insignificant - fact is he put in a time milliseconds off the WORLDS FASTEST EVER TIME TRIAL. This wasn't a poor performance from Martin. it was a good performance from Froome.

Was it really the world's fastest ever time trial? It was the second fastest in the Tour after LeMond in 1989.
And that's only if you discount Zabriskie's 19km TT in 2005 which was faster still but everyone seems to brush off as a prologue.
And then it becomes less impressive still when you realise that it was only the second flat TT under 40km in the Tour in the last twenty years (the other was in 2008 - much slower in windy conditions)

fleshtuxedo

RichN95 wrote:

LeicesterLad wrote:

Whatever excuses Martin might have had for not putting in a good time is insignificant - fact is he put in a time milliseconds off the WORLDS FASTEST EVER TIME TRIAL. This wasn't a poor performance from Martin. it was a good performance from Froome.

Was it really the world's fastest ever time trial? It was the second fastest in the Tour after LeMond in 1989.
And that's only if you discount Zabriskie's 19km TT in 2005 which was faster still but everyone seems to brush off as a prologue.
And then it becomes less impressive still when you realise that it was only the second flat TT under 40km in the Tour in the last twenty years (the other was in 2008 - much slower in windy conditions)

Yeah, that as well. If I posted pictures on here, I'd post a pic of Lemond's 1989 bike with the round tubes and the clip on bars. It's a record that's long overdue a good beating. Did you watch Lemond looking down half the time to put the tail of his helmet into the wind as well. No offence to Greg BTW