Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not

disgruntledgoat

mike6 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

The problem I have with Froome is the following:

Never heard of him... in other words the first 4-5 years of his professional career were grey to say the least... 11th best young rider at the tour, some finished races, never a win, never anything close to winning anything, even unimportant like a Melinda Trophy or a Tour of Portugal. Then in 2011 something changes... the team Sky effect kicks in...
Looking back, as I like to do, Indurain was a similar case, Riis was a similar case, although Riis had won something and got close to winning more before exploding at the tour... I can't think of many riders that before the age of 27 were mediocre domestiques at best and became superstars

Yes. His Bilharzia was diagnosed and treated.

Can you become a professional rider with a debilitating disease?

Well, Sir Steve Redgrave, arguably the best Olympian of all time, was diabetic, but still won 5 consecutive golds in an extreme endurance event.

And ulcerative colitis too

disgruntledgoat

Papa Vaughters speaking sense

Where has there been a statistical, or universal, double-blind study that correlates power data with doping? It doesn’t exist. Sure, you can — listen, looking at broad statistical trends, you can see climbing speeds in 1988 here, you can see climbing speeds in 1996 here, climbing speeds are now here, right? And then all of the sudden you’ve got this outlier where it’s like, “he’s not 1996,” but you know, whatever. Statistically one outlier isn’t significant. But that statistical one outlier is the yellow jersey of the Tour de France.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/news/vaughters-qa-time-will-tell-if-performances-are-clean_295608

rayjay

What I don't understand when watching ITV4 is how bias they are towards Sky. Why are they scared to express doubts in the zoom frooms performance. Treading on eggshells is how I would describe the comments. It could be the fact that the Skys set up and performance has parallels with US Postal. Armstrong did have the advantage of saying Im not a new rider and I have won a stage at the tour and I have been World champion and been a very aggresive rider. Froom has come from nowhere. The more posts and comments I read from the web and the words of those invovled the more I doubt the credabillity of Froomes victorys. Im not convinced any of the ITV boys are convinced. The after race interviews with froomy are so sugar coated, im surprised they have not asked him what is fav colour his. Anyway I am enjoying this thread and everyones views especially the ones that get so wound up about it all.
As worked up as you can get, it still is only a bike Race. Come on Contador lets see you rip it up over the next 3 day and the race gets exciting again. Cav beat Evans in the ITT. Cadel my Fav rider just falling to bits before my eyes. Come on Cadel.

slim_boy_fat

rayjay wrote:

What I don't understand when watching ITV4 is how bias they are towards Sky. Why are they scared to express doubts in the zoom frooms performance. Treading on eggshells is how I would describe the comments. It could be the fact that the Skys set up and performance has parallels with US Postal. Armstrong did have the advantage of saying Im not a new rider and I have won a stage at the tour and I have been World champion and been a very aggresive rider. Froom has come from nowhere. The more posts and comments I read from the web and the words of those invovled the more I doubt the credabillity of Froomes victorys. Im not convinced any of the ITV boys are convinced. The after race interviews with froomy are so sugar coated, im surprised they have not asked him what is fav colour his. Anyway I am enjoying this thread and everyones views especially the ones that get so wound up about it all.
As worked up as you can get, it still is only a bike Race. Come on Contador lets see you rip it up over the next 3 day and the race gets exciting again. Cav beat Evans in the ITT. Cadel my Fav rider just falling to bits before my eyes. Come on Cadel.

Seriously, do you think before you post. How is a professional media organisation going to go about expressing they have doubts about his performance and think he could be doping when they have absolutely no evidence. It's not twitter.

disgruntledgoat

rayjay wrote:

What I don't understand when watching ITV4 is how bias they are towards Sky. Why are they scared to express doubts in the zoom frooms performance. Treading on eggshells is how I would describe the comments. It could be the fact that the Skys set up and performance has parallels with US Postal. Armstrong did have the advantage of saying Im not a new rider and I have won a stage at the tour and I have been World champion and been a very aggresive rider. Froom has come from nowhere. The more posts and comments I read from the web and the words of those invovled the more I doubt the credabillity of Froomes victorys. Im not convinced any of the ITV boys are convinced. The after race interviews with froomy are so sugar coated, im surprised they have not asked him what is fav colour his. Anyway I am enjoying this thread and everyones views especially the ones that get so wound up about it all.
As worked up as you can get, it still is only a bike Race. Come on Contador lets see you rip it up over the next 3 day and the race gets exciting again. Cav beat Evans in the ITT. Cadel my Fav rider just falling to bits before my eyes. Come on Cadel.

I have to ask, who else's performances do you doubt?

jam1e

They were equally cautious when discussing Contador's return to form after all the "problems he's had" as they so delicately phrased his ban for being a proven (and unrepentant) drug cheat.

Macaloon

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Papa Vaughters speaking sense

Where has there been a statistical, or universal, double-blind study that correlates power data with doping? It doesn’t exist. Sure, you can — listen, looking at broad statistical trends, you can see climbing speeds in 1988 here, you can see climbing speeds in 1996 here, climbing speeds are now here, right? And then all of the sudden you’ve got this outlier where it’s like, “he’s not 1996,” but you know, whatever. Statistically one outlier isn’t significant. But that statistical one outlier is the yellow jersey of the Tour de France.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/news/vaughters-qa-time-will-tell-if-performances-are-clean_295608

In a way it's well past time for other team leaders to face the music, particularly those with 'history. But Vaughters doing his bit to reduce some pressure on a key rival during the race is a generous act.

mfin

Watching Contador fail to win today's stage and his face when he saw he hadn't was a great moment of the tour brought a big smile to my face, sort of inversely proportional to his blubby one.

Schleck turning in something good was completely unexpected.

rayjay

"Seriously, do you think before you post. "YES" How is a professional media organisation going to go about expressing they have doubts about his performance and think he could be doping when they have absolutely no evidence. It's not twitter"

Simple , Just say it. They are allowed to express a point of vIew It's not illegal. They can say that Froomys times have been some of the quickest and faster than known doped riders. Instead they sugar coat everything and always find time to mention a rider who has doped. Valverde comes to light . They said on numerous occasions that he has been a naughty boy. This is always expressed in a way that makes the Spanish riders or non Sky riders the baddies and the Sky riders the goodies. Very bias IMO.

"I have to ask, who else's performances do you doubt?" I don't doubt peformances. Froomy as been flying.You can see it with your own eyes. What you are asking me is who do I think dopes. I think all the GC contenders take something naughty and It does not bother me. I love cycling. Cycling pros always have taken one thing or another I enjoy it for what it is. SImple. If Froomy is taking something naughty I don't care. If your asking me if I think he his taking something naughty then IMO with the his performances and history I have to say I doubt he his riding on water and a mars bar.
Im just getting me popcorn and drink ........

ddraver

As there is every possibility that you re not from the UK, I should let you know that UK Libel laws are frankly absurd and would indeed prevent ITV from saying anything that you suggest

They re also a aspire to a slightly standard of journalism than uck throwing I'm afraid. There are several Boulting books, interviews and articles on that subject...

No_Ta_Doctor

disgruntledgoat wrote:

mike6 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

The problem I have with Froome is the following:

Never heard of him... in other words the first 4-5 years of his professional career were grey to say the least... 11th best young rider at the tour, some finished races, never a win, never anything close to winning anything, even unimportant like a Melinda Trophy or a Tour of Portugal. Then in 2011 something changes... the team Sky effect kicks in...
Looking back, as I like to do, Indurain was a similar case, Riis was a similar case, although Riis had won something and got close to winning more before exploding at the tour... I can't think of many riders that before the age of 27 were mediocre domestiques at best and became superstars

Yes. His Bilharzia was diagnosed and treated.

Can you become a professional rider with a debilitating disease?

Well, Sir Steve Redgrave, arguably the best Olympian of all time, was diabetic, but still won 5 consecutive golds in an extreme endurance event.

And ulcerative colitis too

UC? Bloody hell. My respect for him has just expanded exponentially.

disgruntledgoat

No tA Doctor wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

mike6 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

The problem I have with Froome is the following:

Never heard of him... in other words the first 4-5 years of his professional career were grey to say the least... 11th best young rider at the tour, some finished races, never a win, never anything close to winning anything, even unimportant like a Melinda Trophy or a Tour of Portugal. Then in 2011 something changes... the team Sky effect kicks in...
Looking back, as I like to do, Indurain was a similar case, Riis was a similar case, although Riis had won something and got close to winning more before exploding at the tour... I can't think of many riders that before the age of 27 were mediocre domestiques at best and became superstars

Yes. His Bilharzia was diagnosed and treated.

Can you become a professional rider with a debilitating disease?

Well, Sir Steve Redgrave, arguably the best Olympian of all time, was diabetic, but still won 5 consecutive golds in an extreme endurance event.

And ulcerative colitis too

UC? Bloody hell. My respect for him has just expanded exponentially.

Yeah, he's crazy tough.

rob churchill

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Papa Vaughters speaking sense

Where has there been a statistical, or universal, double-blind study that correlates power data with doping? It doesn’t exist. Sure, you can — listen, looking at broad statistical trends, you can see climbing speeds in 1988 here, you can see climbing speeds in 1996 here, climbing speeds are now here, right? And then all of the sudden you’ve got this outlier where it’s like, “he’s not 1996,” but you know, whatever. Statistically one outlier isn’t significant. But that statistical one outlier is the yellow jersey of the Tour de France.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/news/vaughters-qa-time-will-tell-if-performances-are-clean_295608

This, this, and for fecksake THIS!

All these idiots demanding power data and speculating how many watts/kg or exactly what time up what mountain is the point at which we know the rider is doping, and all of them utterly oblivious to the fact that there is not a shred of evidence that the point they're arguing over even exists.

Think about that for a moment. There is no evidence that the very, very best performance possible for a doped rider exceeds the very, very best performance possible for a clean rider. Not least because we simply don't know what a 'one born in a century' athlete with the maximum possible motivation and the best possible training can do. Some doping doctor says 6.2w/kg? all that means is that the limited number of riders he's worked with, none of whom were the best (because if you're winning clean, you don't go to the dope doctor, do you?) all came in under 6.2 before he started doping them.

There is an optimum level for doping. Take a typical rider and give him EPO. The more EPO you give him, the better his performance - up to a point. Beyond that point, the EPO starts to make him ill, and as he gets ill his performance drops off. But the mode of action of EPO as a performance enhancer is directly linked to haematocrit. Some individuals have naturally high haematocrit, and there are legitimate means of increasing it. So can anyone point to some research that proves that the optimum haematocrit cannot be attained or even exceeded naturally, if only by a tiny proportion of the most gifted and best trained?

Of course dope can improve the performance of an individual athlete. It makes it easier for him to achieve his potential, and for some individuals it may make it possible for him to exceed his clean potential. But all this crap about times and w/kg limits and sciency looking graphs of pVAM/DpVAM residuals is based on the assumption that dope can allow some riders to produce performances which no clean rider could match, and that's all it is: an assumption. if we could find the acme of clean riders it is entirely possible that that any doping products we gave him would either produce no benefit or be detrimental to his performance.

But what if there really is a difference between the best possible doped performance and the best possible clean performance? what happens if we put a limit on performance and decide that anyone who beats it is a doper and is to be banned? If we're wrong about where the limits of clean human performance lie, then it is built into our system that the very finest, the most naturally gifted, the most determined rider in history, when he or she eventually turns up, must inevitably be disgraced and thrown out of the sport. Are you happy to have an injustice like that built into the system?

Performance indicators may be useful for identifying individuals on whom the dope testers should most fruitfully concentrate their attention (and this is really no different to the current policy of always testing the winners) but to make decisions about guilt or innocence on the basis of performance defeats the object of sport.

RichN95.

rayjay wrote:

"Seriously, do you think before you post. "YES" How is a professional media organisation going to go about expressing they have doubts about his performance and think he could be doping when they have absolutely no evidence. It's not twitter"

Simple , Just say it. They are allowed to express a point of vIew It's not illegal. They can say that Froomys times have been some of the quickest and faster than known doped riders. Instead they sugar coat everything and always find time to mention a rider who has doped. Valverde comes to light . They said on numerous occasions that he has been a naughty boy. This is always expressed in a way that makes the Spanish riders or non Sky riders the baddies and the Sky riders the goodies. Very bias IMO.

They're sports show on ITV4, not Panorama. They show the race and don't want to drive away viewers by constantly bringing up a subject which actually interests very few. But they do cover it.
They mention that AV & AC served doping bans because they did. But they don't bang on about it. They don't analyse Froome's times or throw around accusations, because the know that that sort of thing is extremely speculative and they're better than that.

junglist_matty

Contador will be finding a new doctor after the tour.... He'll be itching to find out whatever Froome is taking and get some for himself for next years tour, but by then Froome will no doubt be on a different cocktail of cutting edge illegal substances

Do I think Froome dopes? Without a doubt.


As everyone knows, you can't win the tour without a strong team, yet Froome has a waste of time team and still has well over a 4 minute lead in the GC; something just doesn't add up unless you factor in drugs.

Do I care? No, they're all at it.

above_the_cows

junglist_matty wrote:

Froome has a waste of time team

I wouldn't say Porte and Kennaugh are a waste of time.

junglist_matty

Above The Cows wrote:

junglist_matty wrote:

Froome has a waste of time team

I wouldn't say Porte and Kennaugh are a waste of time.

Fair point, a bit of an exaggeration on my part .....What I should have put is that on this tour they've been very hit and miss

No_Ta_Doctor

junglist_matty wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

junglist_matty wrote:

Froome has a waste of time team

I wouldn't say Porte and Kennaugh are a waste of time.

Fair point, a bit of an exaggeration on my part .....What I should have put is that on this tour they've been very hit and miss

To be fair, they've been there for him when it's really mattered apart from one stage where he got totally isolated, but Saxo and Movistar did bugger all.

They mucked up the echelons a bit, but I think that was more inexperience than anything.

chrisaonabike

I thought Vaughters was bang on at the end of that interview - sums it all up for me...

"If you put a gun to my head and say, is Chris Froome clean or is Chris Froome not? You get it wrong and the bullet goes off, right? My expectation would be that I would hear “click” and the bullet wouldn’t go off. But would I be f—ing wincing beforehand? Yes."

Drfabulous0

rob churchill wrote:

But what if there really is a difference between the best possible doped performance and the best possible clean performance? what happens if we put a limit on performance and decide that anyone who beats it is a doper and is to be banned? If we're wrong about where the limits of clean human performance lie, then it is built into our system that the very finest, the most naturally gifted, the most determined rider in history, when he or she eventually turns up, must inevitably be disgraced and thrown out of the sport. Are you happy to have an injustice like that built into the system?

Why then we condemn Merckx purely for being the greatest rider ever, stop watching cycling because it's no fun anymore and just go ride bikes instead. But the doping speculation is part of whole experience these days.

cougie

Froome is clean. Sky would know if he was taking something - he couldn't hide it.
If froome was doping and sky were complicit - then what about wiggins and team GB ? Brailsford would be a bigger cheat than lance and he's not.

Froome is only winning as his rivals are clean too. You dope and you'll get found out.
How many riders have flowed through team GB and sky ? Any been busted ? Said anything ?

Compare that to lances teams. Completely different.

Doping used to be acceptable to riders as they'd get away with it. Now they don't. Any rewards you can make winning in dope will see you sued for the prizes after. Is it worth it ?

rayjay

"As there is every possibility that you re not from the UK, I should let you know that UK Libel laws are frankly absurd and would indeed prevent ITV from saying anything that you suggest"
I was born in London. There is no law stopping ITV 4 mentioning any fact i.e. Froomys times are fact.
Not everybody who is Born in the UK is bound by law to support Sky or South African rider Chris Froome or Belgium Born Bradley Wiggins. Come on Contador you can do it.

"They're sports show on ITV4, not Panorama. They show the race and don't want to drive away viewers by constantly bringing up a subject which actually interests very few. But they do cover it.
They mention that AV & AC served doping bans because they did. But they don't bang on about it. They don't analyse Froome's times or throw around accusations, because the know that that sort of thing is extremely speculative and they're better than that"
There is nothing speculative about Froomys times. IMO they do bang on about AV and AC bans. They don't analyse Froomys times because their Bias towards Sky IMO. There's no argument, just an opinion.

rayjay

I agree with rayjay. What a guy

above_the_cows

rayjay wrote:

"As there is every possibility that you re not from the UK, I should let you know that UK Libel laws are frankly absurd and would indeed prevent ITV from saying anything that you suggest"
I was born in London. There is no law stopping ITV 4 mentioning any fact i.e. Froomys times are fact.
Not everybody who is Born in the UK is bound by law to support Sky or South African rider Chris Froome or Belgium Born Bradley Wiggins. Come on Contador you can do it.

"They're sports show on ITV4, not Panorama. They show the race and don't want to drive away viewers by constantly bringing up a subject which actually interests very few. But they do cover it.
They mention that AV & AC served doping bans because they did. But they don't bang on about it. They don't analyse Froome's times or throw around accusations, because the know that that sort of thing is extremely speculative and they're better than that"
There is nothing speculative about Froomys times. IMO they do bang on about AV and AC bans. They don't analyse Froomys times because their Bias towards Sky IMO. There's no argument, just an opinion.

Why don't you write to the producers and tell them. I'm sure they'd appreciate your input. You could also write to the South African Ministry of Home Affairs and tell them they forgot to register a Christopher Froome as a citizen, again I'm sure they'd appreciate the information.

UncleMonty

rayjay wrote:

" They don't analyse Froomys times because their Bias towards Sky IMO. There's no argument, just an opinion.

So ITV are bias towards another broadcaster, they're doing a favour for a major competitor of theirs ?

rob churchill

Above The Cows wrote:

rayjay wrote:

"As there is every possibility that you re not from the UK, I should let you know that UK Libel laws are frankly absurd and would indeed prevent ITV from saying anything that you suggest"
I was born in London. There is no law stopping ITV 4 mentioning any fact i.e. Froomys times are fact.
Not everybody who is Born in the UK is bound by law to support Sky or South African rider Chris Froome or Belgium Born Bradley Wiggins. Come on Contador you can do it.

"They're sports show on ITV4, not Panorama. They show the race and don't want to drive away viewers by constantly bringing up a subject which actually interests very few. But they do cover it.
They mention that AV & AC served doping bans because they did. But they don't bang on about it. They don't analyse Froome's times or throw around accusations, because the know that that sort of thing is extremely speculative and they're better than that"
There is nothing speculative about Froomys times. IMO they do bang on about AV and AC bans. They don't analyse Froomys times because their Bias towards Sky IMO. There's no argument, just an opinion.

Why don't you write to the producers and tell them. I'm sure they'd appreciate your input. You could also write to the South African Ministry of Home Affairs and tell them they forgot to register a Christopher Froome as a citizen, again I'm sure they'd appreciate the information.

And while you're at it, Rayjay, why don't you write to the editorial board of the British National Formulary and explain to them that EPO is harmless? They seem to think that it has a range of adverse effects including a few that are life-threatening:

The BNF wrote:

Side-effects: diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting; dose-dependent increase in blood pressure or aggravation of hypertension; in isolated patients with normal or low blood pressure, hypertensive crisis with encephalopathy-like symptoms and generalised tonic-clonic seizures requiring immediate medical attention; headache; dose-dependent increase in platelet count (but thrombocytosis rare) regressing during treatment; influenza-like symptoms (may be reduced if intravenous injection given over 5 minutes); cardiovascular events; shunt thrombosis especially if tendency to hypotension or arteriovenous shunt complications; very rarely sudden loss of efficacy because of pure red cell aplasia, particularly following subcutaneous administration in patients with chronic renal failure (discontinue erythropoietin therapy)—see also notes above, hyperkalaemia, hypersensitivity reactions (including anaphylaxis and angioedema), skin reactions, injection-site reactions, and peripheral oedema also reported

And that's just when it's used to return blood values to normal levels. Used to push blood values beyond normal, they're labouring under the illusion that:

Clinical trial data show an unexplained excess mortality

and that overcorrection of blood values with EPO may

increase the risk of death and serious cardiovascular events,

I'm sure they'll be happy you put them straight on that.

RichN95.

rayjay wrote:

There is nothing speculative about Froomys times. IMO they do bang on about AV and AC bans. They don't analyse Froomys times because their Bias towards Sky IMO. There's no argument, just an opinion.

The times aren't speculative, but their significance definitely is. They are fully aware that individual comparisons are largely meaningless. What seems to be upsetting you is people voicing their own opinions rather than yours.

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

rayjay wrote:

There is nothing speculative about Froomys times. IMO they do bang on about AV and AC bans. They don't analyse Froomys times because their Bias towards Sky IMO. There's no argument, just an opinion.

The times aren't speculative, but their significance definitely is. They are fully aware that individual comparisons are largely meaningless. What seems to be upsetting you is people voicing their own opinions rather than yours.

Indeed.

If you don't like other people giving their opinions, maybe a forum isn't the best place to be. Here's mine.

We simply don't nearly enough evidence or any scientific study of the effects of doping to make any concrete or even educated guesses on whether someone is or isn't depending on their performance.

We have anecdotal evidence from a riders, but even their experiences are affected by so many other factors that we can't tell for sure.

We can look at the overall speed of the peloton over many different races and see that, broadly, it has reduced since the period where we see heavy EPO use in the peloton. But even that is a very very rough and ready way of looking at it that doesn't prove anything concretely.

But to compare one person's ride against a handful of other's is meaningless. Totally. That's even before you look at the other factors that contribute significantly to 'times' and average speeds and whatever.

You lot are arguing the toss about times up a climb in totally different conditions, in a mass start race situation, with probably a different wind, temperature, surface, bikes, gears, what had gone beforehand, racing situation blah blah, and comparing it to how many riders? 2? 3? 5? That's not scientific. That's just annecdotal bullsh!t. You need double blinds, you need to be able to single out a variable.

Other than the performance, which we can clearly see is no way do indicate any doping, there is no actual evidence I see of doping practices at sky. And as above, there is no rational, hard, scientifically acceptable and rigorous way to look at the performance, since we have nothing to judge it against, and don't know what is actually physically capable for what are already exceptional and unusual human beings - 'outliers'.

That doesn't mean they absolutely aren't, but it seems quite unlikely. With USP and all those teams we had regular hint, leaks, admissions etc. People talk about Leinders, but people only point to his past before sky, not what he did at sky. For some reason (predictably), they don't make the same connection to say, Vaughters.

What is going on at the moment, and it's happening on this forum and I don't like it, is a form of Mccarthyism.

'Fans' are overcompensating for being lied to. They feel duped and got stung, so now they've swung the other way. They got into cycling when Lance was big. They may have admired the guy, his ball(s). They've read Hamilton's book. Now they want blood (values). They say they see a doped performance and know what it looks like, but do they know a clean one? I got into cycling in '98 so I don't profess to know. How can you make a comparison? How can you know what the difference is between the two?

You lot have to stop it. When you get evidence that is actually provable and stacks up with actual evidence then you can say stuff. But this mud slinging has to stop.

This forum's got all so bloody serious about it too. Maybe it's because they're British. Maybe it's because there are a few people who think it's an unjust slur. Before we only got serious about Contador (and even then we had those bloody awful steak jokes), or Lance. At least with Lance he was a lightning rod that conducted it all into the same place. And he was American so we could laugh at him.

It's hysterical and it's bullsh!t.

And those who bloody say it don't know how to keep it in the right part of the forum either. Sort it out.

If you genuinely can't see this, I sincerely question why you even bother watching. Turn the TV off. Go watch something else. This sport isn't right for you. You obviously don't enjoy it, and I'm not enjoying your 'fandom' either.

slim_boy_fat

That should be posted all over the interwebz and twitter Rick. Well said.

above_the_cows

Wowzers Rick, that was worth the 10 minutes you had to wait for the site to load! Applause.