Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not

appletrees

Well, if you want an informed opinion, you should go and look at the Clinic (I ventured there for comedy value whilst this forum was down).

To sum up the events of the last few days re Sky:

They were too good on Saturday, so the ASO approached Dave Brailsford and asked them to back off a bit so that it wasn't so obvious they were doping. There couldn't possibly be a Sky 1-2 again this year, so if Porte wouldn't mind awfully, could he lose a bit of time. That way, Froome would be allowed to win with no repercussions. Dave, of course, readily agreed to this and concocted yesterdays events to facilitate the agreement.

As part of this deal, Porte gets to win the Giro in 2014 to make up for it.

Porte therefore deliberately lost time yesterday to make Sky look less suspicious.

Kiryienka did the same to the point where he was eliminated...again, they have to show that Team Sky are fallible.

And the best part, Peter Kennaugh crashed deliberately in order to not make it too obvious that he was losing time on purpose, so he could blame the fall...

I think it may be called the Clinic because so many of them are on drugs...

Utterly, utterly mad, yet strangely compelling reading...

RichN95.

BigFatBloke wrote:

But that aside I agree with you nothing has come out but in the UK the libel laws are stacked against anyone saying anything even if what they are saying is true, look how Armstrong gagged Walsh and many others. Sky is very big and very powerful, if anyone did speak out they would need considerable funds to lodge in the high court in advance of the proceedings and be able to pay their own legal fees even if they win because they may not get costs.

There may well be people out there who do not have the financial clout to risk speaking out.

Two words: Phone Hacking
Two More: Edward Snowden
Two More: MPs expenses
Two more: IOC corruption
A final one: Wikileaks

That's Murdoch, the Olympics, the British Government and the US government that the British press have gone up against. If they can back up a story they won't be scared off my a little libel suit.

The British press are many things, but frightened isn't one of them.

above_the_cows

BigFatBloke wrote:

the secret employment of Leinders.

Is that like secret as in the secret use of their secret hotel in Tenerife?

appletrees

As secret as this Secret Nuclear Bunker...

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00679/nuclear_679838n.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/2146217/Sign-language-week-three.html?image%3D1&h=417&w=613&sz=50&tbnid=yhDvV5-2Q174rM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=132&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dsecret%2Bnuclear%2Bbunker%2Bsign%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=secret+nuclear+bunker+sign&usg=__QhILdY9DkQPJfa7yfo-WYh9XkU4=&docid=tP6eWF-7RfYx6M&sa=X&ei=Cc3aUYnAA6ar0AWyloCoDQ&ved=0CEAQ9QEwAg&dur=978

Which if someone could make work I would be very grateful...

ddraver

It's simple OTR

*They ve taken advantage of any legal technology they can in terms of equipment and apparel - Stuff so super secret that Chris Bordman takes the Mick out of Ned on ITV4 for it (hu huh, Ned walking out of the changing room and slips on his cleats hee hee huh!!)

*They have the cash to buy riders and pay them enough to genuinely sacrifice their own chances to ride for their heros (Richie Porte would otherwise be riding for Garmin or AG2R or similar) - By far and away their biggest advantage over eveyone other than BMC or Katusha

*they have the money, and the knowledge to put teams together in january that then train specifically for one race all season. Bertie might have been training specifically for the Tour, but the other 8 Crotch Eagle riders havent!

*Further their training is designed by the very best possible people rather than old riders who can't let go of the sport! Most of the rest of the teams (notably exceptions being Garmin and Movistar) are being trained by Bradley Wiggins +20 years - does Bradley ever strike you as a scientist?

That's all the "unsportsmanlike magic" they need...

Richmond Racer

Above The Cows wrote:

BigFatBloke wrote:

the secret employment of Leinders.

Is that like secret as in the secret use of their secret hotel in Tenerife?

Yes, that's right, the secret hotel that's so secret that (as per your anecdote) your mum refers to it as 'the one where Sky go training, dont they, Daughter ATC'

above_the_cows

OnYourRight wrote:

Brailsford won’t release power data

This is one of the criticisms I don't get. Firstly it's wrong as I drank my coffee this afternoon looking over David Lopez's power data that Sky released via the secret medium of Facebook. Here it is:

http://www.trainingpeaks.com/av/6MBSKWFVPLBAYEOJFP6UWWC7A4

Secondly why should only Sky release their data? I wouldn't mind this so much if the call was made for ALL teams to release their data.

Thirdly do you have the ability to understand it? Because if you were Brailsford would you risk releasing raw data to some of the idiots attempting to prove Sky are doping who don't even understand the basic need to independently confirm things such as the length or average gradient of the climb under comparative analysis?

RichN95.

As a rule of thumb, the sports team with the most money and best organisation will win the most. Maybe someone has more money but they don't spend it well. The marginal gains stuff is just a manifestation of being well organised.

It's not as though they are that dominant - they've only won three WT races this season - the exact same ones as last season. They've done sod all in one day races.

TheBigBean

The thread title and discussion makes me want to pop along and say.....


Oh yes they are.

iainf72

iainf72 wrote:

There is no way to beat Sky if you wait til the final climb. There probably isn't a way to beat them in the high mountains

Tomorrow should be interesting - Different type of stage, more about tank than engine.

above_the_cows

Richmond Racer wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

BigFatBloke wrote:

the secret employment of Leinders.

Is that like secret as in the secret use of their secret hotel in Tenerife?

Yes, that's right, the secret hotel that's so secret that (as per your anecdote) your mum refers to it as 'the one where Sky go training, dont they, Daughter ATC'

Or 'The one on the road where we broke down!'

TheBigBean

Oh no they're not

etc.

above_the_cows

To be fair Brailsford would make a great Widow Twanky.

iainf72

Kimmage just asked about Leidners at Froome's presser

Keep fighting the good fight Paul - I'm sure someone thinks you're on to something

r0bh

Releasing their data would be pointless anyway. If the cynics didn't see the numbers they wanted to they'd just concoct a new conspiracy theory such as "oh they must set a -50W offset on their powermeters or manipulate the files before releasing them" or some other nonsense to prop up their beliefs.

And as ATC says, why only Sky? Where was the clamour for Nibali's power data when he was bossing the Giro?

cougie

Do F1 teams have to release all of their telemetry to all and sundry ? If I was winning - I'd not be sharing my data with anyone. Why let the opposition know everything - especially when they don't seem to be getting asked for theirs.

Richmond Racer

r0bh wrote:

Releasing their data would be pointless anyway. If the cynics didn't see the numbers they wanted to they'd just concoct a new conspiracy theory such as "oh they must set a -50W offset on their powermeters or manipulate the files before releasing them" or some other nonsense to prop up their beliefs.

And as ATC says, why only Sky? Where was the clamour for Nibali's power data when he was bossing the Giro?

Manipulate the data, bugger around with the calibration, publish another rider's data under Froome's name...

Not just things for the conspiracy theorists, but also actual flaws with the concept

Richmond Racer

iainf72 wrote:

Kimmage just asked about Leidners at Froome's presser

Keep fighting the good fight Paul - I'm sure someone thinks you're on to something

If Kimmage asked about Leidners, Froome will have very honestly replied that he has no idea who this Leidners is

Interesting comments from an AP journo present at the press conference

Jerome Pugmire
@jeromepugmire
Interesting to contrast TDF press conferences: Contador gives dismissive answer about doping question; Froome & Brailsford talk at length.


Jerome Pugmire
@jeromepugmire
To be fair to Sky, they answer questions; Contador just dismissed the question as to whether he's ever doped with a casual, stock answer.

Paul 8v

appletrees wrote:

As secret as this Secret Nuclear Bunker...

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00679/nuclear_679838n.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/2146217/Sign-language-week-three.html?image%3D1&h=417&w=613&sz=50&tbnid=yhDvV5-2Q174rM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=132&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dsecret%2Bnuclear%2Bbunker%2Bsign%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=secret+nuclear+bunker+sign&usg=__QhILdY9DkQPJfa7yfo-WYh9XkU4=&docid=tP6eWF-7RfYx6M&sa=X&ei=Cc3aUYnAA6ar0AWyloCoDQ&ved=0CEAQ9QEwAg&dur=978

Which if someone could make work I would be very grateful...

Haha, that's not far from me! Not too secret :-)

above_the_cows

appletrees wrote:

As secret as this Secret Nuclear Bunker...

VERY LONG LINK THINGY

Which if someone could make work I would be very grateful...

Here you go...

Cumulonimbus

TheBigBean wrote:

Oh no they're not

etc.

They're behind you.

About 5 miles in the case of Froome's team-mates.

No_Ta_Doctor

Cumulonimbus wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Oh no they're not

etc.

They're behind you.

About 5 miles in the case of Froome's team-mates.

This particular part of the pantomime is actually reserved for Tours where the Schlecks are riding together.

nweststeyn

We don't know what to do with the numbers... I'd go as far as to say that noone on this forums would be able to accurately derive any ACTUAL information from Froomes power data without having every other rider on every other teams files as well.

I definitely don't think most, if not all, journalists would know what to do with it either.

The numbers don't need to be published, but perhaps the UCI / WADA / National Agencies could have their boffins use it somehow. This then raises a point of how do we trust them? And that then highlights the issue that we have in cycling - without a trustworthy governing body we are all going to be cynical, sceptical, jaded and untrusting for ever and ever.

No_Ta_Doctor

OnYourRight wrote:

Sure, why shouldn’t all teams release power data? If it’s honestly won power why would anyone be afraid to tell the world? It’s not as if knowing Froome sustains, say, 450 watts for half an hour would do anyone a bit of good in trying to keep up with him.

I wouldn’t be able to sensibly interpret the power data, but clearly some people out there would. That’s what Brailsford is really worried about, not noise-makers on Twitter.

Based on Brailsford’s refusal to share Froome’s numbers, and his statement that clean riders today might be able to perform better than EPO dopers, I assume Froome’s power numbers are in the EPO-era league. Froome is rake-thin but he’s tall and weighs somewhere in the region of 70 kg. He must be putting out huge power figures to climb like he does.

Firstly, riders go to quite a lot of trouble not to show when they're hurting, why? Releasing power data would be the equivalent of showing when you were weak.

Twitter is hung up on the idea that there's some sort of magic number, hit it and you're doped. There might well be, but we only have a few guesses as to what it might be, and it comes with provisios about duration etc. 95% of those discussing Froome's power just don't have the inclination or brains to understand the science.

And yes, I'm certain Froome is putting out huge amounts of power. It is, after all, what he's paid to do and trains to do. A theoretical maximum power for clean riders is only useful because it's a correlation of physiological limits. but this again is fairly poorly understood. As far as I've understood, and I may be wrong, these physiological limits have been determined by measuring athletes. So if Froome did have a genuine physiological advantage then this might be misunderstood as "not natural".

RichN95.

OnYourRight wrote:

Sure, why shouldn’t all teams release power data? If it’s honestly won power why would anyone be afraid to tell the world? It’s not as if knowing Froome sustains, say, 450 watts for half an hour would do anyone a bit of good in trying to keep up with him.

I wouldn’t be able to sensibly interpret the power data, but clearly some people out there would. That’s what Brailsford is really worried about, not noise-makers on Twitter.

Based on Brailsford’s refusal to share Froome’s numbers, and his statement that clean riders today might be able to perform better than EPO dopers, I assume Froome’s power numbers are in the EPO-era league. Froome is rake-thin but he’s tall and weighs somewhere in the region of 70 kg. He must be putting out huge power figures to climb like he does.

I don’t deny he might be doing that clean, somehow or other. But I wish Sky would try a bit harder to convince us.

Here’s Froome answering whether he took anything on French TV, if anyone’s interested (ignore the first 18 seconds).

The reason for not releasing data is because certain people don't use it honestly.

An example for this is the recent comparison of the ascent climbs of Ax 3 (2012 with 2001,03,05). Just raw times are presented with no context whatsoever. Nowhere have I seen any of these facts mentioned:

1. This year it was the first MTF - a key tactical stage. In the other three years the Pyrenees followed the Alps so the GC was more certain.
2. This year it was the only MTF in the Pyrenees. In the other three years there were also stages to the summits of Luz Ardiden, Plat d'Adet or both. These were more enticing stages for taking time.
3. In two of the previous years there was no HC climb prior to it, meaning more domestiques were on hand at the base of the climb.
4. In the toher three years, the stage was won by a breakaway rider (Cardenas, Sastre, Toschnig) - so no-one was racing for that.
5. Froome attacked 5km from the finish, far sooner than in the other years.

All of these verifiable facts (I recommend bikeraceinfo.com as a good source) give context which suggests that tactically the climb would have been tackled more conservatively in those years. But no-one mentions that. They just fling out the numbers as it makes for a doping story.

Releasing data would be fine if those claiming to want the truth actually wanted it rather than fuel for their preconceptions.

mididoctors

what about froome at barloworld anything there?

Tom Dean

Richmond Racer wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

agree with the above, except to point out (without wanting to question his integrity) that Walsh is a Murdoch employee.

Do you think that if Walsh got so much as a whiff that something was going on, that he wouldnt expose it? My god, on top of the Lance business, he'd be made for life!!

Sod writing for the Sunday Times, he'd resign if he felt he had to, and go ballastic. The huge expose, the book deal, he'd never have to work again.

The Murdoch thing is an utter red herring.

I see no reason to suspect Sky, I just think the 'embedding' situation deserves a bit more scepticism. He was primarily there to puff the team in the Sunday Times. Obviously, being seen to be genuinely clean is great for publicity, but this is about publicity first and transparency second.

Doobz

Is Chris Froome Doping

Podcast of @CapeTalk567 interview on ‎#tdf. Too short for detail, but basics covered. "Performance worth questioning"

https://soundcloud.com/primediabroadcas ... ome-doping

Richmond Racer

Further to Rich's post...plus other variables such as road surface, the road itself (a new bit of road was laid down recently along part of the climb - not a resurface, but actually a new road - you can see the old road off to the side), the line actually taken by the rider, even the air temp makes a difference.

Oh and the timings for Lance's climb etc were taken from people over the weekend trying to work it out from old youtube clips - everyone comes up with different numbers

and for this brilliant bit of comparative, highly scientific (sic) analysis, Froome has been labelled as a nailed-on doper

above_the_cows

RichN95 wrote:

OnYourRight wrote:

Sure, why shouldn’t all teams release power data? If it’s honestly won power why would anyone be afraid to tell the world? It’s not as if knowing Froome sustains, say, 450 watts for half an hour would do anyone a bit of good in trying to keep up with him.

I wouldn’t be able to sensibly interpret the power data, but clearly some people out there would. That’s what Brailsford is really worried about, not noise-makers on Twitter.

Based on Brailsford’s refusal to share Froome’s numbers, and his statement that clean riders today might be able to perform better than EPO dopers, I assume Froome’s power numbers are in the EPO-era league. Froome is rake-thin but he’s tall and weighs somewhere in the region of 70 kg. He must be putting out huge power figures to climb like he does.

I don’t deny he might be doing that clean, somehow or other. But I wish Sky would try a bit harder to convince us.

Here’s Froome answering whether he took anything on French TV, if anyone’s interested (ignore the first 18 seconds).

The reason for not releasing data is because certain people don't use it honestly.

An example for this is the recent comparison of the ascent climbs of Ax 3 (2012 with 2001,03,05). Just raw times are presented with no context whatsoever. Nowhere have I seen any of these facts mentioned:

1. This year it was the first MTF - a key tactical stage. In the other three years the Pyrenees followed the Alps so the GC was more certain.
2. This year it was the only MTF in the Pyrenees. In the other three years there were also stages to the summits of Luz Ardiden, Plat d'Adet or both. These were more enticing stages for taking time.
3. In two of the previous years there was no HC climb prior to it, meaning more domestiques were on hand at the base of the climb.
4. In the toher three years, the stage was won by a breakaway rider (Cardenas, Sastre, Toschnig) - so no-one was racing for that.
5. Froome attacked 5km from the finish, far sooner than in the other years.

All of these verifiable facts (I recommend bikeraceinfo.com as a good source) give context which suggests that tactically the climb would have been tackled more conservatively in those years. But no-one mentions that. They just fling out the numbers as it makes for a doping story.

Releasing data would be fine if those claiming to want the truth actually wanted it rather than fuel for their preconceptions.

Also in all of those independent variables no one seemed to be able to confirm the actual length of the climb was the same i.e. were they timing it from the same points and where they actually got the times from.