Are sky clean or not?
Comments
-
Instead of useless power data perhaps details of when and where he was tested in the last 2 months might be more useful along with ALL the results.
You mean his bio-passport? That's what it's there for, of course. And people far more expert in the field than anyone on a cycling forum, or any ex-pro, or any Twitter pseudonym are indeed pouring over that data if it is flagged for them to do so. Which, in the absence of any news that he has been served with an anti-doping violation, we must conclude that it hasn't due to the fact there is nothing wrong with his values.
And, Above The Cows, well said mate. Couldn't agree more.
This. WADA do testing with an aim to providing an independent means of ensuring a level playing field in athletic competition. The bio passport is administered in the same manner. The riders submit to the tests in good faith.
The location, timing, attendees, what brand of coffee the tester was offered etc etc is none of our business. Honestly, fans requesting this are being ridiculous.
And what AtC said. I've barely watched the Tour this year because everybody was frothing about Froome from 2 weeks out and I knew it would turn into this if he was going half decent.
Twitter is the worst invention of the last 20 years. An echo chamber for self absorbed morons."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
I have to say I am thoroughly bored of all of this now. It is stupid—and I mean STUPID in the strongest possible terms—tabloid sensationalism and it is damn off putting. People are making themselves look like idiots in the pursuit of whipping up a little 'drama' and consolidating their over-inflated sense of their own importance.
As a result of all this I have not been following this Tour as closely as I have in previous years as I find the whole charade to be a childish pantomime.
If the sport isn't careful it is going to loose fans.
This. The endless, baseless, speculation and rumour-mongoring is sucking all the joy out of the Tour.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19659642#p19659642]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:
An echo chamber for self absorbed morons.
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. You should trade mark that, stop them nicking it for a tag line.
"Twitter, an echo chamber for self absorbed morons, join today"2020 Reilly Spectre - raw titanium
2020 Merida Reacto Disc Ltd - black on black
2015 CAAD8 105 - very green - stripped to turbo bike
2018 Planet X Exocet 2 - grey
The departed:
2017 Cervelo R3 DI2 - sold
Boardman CX Team - sold
Cannondale Synapse - broken
Cube Streamer - stolen
Boardman Road Comp - stolen0 -
I don't ageee that there is nothing they could do to calm these accusations, they could be a lot more transparent, the fact that they aren't is a choice they make because they don't want to give a competitive advantage to their rivals. I don't buy the argument that they are afraid of people misusing the data to suggest something that isn't there if they shared a lot more data openly there would be plenty of people who would give a dispassionate honest assessment of what it showed.
Obviously it's wrong that they should be pressured into giving away information others aren't giving away but I do wonder if it hasn't reached the stage where it would be worth doing.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Hear hear, well said.I have to say I am thoroughly bored of all of this now. It is stupid—and I mean STUPID in the strongest possible terms—tabloid sensationalism and it is damn off putting. People are making themselves look like idiots in the pursuit of whipping up a little 'drama' and consolidating their over-inflated sense of their own importance.
As a result of all this I have not been following this Tour as closely as I have in previous years as I find the whole charade to be a childish pantomime.
If the sport isn't careful it is going to loose fans.
Why are Brits so shallow and willing to knock our greatest successes? It's sad guys, sad. Little England.....'Performance analysis and Froome not being clean was a media driven story. I haven’t heard one guy in the peloton say a negative thing about Froome, and I haven’t heard a single person in the peloton suggest Froome isn’t clean.' TSP0 -
I don't ageee that there is nothing they could do to calm these accusations, they could be a lot more transparent, the fact that they aren't is a choice they make because they don't want to give a competitive advantage to their rivals. I don't buy the argument that they are afraid of people misusing the data to suggest something that isn't there if they shared a lot more data openly there would be plenty of people who would give a dispassionate honest assessment of what it showed.
Obviously it's wrong that they should be pressured into giving away information others aren't giving away but I do wonder if it hasn't reached the stage where it would be worth doing.
But surely you saw yesterday that when they did release some data the people who have been requesting the data immediately jumped on it saying this data can't possibly be accurate, they must have doctored it etc etc. Proving Sky's position that releasing data is pointless.0 -
I don't ageee that there is nothing they could do to calm these accusations, they could be a lot more transparent, the fact that they aren't is a choice they make because they don't want to give a competitive advantage to their rivals. I don't buy the argument that they are afraid of people misusing the data to suggest something that isn't there if they shared a lot more data openly there would be plenty of people who would give a dispassionate honest assessment of what it showed.
Obviously it's wrong that they should be pressured into giving away information others aren't giving away but I do wonder if it hasn't reached the stage where it would be worth doing.
Has there been a case in sporting history when this has been done?
I mean, that move would be completely unprecedented (as far as I'm aware) and what purpose would be served by giving away all of their 'secrets' to shut up some (a lot) of morons?0 -
Whilst I agree with everything being said on this page, I don't understand why you guys can't just tune out all the noise around doping etc and just watch the racing. it's akin to putting your fingers in your ears and saying "lalalalala" - dead easy
I find the man-boy Rick Chasey writes the most coherent arguments for this approach0 -
Sky mistake is that they are trying to have a dialogue about nonsense
They should have stayed with corporate cliche answers of 10 seconds on all doping questions.
Doping is proved with tests, confessions and testimonies. Rest is noise.0 -
If you're all so sick of this discussion - why are you all still in this thread!?
I find the discussion over Froome's power numbers interesting, not from a doping point of view, but from a performance point of view. As such, I question the validity of certain data points as I think they've underplayed his performance. Even if they went on the low end of underestimation, his numbers would still be believable.
Sky put the figures out there - they are now a valid talking (and debating) point. Or do you all just blindly believe everything that Sky tell you?0 -
That Kimmage article is full of tokenistic empty crap. I particularly love this quote about Froome:
"Anybody who has ever raced a bike looks at Chris Froome ride and says, 'Jesus, that is extraordinary, it's just amazing the way he rides his bike'".
Yup, just like Michael Johnson ran a bit funny, Muralitharan bowled a bit weird, Bubba Watson has a strange golf swing.
Maybe these guys do well because they challenge the conventionally understood ideas, just like Froome?Giant Trance X 2010
Specialized Tricross Sport
My Dad's old racer
Trek Marlin 29er 20120 -
Just been discussed on the Victoria Derbyshire show of all places (daytime news magazine programme on BBC2). VD interviewed Walsh, who made the point that his pursuit of LA was based on, you know, evidence.0
-
I don't ageee that there is nothing they could do to calm these accusations, they could be a lot more transparent, the fact that they aren't is a choice they make because they don't want to give a competitive advantage to their rivals. I don't buy the argument that they are afraid of people misusing the data to suggest something that isn't there if they shared a lot more data openly there would be plenty of people who would give a dispassionate honest assessment of what it showed.
Obviously it's wrong that they should be pressured into giving away information others aren't giving away but I do wonder if it hasn't reached the stage where it would be worth doing.
But surely you saw yesterday that when they did release some data the people who have been requesting the data immediately jumped on it saying this data can't possibly be accurate, they must have doctored it etc etc. Proving Sky's position that releasing data is pointless.
I disagree, they released very limited data which has actually gone some way to stopping the accusations. If you mean that all their accusers haven't issued full apologies well quelle surprise but that doesn't mean releasing that data had no effect. If Sky routinely released data less it was obviously crooked it would be hard for anyone to point the finger at them, especially as the obvious answer would be we go further than anyone else.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Resistance to all types of Hatters is futile in my experience.
From time to time I've delved into the cesspit of moon hoax nutters. Having worked in the film industry and photography I can answer some of the points they raise about that side of the Apollo missions. It's a waste of time though. Their arguments are littered with Informal fallacies like proof of repeated assertion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion0 -
I don't ageee that there is nothing they could do to calm these accusations, they could be a lot more transparent, the fact that they aren't is a choice they make because they don't want to give a competitive advantage to their rivals. I don't buy the argument that they are afraid of people misusing the data to suggest something that isn't there if they shared a lot more data openly there would be plenty of people who would give a dispassionate honest assessment of what it showed.
Obviously it's wrong that they should be pressured into giving away information others aren't giving away but I do wonder if it hasn't reached the stage where it would be worth doing.
Has there been a case in sporting history when this has been done?
I mean, that move would be completely unprecedented (as far as I'm aware) and what purpose would be served by giving away all of their 'secrets' to shut up some (a lot) of morons?
Well we are talking about cycling and power data is a relatively recent thing so not sure we can equate it to data from sporting history. I accept that it would give some small competitive advantage away but my point wasn't that Sky should do this or that they are somehow being wrong to not want to do it, it was simply that it is an option open to them to shut the doubters up and that it maybe the bad publicity being generated by their success means the time is approaching where they think it's worth taking the hit and doing it.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Whilst I agree with everything being said on this page, I don't understand why you guys can't just tune out all the noise around doping etc and just watch the racing. it's akin to putting your fingers in your ears and saying "lalalalala" - dead easy
It's basically the pro cycling fan version of mindfulness.0 -
I don't ageee that there is nothing they could do to calm these accusations, they could be a lot more transparent, the fact that they aren't is a choice they make because they don't want to give a competitive advantage to their rivals. I don't buy the argument that they are afraid of people misusing the data to suggest something that isn't there if they shared a lot more data openly there would be plenty of people who would give a dispassionate honest assessment of what it showed.
Obviously it's wrong that they should be pressured into giving away information others aren't giving away but I do wonder if it hasn't reached the stage where it would be worth doing.
But surely you saw yesterday that when they did release some data the people who have been requesting the data immediately jumped on it saying this data can't possibly be accurate, they must have doctored it etc etc. Proving Sky's position that releasing data is pointless.
So called experts. This is getting really tiring. it is actually boring.0 -
Whilst I agree with everything being said on this page, I don't understand why you guys can't just tune out all the noise around doping etc and just watch the racing. it's akin to putting your fingers in your ears and saying "lalalalala" - dead easy
It's basically the pro cycling fan version of mindfulness.
An illusion invented by Western marketeers to provide an antidote to the ills created by Western marketeers (esp priests): beautiful mindfulness. The idea that 1000s of years of Indian and Chinese thought can be neatly packaged is precisely the problem.
In other news, I hear that Froome was expelled from the academy for hacking the Kobayashi Maru test....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
If you're all so sick of this discussion - why are you all still in this thread!?
I find the discussion over Froome's power numbers interesting, not from a doping point of view, but from a performance point of view. As such, I question the validity of certain data points as I think they've underplayed his performance. Even if they went on the low end of underestimation, his numbers would still be believable.
Sky put the figures out there - they are now a valid talking (and debating) point. Or do you all just blindly believe everything that Sky tell you?
If the power figures are a debating point then why bother? If they dont prove anything, beyond doubt, but are merely open to interpretation what is the point?????? Pandering to the baying mob.
What Sky tell us? Dont know what you mean by that. Its independant testing, nothing to do with Sky. Its what the random testing tells us. Its what the night time random testing tells us. Its what the Bio Passport tells us.
There is nothing Sky can do to prove a negative that the independant tests have not already done.0 -
I don't ageee that there is nothing they could do to calm these accusations, they could be a lot more transparent, the fact that they aren't is a choice they make because they don't want to give a competitive advantage to their rivals. I don't buy the argument that they are afraid of people misusing the data to suggest something that isn't there if they shared a lot more data openly there would be plenty of people who would give a dispassionate honest assessment of what it showed.
Obviously it's wrong that they should be pressured into giving away information others aren't giving away but I do wonder if it hasn't reached the stage where it would be worth doing.
But surely you saw yesterday that when they did release some data the people who have been requesting the data immediately jumped on it saying this data can't possibly be accurate, they must have doctored it etc etc. Proving Sky's position that releasing data is pointless.
I disagree, they released very limited data which has actually gone some way to stopping the accusations. If you mean that all their accusers haven't issued full apologies well quelle surprise but that doesn't mean releasing that data had no effect. If Sky routinely released data less it was obviously crooked it would be hard for anyone to point the finger at them, especially as the obvious answer would be we go further than anyone else.
Are Sky the only team to win a Pro cycling event this year, or a stage of this years Tour??????? I must have missed something. How many of the other teams in the Tour are being asked to release data? Or is this just a Sky thing because they have such a murky past and so many riders that have served bans for positive tests? Oh wait......0 -
Exactly. I'd be a bit more sympathetic to the demands certain groups are aiming at Sky if they weren't focused on that team to the exclusion of everyone else. If Sky can run a highly successful covert doping program for years, surely that proves other teams could be doing the same? Yet the attention of the "media" and "journalists" remains squarely on Sky. It's crazy. The tunnel vision some people are displaying is breathtaking.I don't ageee that there is nothing they could do to calm these accusations, they could be a lot more transparent, the fact that they aren't is a choice they make because they don't want to give a competitive advantage to their rivals. I don't buy the argument that they are afraid of people misusing the data to suggest something that isn't there if they shared a lot more data openly there would be plenty of people who would give a dispassionate honest assessment of what it showed.
Obviously it's wrong that they should be pressured into giving away information others aren't giving away but I do wonder if it hasn't reached the stage where it would be worth doing.
But surely you saw yesterday that when they did release some data the people who have been requesting the data immediately jumped on it saying this data can't possibly be accurate, they must have doctored it etc etc. Proving Sky's position that releasing data is pointless.
I disagree, they released very limited data which has actually gone some way to stopping the accusations. If you mean that all their accusers haven't issued full apologies well quelle surprise but that doesn't mean releasing that data had no effect. If Sky routinely released data less it was obviously crooked it would be hard for anyone to point the finger at them, especially as the obvious answer would be we go further than anyone else.
Are Sky the only team to win a Pro cycling event this year, or a stage of this years Tour??????? I must have missed something. How many of the other teams in the Tour are being asked to release data? Or is this just a Sky thing because they have such a murky past and so many riders that have served bans for positive tests? Oh wait......
Hypothetically, if Quintana manages to take 3+ minutes out of Froome, head to head (excluding crashes etc) and wins the Tour, does anyone think he'll face even a fraction of the interrogation Froome has faced, despite beating a "known doper"? Of course not, he's not riding for Sky! :roll:0 -
Yes, and if they did that, the response of the sceptics would be "well, Armstrong passed loads of tests too - these results actually increase the likelihood that he's doping"Instead of useless power data perhaps details of when and where he was tested in the last 2 months might be more useful along with ALL the results.
Kimmage's piece was astounding, questioning what use the data is after getting some of the transparency he's been demanding. I don't like sky and I don't like Froome. But the baying mob will surely get what they want - this is reaching the mainstream enough that sky won't renew sponsorship. The team will shrink and cycling will shrink. Sad times for everyone.
I'm assuming there's still no investigation from French media as to how Tony Gallopin put 30 seconds into Contador & 2 mins into Nibali on a MTF?0 -
Jesus christ the cynics are grasping at straws... his weight is completely irrelevant! (well not completely) the whole watts per/kg is based on an assumption. It does not matter how much weight he loses during a race, as the weight he loses is just water.
Do you think that the water he loses contributes in any way to the power his muscles can produce?
The watts per kg power output is a complete misnomer. What it is really saying is that for a person of any given weight we are assuming that the percentage of muscle mass in that body is the same as for everyone else. Muscle mass cannot be measured directly, the engine cannot be measured directly, so we use this figure of watts per kg as a guide to compare relative power outputs. The numbers cannot be used in isolation, they are only useful when you compare two riders of equal weight and equal body composition ie % muscle mass, % body fat, % water etc.. then it is possible to compare two riders performances in every other situation this cannot be done with any hope of accuracy, so arguing about a few kilos is wholly ludicrous.
There are just so many variables at work that screaming foul play because some numbers seem wrong is just insanity or stupidity.
You've completely misunderstood the whole point of how watts per kilo works. It doesn't matter if you're made of air or 100% muscle - the w/kg is completely relevant when it comes to climbing. All else being equal - it's what determines how fast you go up that climb in relation to other athletes of different shapes and sizes (based on THEIR w/kg). It's how you can directly compare someone like Froome to Quintana in a scientific way.
If you make the rider lighter - the watts per kilo measure go up. Same goes for the bike, how many bottles they are carrying, how many gels, etc. You can lose 2-5kg in water weight on any given ride - that will affect your climbing ability.
Even overstating the rider's weight by .5kg will change the ew/kg number. It's completely relevant.
No watts per kg is a wrapper for measuring something indirectly. It is a measure of efficiency of an engine, a human powered engine. It is flawed.0 -
Hear hear, well said.I have to say I am thoroughly bored of all of this now. It is stupid—and I mean STUPID in the strongest possible terms—tabloid sensationalism and it is damn off putting. People are making themselves look like idiots in the pursuit of whipping up a little 'drama' and consolidating their over-inflated sense of their own importance.
As a result of all this I have not been following this Tour as closely as I have in previous years as I find the whole charade to be a childish pantomime.
If the sport isn't careful it is going to loose fans.
Why are Brits so shallow and willing to knock our greatest successes? It's sad guys, sad. Little England.....
I agree. Although it's mainly the French and the Yanks on the accusatory stakes, apart from the raving lunatics at The Other Place.
Sky have been forced to do something they clearly didn't want to do in order to protect their riders. Much of it brought on by a disingenuous figure of 7.04 being headlined, when no climb ever as far as I'm aware has been measured on peak power output over 5 minutes. Then supported with pictures of Armstrong and Ullrich. WTF!
Obviously the figures Sky have given even at the +6% are only just above 6 at 6.12. Somewhat less than Verbier in 2009.
But rider safety is of paramount importance and the fires seem to have been quelled a little, thankfully.0 -
For me the whole reason for this is not because Froome has been so strong, but because the much hyped four way battle hasn't happened because Nibali, Contador and (less so) Quintana haven't been riding well. If they were battling it out on each stage, taking a few seconds out of each other on different stages I'd bet the accusations would be pretty much non-existent. Froome performed at a similar level to the likes of Nibali and Pinot last year, or Quintana and Contador of previous years. The lack of a proper challenge has led to the people desperate for that battle to instead blame it on him being superhuman, which is just stupid.
Lets imagine that Quintana is extremely strong the next few days and actually takes the jersey. Add into the mix Valverde. The guy was done for doping, yet has come back and unlike pretty much everyone else that came back from a ban is no different. What if Valverde and Quintana ended up 1-2 or 1-3? Would the press suddenly start jumping up and down about how they must be 100% dirty if they beat the clearly abnormal Froome?
I've said it elsewhere on this forum, but the riders that really concern me are the ones who are world class for one or two years, then suddenly not anymore. In some cases it might be down to motivation issues, but it may also be due to said riders no longer being able to use their previous pharmaceutical advantage due to new tests being implemented.0 -
Exactly. I'd be a bit more sympathetic to the demands certain groups are aiming at Sky if they weren't focused on that team to the exclusion of everyone else. If Sky can run a highly successful covert doping program for years, surely that proves other teams could be doing the same? Yet the attention of the "media" and "journalists" remains squarely on Sky. It's crazy. The tunnel vision some people are displaying is breathtaking.I don't ageee that there is nothing they could do to calm these accusations, they could be a lot more transparent, the fact that they aren't is a choice they make because they don't want to give a competitive advantage to their rivals. I don't buy the argument that they are afraid of people misusing the data to suggest something that isn't there if they shared a lot more data openly there would be plenty of people who would give a dispassionate honest assessment of what it showed.
Obviously it's wrong that they should be pressured into giving away information others aren't giving away but I do wonder if it hasn't reached the stage where it would be worth doing.
But surely you saw yesterday that when they did release some data the people who have been requesting the data immediately jumped on it saying this data can't possibly be accurate, they must have doctored it etc etc. Proving Sky's position that releasing data is pointless.
I disagree, they released very limited data which has actually gone some way to stopping the accusations. If you mean that all their accusers haven't issued full apologies well quelle surprise but that doesn't mean releasing that data had no effect. If Sky routinely released data less it was obviously crooked it would be hard for anyone to point the finger at them, especially as the obvious answer would be we go further than anyone else.
Are Sky the only team to win a Pro cycling event this year, or a stage of this years Tour??????? I must have missed something. How many of the other teams in the Tour are being asked to release data? Or is this just a Sky thing because they have such a murky past and so many riders that have served bans for positive tests? Oh wait......
Hypothetically, if Quintana manages to take 3+ minutes out of Froome, head to head (excluding crashes etc) and wins the Tour, does anyone think he'll face even a fraction of the interrogation Froome has faced, despite beating a "known doper"? Of course not, he's not riding for Sky! :roll:
We know what happens. In 2013, on the Alpe d'Huez stage Quintana put a minute into Froome. Ammattipyoraily calculated the performance as between 6 and 6.4 w/kg for 40 minutes (far and above anything Froome had done), and other than cheering and hollering with happiness that Froome was beaten, he said not a word about the performance. His performance wasn't endlessly retweeted. Ross Tucker didn't mention it. It disappeared.0 -
Quintana has definitely performed to my expectations. He hasn't yet proved himself, a Giro beating Uran by 2'28" is not the performance of a huge champion. Yet.
I have no doubt he will become one, but he is not riding worse than expected here.0 -
Exactly. I'd be a bit more sympathetic to the demands certain groups are aiming at Sky if they weren't focused on that team to the exclusion of everyone else. If Sky can run a highly successful covert doping program for years, surely that proves other teams could be doing the same? Yet the attention of the "media" and "journalists" remains squarely on Sky. It's crazy. The tunnel vision some people are displaying is breathtaking.I don't ageee that there is nothing they could do to calm these accusations, they could be a lot more transparent, the fact that they aren't is a choice they make because they don't want to give a competitive advantage to their rivals. I don't buy the argument that they are afraid of people misusing the data to suggest something that isn't there if they shared a lot more data openly there would be plenty of people who would give a dispassionate honest assessment of what it showed.
Obviously it's wrong that they should be pressured into giving away information others aren't giving away but I do wonder if it hasn't reached the stage where it would be worth doing.
But surely you saw yesterday that when they did release some data the people who have been requesting the data immediately jumped on it saying this data can't possibly be accurate, they must have doctored it etc etc. Proving Sky's position that releasing data is pointless.
I disagree, they released very limited data which has actually gone some way to stopping the accusations. If you mean that all their accusers haven't issued full apologies well quelle surprise but that doesn't mean releasing that data had no effect. If Sky routinely released data less it was obviously crooked it would be hard for anyone to point the finger at them, especially as the obvious answer would be we go further than anyone else.
Are Sky the only team to win a Pro cycling event this year, or a stage of this years Tour??????? I must have missed something. How many of the other teams in the Tour are being asked to release data? Or is this just a Sky thing because they have such a murky past and so many riders that have served bans for positive tests? Oh wait......
Hypothetically, if Quintana manages to take 3+ minutes out of Froome, head to head (excluding crashes etc) and wins the Tour, does anyone think he'll face even a fraction of the interrogation Froome has faced, despite beating a "known doper"? Of course not, he's not riding for Sky! :roll:
We know what happens. In 2013, on the Alpe d'Huez stage Quintana put a minute into Froome. Ammattipyoraily calculated the performance as between 6 and 6.4 w/kg for 40 minutes (far and above anything Froome had done), and other than cheering and hollering with happiness that Froome was beaten, he said not a word about the performance. His performance wasn't endlessly retweeted. Ross Tucker didn't mention it. It disappeared.
Unfortunately that is what Sky are up against. Which frankly is madness given the histories of some of the other riders and teams at the top. I'm still pretty sure it's the Johnny-come-lately scenario, loads of success and science that the French teams can only dream about (when they're not having a mid-afternoon nap
) 0 -
Not at all surprised. Come to think of it, why don't we hear anything about the riders like Quintana who seem to get better, or at least stay stronger, towards the end of a GT? You'd think that would be "unusual" enough for those objective, even-handed crusaders for truth on Twitter to begin sniffing around for anything dodgy going on, but no... although I expect that's exactly what will happen if for example Froome repeats his stage 10 performance up to La Toussuire.We know what happens. In 2013, on the Alpe d'Huez stage Quintana put a minute into Froome. Ammattipyoraily calculated the performance as between 6 and 6.4 w/kg for 40 minutes (far and above anything Froome had done), and other than cheering and hollering with happiness that Froome was beaten, he said not a word about the performance. His performance wasn't endlessly retweeted. Ross Tucker didn't mention it. It disappeared.0 -
Not at all surprised. Come to think of it, why don't we hear anything about the riders like Quintana who seem to get better, or at least stay stronger, towards the end of a GT? You'd think that would be "unusual" enough for those objective, even-handed crusaders for truth on Twitter to begin sniffing around for anything dodgy going on, but no... although I expect that's exactly what will happen if for example Froome repeats his stage 10 performance up to La Toussuire.We know what happens. In 2013, on the Alpe d'Huez stage Quintana put a minute into Froome. Ammattipyoraily calculated the performance as between 6 and 6.4 w/kg for 40 minutes (far and above anything Froome had done), and other than cheering and hollering with happiness that Froome was beaten, he said not a word about the performance. His performance wasn't endlessly retweeted. Ross Tucker didn't mention it. It disappeared.
If Quintana or anyone else takes the lead in the next few days (especially if they ride out of their skin to take the jersey), then the spotlight will shine squarely on them.
The spotlight only seems to shine on the race leader. It was the same in the Giro and it was the same in the Tour last year with Nibali.0
