Are sky clean or not?
Comments
-
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.
It won't though, will it.
Andrew Hood of VeloNews said on Twitter that there was not a single doping related question put to Contador during the Giro. And even if doping questions are put to him he will just answer 'siguiente pregunta' - next question.
There was little if any questioning of Nibali last year. Where was the clamour for him to release his power data?0 -
Yep. The double-standards are impossible to miss. You can't sit there bashing Sky for a supposed "lack of transparency" when almost everyone else is totally opaque! Froome isn't dodging the endless, repetitive doping questions and he is releasing power data. IMO he's clearly doing far more than any of the other big names to address the concerns people have, and all he gets in response is disbelief and a demand for even more data. Where does it end? A bunch of journalists following him around, filming him 24/7 to make sure he's not up to anything they don't like?
It won't though, will it.
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.
Andrew Hood of VeloNews said on Twitter that there was not a single doping related question put to Contador during the Giro. And even if doping questions are put to him he will just answer 'siguiente pregunta' - next question.
There was little if any questioning of Nibali last year. Where was the clamour for him to release his power data?0 -
I'd suggest that if Quintana takes the lead there will be no questions asked. Even though he is beating a 'cast-iron doping rosbeef'0
-
I'd suggest that if Quintana takes the lead there will be no questions asked. Even though he is beating a 'cast-iron doping rosbeef'
I reckon you're right.
As to Froome/Brailsford... IMO they should refuse to discuss the subject anymore. Stonewall it. they aren't achieving anything by doing what they've done so far so why put up with all the crap.“You may think that; I couldn’t possibly comment!”
Wilier Cento Uno SR/Wilier Mortirolo/Specialized Roubaix Comp/Kona Hei Hei/Calibre Bossnut0 -
It will be interesting to see what the response is if Contador suddenly takes off on a climb and stays away. Anyone that knows anything about endurance training/racing knows you can ride yourself into fitness, from a less than optimum training base, during a 3 week Tour and improve. On the other hand If you start a 3 week Tour fatigued, from the last GT, you can only get more tired, and slower, as there is no time to recover. And we know Contador was tired on the first big climb of this Tour. Lets see.... 8)0
-
Sorry Pokerface but I have to agree with the others on this page. If one of the others took the lead - and in this tour it would take a truly monumental effort - then all these questions would simply stop. (Sky would have stopped Doping because of the intense pressure they were put under by the true hero of the online cycling community and Froomes decrease in performance would be totes proof of that)
To answer part of your question from the top of the last page, this is one of the reasons why it's discussed so much on here, because that double standard is glaring, frustrating, biased and unfair.We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Yep, not a sausage about Nibali last year. Oh, hang on...Sorry Pokerface but I have to agree with the others on this page. If one of the others took the lead - and in this tour it would take a truly monumental effort - then all these questions would simply stop. (Sky would have stopped Doping because of the intense pressure they were put under by the true hero of the online cycling community and Froomes decrease in performance would be totes proof of that)
To answer part of your question from the top of the last page, this is one of the reasons why it's discussed so much on here, because that double standard is glaring, frustrating, biased and unfair.
http://www.lemonde.fr/acces-restreint/sport/article/2014/07/19/6d69689663686bc5946a6766689b6f_4460033_3242.html0 -
But aren't all the people questioning Froome attention whores?I automatically discount anything by Vayer. He is just an attention whore0 -
Maybe it's the Google translation, but that is extremely soft compared to what's getting thrown at Sky. It's like they can't be bothered to put the same effort into it.
Yep, not a sausage about Nibali last year. Oh, hang on...Sorry Pokerface but I have to agree with the others on this page. If one of the others took the lead - and in this tour it would take a truly monumental effort - then all these questions would simply stop. (Sky would have stopped Doping because of the intense pressure they were put under by the true hero of the online cycling community and Froomes decrease in performance would be totes proof of that)
To answer part of your question from the top of the last page, this is one of the reasons why it's discussed so much on here, because that double standard is glaring, frustrating, biased and unfair.
http://www.lemonde.fr/acces-restreint/sport/article/2014/07/19/6d69689663686bc5946a6766689b6f_4460033_3242.html
2014 Nibali won 3 mountain stages with some ease, was 7 mins clear of anyone else and never looked in any trouble, all after being pretty mediocre in the pre-Tour races. Froome has had a clear build up, not been anything like that dominant, yet gets a daily grilling from the media, some of whom are more or less accusing him outright of being a doper. Nibali wasn't badgered into giving out power data and he wasn't answering questions on doping every time someone was able to stick a mic in front of him. He wasn't having p*ss chucked at him or warming up with a police escort either. You can't seriously claim the two are being treated the same way.0 -
“It’s surreal to see just how superior Froome is, with that super astonishing style, turning the legs at a phenomenal rate on gradients touching 15%. We all saw them explode one after the other, like popcorn, with time losses verging on the ridiculous in some cases. Nibali, the defending champion, lost more than four minutes.”
Maybe it's the Google translation, but that is extremely soft compared to what's getting thrown at Sky. It's like they can't be bothered to put the same effort into it.
Yep, not a sausage about Nibali last year. Oh, hang on...Sorry Pokerface but I have to agree with the others on this page. If one of the others took the lead - and in this tour it would take a truly monumental effort - then all these questions would simply stop. (Sky would have stopped Doping because of the intense pressure they were put under by the true hero of the online cycling community and Froomes decrease in performance would be totes proof of that)
To answer part of your question from the top of the last page, this is one of the reasons why it's discussed so much on here, because that double standard is glaring, frustrating, biased and unfair.
http://www.lemonde.fr/acces-restreint/sport/article/2014/07/19/6d69689663686bc5946a6766689b6f_4460033_3242.html
2014 Nibali won 3 mountain stages with some ease, was 7 mins clear of anyone else and never looked in any trouble, all after being pretty mediocre in the pre-Tour races. Froome has had a clear build up, not been anything like that dominant, yet gets a daily grilling from the media, some of whom are more or less accusing him outright of being a doper. Nibali wasn't badgered into giving out power data and he wasn't answering questions on doping every time someone was able to stick a mic in front of him. He wasn't having p*ss chucked at him or warming up with a police escort either. You can't seriously claim the two are being treated the same way.
The infamous Jalabert comments. Considerably less of a direct accusation than Nibali faced. I personally would prefer that none of them faced such insinuations by the way but the reality is that the leader has done so in just about every tour I can remember (with the possible exception of 2011) irrespective of nationality. Social media is amplifying the problem year on year but this is again nothing to do with the nationality of the leader.0 -
"Considerably less"??? The deliberate and repeated use of words like "surreal", "superior", "super astonishing", "phenomenal" and "ridiculous" in the space of a couple of sentences is massively different and the unspoken message is unmistakable. Again, maybe the translation of lemonde article isn't great, but it basically seems to be acknowledging Nibali is better/less tired than everyone else, mentions he got a good time on one climb, and then leaves it at that!
“It’s surreal to see just how superior Froome is, with that super astonishing style, turning the legs at a phenomenal rate on gradients touching 15%. We all saw them explode one after the other, like popcorn, with time losses verging on the ridiculous in some cases. Nibali, the defending champion, lost more than four minutes.”
Maybe it's the Google translation, but that is extremely soft compared to what's getting thrown at Sky. It's like they can't be bothered to put the same effort into it.
Yep, not a sausage about Nibali last year. Oh, hang on...Sorry Pokerface but I have to agree with the others on this page. If one of the others took the lead - and in this tour it would take a truly monumental effort - then all these questions would simply stop. (Sky would have stopped Doping because of the intense pressure they were put under by the true hero of the online cycling community and Froomes decrease in performance would be totes proof of that)
To answer part of your question from the top of the last page, this is one of the reasons why it's discussed so much on here, because that double standard is glaring, frustrating, biased and unfair.
http://www.lemonde.fr/acces-restreint/sport/article/2014/07/19/6d69689663686bc5946a6766689b6f_4460033_3242.html
2014 Nibali won 3 mountain stages with some ease, was 7 mins clear of anyone else and never looked in any trouble, all after being pretty mediocre in the pre-Tour races. Froome has had a clear build up, not been anything like that dominant, yet gets a daily grilling from the media, some of whom are more or less accusing him outright of being a doper. Nibali wasn't badgered into giving out power data and he wasn't answering questions on doping every time someone was able to stick a mic in front of him. He wasn't having p*ss chucked at him or warming up with a police escort either. You can't seriously claim the two are being treated the same way.
The infamous Jalabert comments. Considerably less of a direct accusation than Nibali faced. I personally would prefer that none of them faced such insinuations by the way but the reality is that the leader has done so in just about every tour I can remember (with the possible exception of 2011) irrespective of nationality. Social media is amplifying the problem year on year but this is again nothing to do with the nationality of the leader.0 -
Warming up with a police escort? Really that bad?
Gives me the same image of a cycling forumite who admitted to getting blown away on a big hill by a postie on a Royal Mail bike. I have images of policemen on heavy mountain bikes and full police kit trying to keep up with Froome while warming up. Next you will see one of them flying past the peloton responding to crowds invading summit finishes.
Seriously, what is the value in persecuting one individual or a team in this way? If there is any evidence against them would the anti-doping authorities catch them? Leave it to those who have or can get hold of the evidence clearing or condemning Froome to do their job. Speculation is just another way of deciding based on hearsay and guesswork. Evidence is needed to condemn, or should be in a fair world.
I have just been reading a few reports on some of the old tours I remember from when I first got into watching the tour. The years of '86. '87. '88, etc. The years of Delgado, Roche, Lemond and the year fignon nearly made it 3 tour wins. IIRC the '88 tour was when Delgado got a kidney drug detected in his system, a known masking agent but not banned by UCI who's doping list was followed (IOC list included it but the rules stated UCI doping rules applied). He got cleared due to that technicality (it was added to UCI list 1 month later). After that he held the yellow jersey for 11 days and was tested every day but had no positive tests for anything even that not banned masking agent. The boss at the tour condemned the decision as the letter of the law not following the spirit and a bad day for the tour. his deputy followed his line (Leblanc) but the officials had made a mistake in releasing it to the media as a positive test when it was not a banned substance.
Now I know these are not the same but in some ways one guy ambushed Brailsford on a French TV show with some false evidence against Froome and he is condemned. Delgado was wrongly condemned by the race director but was cleared by the rules, it is still a stain on Delgado;s reputation and his win. Although the real difference I think is Froome has not had any evidence of anything put against him that can be considered conclusive scientifically. Delgado had a confirmed test positive for something that later became banned because it was a masking agent (a year later and he would have been penalised 10 minutes enough to push him into third if he performed the same way after penalised). Froome has some estimated, spurious figure held over him that is not even accepted by sports science I think. Unfair IMHO.
I am sure others on here know better examples to compare to Froome and Sky. Anyone with evidence should not go to the media but present it to the anti-doping authorities. They are the investigators and judge/jury for this not media.
AFAIK Froome and any cheating goes, I have no idea at all. Doubt anyone else has the evidence to know outside of Sky and Froome's team. The few sports commentators or journalists from reputable organizations (well those easier to sue i guess) seem to be very straight about this. No evidence has been found against him, this accuser has no credible information and in one journo's case he is convinced Froome is clean. This was based on a 3 year investigation into him and Sky during which not a single leak or accusation from team mates or former team mates who had been sacked or just transferred to another team. At this stage of the investigation into Lance Armstrong (after 3 years) this same journo said he had about 7 people making claims about LA's doping. Also not conclusive but IMHO it has more weight than that accuser's power figure guess.
I just feel it is time to just let it die down and enjoy the last days of the tour 2015. Enjoy it as if it is clean then if it is proven not to be later at least you have had a good time concentrating on the drama of the even. It is as much the smaller battles as the big ones at the top of the classifications that make a tour in my ignorant view of these things. Sort it out after. It is easy to strip someone of rankings after these days I think.
PS do people think that Froome has won it already or do you think it is still open for someone else to win?0 -
Clean or not time will tell...
In the meantime, worst tour ever?left the forum March 20230 -
In the meantime, worst tour ever?
Hehe, this happens every year - I don't think so, I've enjoyed it so far.
However at risk of sounding like I agree with Frenchfighter, the Giro was a better race to watch.0 -
In the meantime, worst tour ever?
Hehe, this happens every year - I don't think so, I've enjoyed it so far. .
I find it terrible... really a story with no plot and no climaxleft the forum March 20230 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:In the meantime, worst tour ever?
Totally agree.
I was so looking forward to this tour, it was built up to be one of the closest ever yet in reality its been a massive disappointment
0 -
[/quote]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?[/quote]
He was on a promise from Marion Rousse0 -
In the meantime, worst tour ever?
Hehe, this happens every year - I don't think so, I've enjoyed it so far. .
I find it terrible... really a story with no plot and no climax
Plot's been pretty clear - well drilled Sky team and on form Froome consistently controlling the race and the other main contenders not in as good form as was originally hoped.
The climax was quite premature to be fair
0 -
In the meantime, worst tour ever?
Whole lot more to a GT than the first 3 places on GC.0 -
Do the "worst tour ever" people have a memory that only goes back 340 days?0
-
Clean or not time will tell...
In the meantime, worst tour ever?
Really? Worse than the early 80s when Hinault was walking it by 15 minutes and riders were only allowed to attack after getting his permission?
There's been some really good racing in this tour, the first week particularly.It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
That first week alone was pretty intense
Worst tour ever. Only if you haven't been watching.Napoleon, don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day. Besides, we both know that I'm training to be a cage fighter.0 -
Team Sky publishes "the numbers" of Chris Froome
0 -
#JeSuisDawgie...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0
-
That first week alone was pretty intense
Worst tour ever. Only if you haven't been watching.
I'm quite hard to please and this has been a pretty good Tour. Obviously some people are disappointed that there wasn't this epic 4 way battle that they wanted but that was never going to happen. And it's the Tour, so it's always more conservative as coming 2nd or 4'th actually matters.
Best first week I can remember though.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Clean or not time will tell...
In the meantime, worst tour ever?
You are joking, right?
FF said the Giro was better? Why would he say that? Oh....Contador won it. My case rests.0 -
My take is it was an OK first week and has been poor since - it may not be the worst tour ever but it's certainly well below average.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
In the meantime, worst tour ever?
Hehe, this happens every year - I don't think so, I've enjoyed it so far. .
I find it terrible... really a story with no plot and no climax
Plot's been pretty clear - well drilled Sky team and on form Froome consistently controlling the race and the other main contenders not in as good form as was originally hoped.
The climax was quite premature to be fair
To be fair, who are the villians in this race? Contador, Quintana and Nibali who've been unable to put together a single, decent attack between them. Froome has had to work no harder than any of them to negate whatever they've tried. Nibbo and Contador are simply spinning the pedals.
Wiggo says in his book that race days are frequently easier than training days and I think this race fits the bill.
The sad thing is that under performing teams and riders have tried to derail Sky by innuendo rather than by being stronger on the bike.'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 -
The best argument I've read against the linkage between power analysis and doping is that you can't sanction based on power files, and it doesn't take Einstein to work out who to target....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0
