Would A Clean Froome Beat A Doped Armstrong?

deejaysee

Often wondered.
Cant say i know too much about the Armstrong days but i'm guessing yes?

mfin

No.

Garry H

No, I don't think so.

deejaysee

I know it wasn't that long ago but even with advances in tech, nutrition and training methods??

lostboysaint

Have a look at the "record times" up various mountains - most of the fastest times are still by dopers, which tells you that tech, nutrition and training methods have a way to go yet in order to get a normally aspirated cyclist to the same type of performance.

kingstongraham

deejaysee wrote:

I know it wasn't that long ago but even with advances in tech, nutrition and training methods??

I don't think any of that will beat the recovery advantage derived from a nice cool infusion.

fenix

I'd think not. The racing these days seems to be slower - less long attacks that you could do if you were doping and able to recover with some fresh blood.

mikeyj28

Fenix wrote:

I'd think not. The racing these days seems to be slower - less long attacks that you could do if you were doping and able to recover with some fresh blood.

Too true! The dopers (of not too long ago) still have some impressive times when compared to the 'clean' cyclists of today.

I believe Froome to be clean but he would be left behind by a juiced up Armstrong.

charlie_potatoes

A clean Froome would be pretty slow I should think

debeli

There are similarities between the winning records of the two:

Both had (have) teams behind them that contain extraordinary strength in depth.
Both had (have) the benefits of a team with a very 'tech' outlook and a management who were prepared to look critically at every area of performance.

I confess that I was greatly entertained by stage racing in the 'dirty' days and still have a fond regard for some of the riders from those days: Cadel, Pantani, Voigt, Voeckler, Big Mig, MIllar D, Ullrich, Roche and many others. I was fairly certain that the riders were juiced, but I was blown away by the extremity of effort, skill and endurance. I was quite tickled by the shock shown by Lance supporters when he eventually came clean.

I am still greatly entertained by stage racing and still marvel at the extremes of the sport, particularly in the high mountains. I am not now convinced that the main players are juiced, but it would not surprise me if they were. I rather imagine there may be a degree of micro-dosing in some of the wealthier teams.

Froome may well be riding clean, but he may well not be. But a 30-year-old LA (juiced at supported as he was) against a 30-year-old Froome (supported as he is and perhaps slightly juiced) would be worth a trip to the Alps to see the feathers fly.

I would certainly watch it, but would not like to predict the outcome, apart from saying that my money would be on the juiced Lance, supported by George, Floyd, Eki, Tyler and various other die-hard lieutenants of glory.

singleton

Always an interesting topic. If it's just about running and jumping then you can draw reasonable comparisons between athletes of different era, (although track technology has progressed) but once you have any kind of device involved it's almost impossible to do a direct comparison.

Is Ayrton Senna the best ever F1 driver? Is Rossi the greatest of all time MotoGP rider?

Ben6899

The juiced Armstrong was really quite ridiculous.

ugo.santalucia

Armstrong had 6.8 Watt/Kg, Froome barely gets above 6 W/Kg... Pantani had 7.1 Watt/Kg

So NO

StillGoing

Charlie Potatoes wrote:

A clean Froome would be pretty slow I should think

I note the wink, but are you seriously stating you think Froome is doping? With the way the Sky contracts are reportedly constructed, if he was and it was discovered, the financial hit would ruin him and his families future. I doubt he's doping in any way and he would have been caught by now without assistance on a national scale if he was. I seriously doubt the UK government have sanctioned any cover up in any sport for doping breaches. Froome's having multiple tests on some days during this TdF.

charlie_potatoes

philthy3 wrote:

Charlie Potatoes wrote:

A clean Froome would be pretty slow I should think

I note the wink, but are you seriously stating you think Froome is doping? With the way the Sky contracts are reportedly constructed, if he was and it was discovered, the financial hit would ruin him and his families future. I doubt he's doping in any way and he would have been caught by now without assistance on a national scale if he was. I seriously doubt the UK government have sanctioned any cover up in any sport for doping breaches. Froome's having multiple tests on some days during this TdF.

I don't know.

I do not share your blind faith though.

sloppyschleckonds

Charlie Potatoes wrote:

I do not share your blind faith though.

mamba80

philthy3 wrote:

Charlie Potatoes wrote:

A clean Froome would be pretty slow I should think

I note the wink, but are you seriously stating you think Froome is doping? With the way the Sky contracts are reportedly constructed, if he was and it was discovered, the financial hit would ruin him and his families future. I doubt he's doping in any way and he would have been caught by now without assistance on a national scale if he was. I seriously doubt the UK government have sanctioned any cover up in any sport for doping breaches. Froome's having multiple tests on some days during this TdF.

Of course its highly unlikely, but such is the cynicism toward Pro sport, that any athlete that is head and shoulders above everyone else, will attract suspicion, his w/kg is on the limit of what is possible for a non doped rider but i'm really glad he isnt getting the shitte thrown at him this year though.

I d like to see a doped Froome, go back in time and ride in the 1990's early 2000's that would be worth seeing :shock:

simon_masterson

philthy3 wrote:

Charlie Potatoes wrote:

A clean Froome would be pretty slow I should think

I note the wink, but are you seriously stating you think Froome is doping? With the way the Sky contracts are reportedly constructed, if he was and it was discovered, the financial hit would ruin him and his families future. I doubt he's doping in any way and he would have been caught by now without assistance on a national scale if he was. I seriously doubt the UK government have sanctioned any cover up in any sport for doping breaches. Froome's having multiple tests on some days during this TdF.

I do not think that Froome is doping, and I do not have any reason to believe otherwise, but Sky and BC are not the untouchable paragons of virtue that some make them out to be. If they wanted to, they would probably be very good at it. Assuming that an individual or team is above suspicion is what allows cheating to go on; likewise that negative tests equal no doping.

StillGoing

Simon Masterson wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Charlie Potatoes wrote:

A clean Froome would be pretty slow I should think

I note the wink, but are you seriously stating you think Froome is doping? With the way the Sky contracts are reportedly constructed, if he was and it was discovered, the financial hit would ruin him and his families future. I doubt he's doping in any way and he would have been caught by now without assistance on a national scale if he was. I seriously doubt the UK government have sanctioned any cover up in any sport for doping breaches. Froome's having multiple tests on some days during this TdF.

I do not think that Froome is doping, and I do not have any reason to believe otherwise, but Sky and BC are not the untouchable paragons of virtue that some make them out to be. If they wanted to, they would probably be very good at it. Assuming that an individual or team is above suspicion is what allows cheating to go on; likewise that negative tests equal no doping.

It isn't assuming they are clean at all. Sky as the sponsors have laid down the law that any hint of doping and they will immediately pull any contracts and seek injury for the bad publicity that would ensue. SDB isn't stupid enough to ignore that threat and the cleansing of the team and backroom staff a while ago went some way to emphasising it. A lot of this rumour shite comes from that fat has been sour puss Lemond.

simon_masterson

philthy3 wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Charlie Potatoes wrote:

A clean Froome would be pretty slow I should think

I note the wink, but are you seriously stating you think Froome is doping? With the way the Sky contracts are reportedly constructed, if he was and it was discovered, the financial hit would ruin him and his families future. I doubt he's doping in any way and he would have been caught by now without assistance on a national scale if he was. I seriously doubt the UK government have sanctioned any cover up in any sport for doping breaches. Froome's having multiple tests on some days during this TdF.

I do not think that Froome is doping, and I do not have any reason to believe otherwise, but Sky and BC are not the untouchable paragons of virtue that some make them out to be. If they wanted to, they would probably be very good at it. Assuming that an individual or team is above suspicion is what allows cheating to go on; likewise that negative tests equal no doping.

It isn't assuming they are clean at all. Sky as the sponsors have laid down the law that any hint of doping and they will immediately pull any contracts and seek injury for the bad publicity that would ensue. SDB isn't stupid enough to ignore that threat and the cleansing of the team and backroom staff a while ago went some way to emphasising it. A lot of this rumour shite comes from that fat has been sour puss Lemond.

All of this is based on a very benevolent view of Sky.

Garry H

I think they've been shown to follow the letter of the law, if not the spirit of it.

joe2008

philthy3 wrote:

It isn't assuming they are clean at all. Sky as the sponsors have laid down the law that any hint of doping and they will immediately pull any contracts and seek injury for the bad publicity that would ensue. SDB isn't stupid enough to ignore that threat and the cleansing of the team and backroom staff a while ago went some way to emphasising it. A lot of this rumour shite comes from that fat has been sour puss Lemond.

Yep, Murdoch's SKY are a paradigm of virtue.

Garry H

Anyway, watch this and decide for yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QUSkuxc3Zw

cougie

If you think sky are dirty then that implicates SDB.
And I don't think he's stupid enough to get sky to dope as it'll destroy everything he did with team Gb.

We are a long way away from the days of USPS. Remember how they'd all get busted after leaving the team? I can't think of that happening to an ex sky rider?

I genuinely think they're clean. Wiggins spoke often about this. I don't believe he's a liar.

webboo

deejaysee wrote:

Often wondered.
Cant say i know too much about the Armstrong days but i'm guessing yes?

I guess it would depend if you had given him a wipe down with baby wipes or used a hose pipe on him. If it was the latter he would have probably have melted given he's made of carbon.

StillGoing

joe2008 wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

It isn't assuming they are clean at all. Sky as the sponsors have laid down the law that any hint of doping and they will immediately pull any contracts and seek injury for the bad publicity that would ensue. SDB isn't stupid enough to ignore that threat and the cleansing of the team and backroom staff a while ago went some way to emphasising it. A lot of this rumour shite comes from that fat has been sour puss Lemond.

Yep, Murdoch's SKY are a paradigm of virtue.

Whilst Murdoch and his empire are greedy and have far too much influence over politics, the Sky corporation being exposed as being involved in doping in sport would have implications for the empire that no government would be willing to match. Yes I agree that Murdoch and his family are odious.

StillGoing

Simon Masterson wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Charlie Potatoes wrote:

A clean Froome would be pretty slow I should think

I note the wink, but are you seriously stating you think Froome is doping? With the way the Sky contracts are reportedly constructed, if he was and it was discovered, the financial hit would ruin him and his families future. I doubt he's doping in any way and he would have been caught by now without assistance on a national scale if he was. I seriously doubt the UK government have sanctioned any cover up in any sport for doping breaches. Froome's having multiple tests on some days during this TdF.

I do not think that Froome is doping, and I do not have any reason to believe otherwise, but Sky and BC are not the untouchable paragons of virtue that some make them out to be. If they wanted to, they would probably be very good at it. Assuming that an individual or team is above suspicion is what allows cheating to go on; likewise that negative tests equal no doping.

It isn't assuming they are clean at all. Sky as the sponsors have laid down the law that any hint of doping and they will immediately pull any contracts and seek injury for the bad publicity that would ensue. SDB isn't stupid enough to ignore that threat and the cleansing of the team and backroom staff a while ago went some way to emphasising it. A lot of this rumour shite comes from that fat has been sour puss Lemond.

All of this is based on a very benevolent view of Sky.

More on a view of SDB.

joe2008

Garry H wrote:

Anyway, watch this and decide for yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QUSkuxc3Zw

bring back doping

Garry H

joe2008 wrote:

Garry H wrote:

Anyway, watch this and decide for yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QUSkuxc3Zw

bring back doping

Indeed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEqQW1-casM

tangled_metal

As much as I agree Murdoch's regime I mean business.empire is not a good organization there is a good reason for it to insist in a good reputation from its cycle team. Sky in the UK and a lot of other countries is tiny.compared to their US media empire. Murdoch has been growing his American.business big time and it's such a big part of his business now.

The issue with a company running a tv empire in America I believe is that the US authorities have a lot of power over their media empires. I think it is the FCC the gives media empires their licence, there is a clause that is reputation based. Something about being a fit company, as in having a good reputation. It was this reason why Murdoch had to shut down news of the world after the phone hacking. He was re-applying for a licence and had to clean up his business.

With this in mind there is no altruism in sky insisting their sponsored cycling team has no doping within their midst. That is purely about the sky empire protecting their huge American business. A good reputation is important to that I believe.

As cynical as you like to be you need to.accept that.there is a big business related driver for sky to be a clean side,

ben@31

lostboysaint wrote:

Have a look at the "record times" up various mountains - most of the fastest times are still by dopers, which tells you that tech, nutrition and training methods have a way to go yet in order to get a normally aspirated cyclist to the same type of performance.

Theres videos on Youtube of Armstrong climbing Mt Ventoux in 2000, one of Armstrong attacking after a crash on Luz Ardiden in 2003 and a separate video of Marco Panatni breaking the record for climbing Alpe d'Huez in 1997. The speed of these is phenomenal, these days with hindsight you know the attacks just don't look natural. Especially compared to the pace they grind up the mountains today.