Doping

I'm not surprised by it. I mean it has been a long time coming, I haven't really watched Froome either, because I don't think he should be riding.

BUT the arbitration until a decision is made over the AAF should be confidential, a luxury denied Froome by someone deciding to leak it and the Guardian deciding to publish it. Which meant this played out in the public arena which has made Froome look worse even though he is following UCI rules exactly.

And when he was poor at the start of the Giro I was relieved, because I thought we would be spared the complication of him winning the Giro, then he did that thing and we are here. And you are right it is a mess, but not one of Froome's making.

Oh and everyone we can can relax about Simon Yates. William Fortherington in the Guardian has said he must be 100% clean because he cracked in the Giro. Because that is exactly how doping works: ride well and you are cheating, ride badly and you aren't.

The Secret Pro gives him a pass at least:

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/05/the-secret-pro-an-insiders-view-on-chris-froomes-crazy-giro-attack/

I think half of it is a dislike of Froome (seems French media see him as 'coming from nowhere' in how he broke through and obvs his ugly style on the bike doesn't endear him to the purists) and a loathing of Sky's modus operandi and budget which is perceived as allowing them to manipulate the rules and stifle other teams. Lots and lots of people talking about their supposed teams of lawyers letting them string up the UCI...

Jiffy bags, TUES, Asthma, marginal gains, testosterone deliveries obviously have their part to play in this so not exactly plucked out of thin air. Damned by association would be the way to look at it. If it was Astana or Movistar would it be any different?

Did his data go missing too?

You've missed the point. I'll spell it out for you:

Why do you care about seeing Froome's power data from that full stage? What conclusions will would you be able to draw from it that you can't from the part that was released, the part where he rode up the biggest mountain? Likewise what conclusions can be drawn from not seeing the data for the other parts of the race? Finally why only Froome's? If you can read someone's power data and tell if they are doping/cheating/holding on to motorbikes then why don't you want to see everyone's to make sure they also haven't cheated?

wasn't the other riders' released days before Froome's, but his not (wasn't his decision to release/not so I understand) thus part of the furore?

6 other people's data was released, out of 144 being tracked. But unless someone is suggesting Velon have cooked the books then seeing the data for the rest of the stage isn't going to give any more insight.

Whilst I don't entirely believe in Froome this is the "show us the birth certificate / show us the tax returns" baying for evidence that will ultimately lead people to their own conclusions once they receive it anyway.

yeah, totally agree but it still plays into this narrative of partial disclosure that Sky seems to be renowned for these days and that's on Brailsford for spouting off about how open and transparent and clean they would be then not really delivering on it whilst crushing all comers. Post Armstrong the mass hysteria surrounding Froome hasn't exactly happened in a vacuum.

Velon admits gaps in the data but its Sky's fault?

https://www.velon.cc/en/news/2018/05/why-397-is-chris-froome-s-winning-giro-d-italia-number

what's preventing Sky releasing the data if Velon don't have it?

Why should they?

What other pro teams release this information on grand tours?

Because they promised to be whiter than white? Because they say they understand skepticism? Because it would stop some of the pretty mindless hysteria around Froome's win?

There's lots of reasons why they could do it.

Because it would stop some of the pretty mindless hysteria around Froome's win

I actually doubt that. I mean, if this were about the facts everyone would wait for due process to be followed before they condemned.

Would seeing his power / HR for a whole race change your view of him? What data will you use to compare it to?

No other team is going to supply HR data for their leaders so it will just be a number for people to argue over.

I think the hysteria is here to stay around Froome, whatever he was to do, but there are things he can do to at least reduce the number of sticks social media and the press are using to hit him with at least.

Renewed talk of ASO preventing him ride the tour (and the legal quagmire that will end up being), and doubt cast on the AAF being resolved by then from Lappartient. A proper clusterfuck.

Or social media and the press could wait until the outcome and then comment once all the facts are laid out?

Why the repeated "Your view etc?" I don't think he doped.

I think Velon fucked up by releasing other riders data before his. I think Sky consistently fuck up in the PR stakes and he pays the price for it. I think that if Velon were going to release the data anyway there's no real loss in Sky releasing their own as a public gesture rather than dismissing skeptics as trolls. What they make of it doesn't matter-they'll have satisfied their promise to be open and transparent instead of just shutting it down.

All caused by an improper leak. Notwithstanding the background I can understand sky / froome being reluctant to dance to the tune of people who show no desire to be objective.

Ha I think the answer to that is 'a cold day in hell'

if this were about the facts everyone would wait for due process to be followed before they condemned.

UCI rules are fucking shit, and the timing of the leak at a point when Cooke was leaving didn't help, neither did their mooted rule change for salbutamol that had been tabled that gave the impression a special pass was being given. i.e due process is only as valuable as the process itself, and given the process so far it's shown to be pretty imperfect.

Wiggins did the "once this process is over I will be permitted to say my part" and lots of people believed it would exonerate him. When the time came he had nothing to say apart from 'trust me this is bullshit'. Froome's asking for the same patience and saying everyone will be satisfied, going against all precedents for salbutamol adverse findings that have seen other riders banned.

People see it as exceptionalism. I don't know if they're wrong-the rules, imperfect as they are-remain the rules and I'm interested to see him prove that he had a liver disfunction or that the test is not valid. Even if he can, people will probably still just see it as Sky getting special treatment.

Yes the leak. It was quite the coup for the Guardian and there has been a distinct shift in their cycling reporting ever since, presumably recognising the negative coverage drove traffic so Sean Ingle and William Fotheringham have been beating the anti-Froome drum with a fervour. Also with none of the recent articles have they had the courage to open the comment section.

As a journalist you will always run with a leak like that, Ingle justified breaking the story by saying if he didn't something like the AAF may have stayed secret so it is in the public interest, and Fotheringham in his latest dour op-ed justified it by saying cycling's past means no-one deserves to be able to keep secrets in the sport.

Maybe they are right, but this shitstorm at the moment is doing no-one any favours apart from the press. Froome has become their Trump.

Sorry the way I was reading it was that you think Sky should release the info as they are hiding something. We are arguing for the same cause haha

attached is when he forgot to turn his HR off when started using strava again

2 Attachments