Tour de France 2013

@ww

**The thing is, doping is not just one thing. Taylor Phinney made plain his dislike of 'finishing bottles' which contain caffeine and pain killers and are handed out before the finales of races. To him it's a kind of doping. He also made it clear his team mates use them. It's not against the rules though. **

Let's limit ourselves to what is currently banned / prohibited. The range of unprohibited things that give a performance edge is extensive. I think your example could be categorized as a rider being prepared to take a health risk. I would add a further example, and ask whether it is fair that any team or individual has access to superior resources (whether funding, equipment, training or nutrition)? Whether it is risk, resource, or any other parameter that influences outcomes, there could be further prohibition, but that is an argument for another day.

**Do Sky use them? **

I don’t know. I think Froome was passed an illegal feedbag on the lower slopes of Ventoux. If we assume it contained something that legally improved performance, is it fair Quintana did not receive the same? Or do we welcome one team gaining advantage over another due to their superior resourcefulness, rather than the genetic capability of their riders? (Genuine question).

**How many, if any, TUE certificates do they have? **

I don’t know. Should professional sports people accept a trade-off between medical confidentiality and transparency? Arguably it would benefit Chris Froome to be as transparent as possible.

**Talking of what is illegal, I assume that when people talk about Froome doping they mean blood doping, since it's the only kind ever shown to make a huge difference. Though scepticism about Rolland and Voeckler after Europecars problems with cortisol might also be fair.
If it is blood doping, how are Sky (or just Froome) getting away with it? Blood doping to such an extent that it makes them unbeatable and yet no other team can figure out how to beat the bio passport and other controls in the same way? It doesn't add up to me.
**
I disagree that when asking a question (are Sky doping?), a sceptic should have a fully explained counterfactual hypothesis. The debate du jour concerns sceptics asking Sky to provide reasonable explanation for possibly implausible performances. The relevant argument is whether Sky should be asked to justify their performance levels, or if they should be accepted until adverse analytical results or direct testimony to the contrary arises. Speculative flights of fancy as to the exact method of doping do not seem to be to the benefit of anyone. My only coda is that I agree sceptics assume any method of doping would influence the equation of watts/kg.

**And who is doing it? Brailsford and Kerrison? Has Brailsford always been dirty? With Hoy and Pendelton? Do people really think that? Or did he just decide to cheat at Sky? And those formerly clean BC riders agreed to go along with it? Or Wiggins was clean but Froome isn't? **

‘Too much to lose’, ‘nice guys don’t dope’, ‘Brits don’t dope’, ‘they all must be dirty if one of them is’ and every other argument characterised by your above point has been proven wrong. There is no point discussing people’s perceived personality, as it has always proven irrelevant in the past.

Scepticism cuts both ways - if you are going to suggest Sky are doping you have to have some notion of what they are doping with, who is organising it and how they are getting away with it. The 'they must have some new unknown wonder drug' is just David Icke territory.

I have explained why I disagree on this point.

To summarise my view, Chris Froome’s performance level is on the boundary between plausible and implausible. I do not trust the existing testing regimen sufficiently to dispel all doubt regarding his performance. As a ‘fan of cycling’ I believe it would be to Froome and the sports benefit to take further steps to demonstrate his performances are credible. I think Brailsford’s comments today are a positive step. If Sky live up to their founding promise of superior transparency in conjunction with superior performance they can change the sport for the better.

tl;dr ;)