Doping

there has been a distinct shift in their cycling reporting ever since

Hasn't there. You know its bad when the Secret Pro is the one making (some) sense.

Some sense, some is bullshit, Froome could be the least aero rider in Pro cycling - this is from Secret Pro btw, just to add fuel to the fire.

Is the secret pro just David Millar trying to get more attention?

I got the impression (albeit the article is poorly worded) that TSP was referring more to this sort of aero: http://cdn.road.cc/sites/default/files/styles/main_width/public/chris-froome-descending_0.png?itok=pRUDixIk

Not the best argument, given that 'studies' have shown this isn't the most aero way of descending. Nevertheless, Froome did gain time on the descents, even if this was more to do with Dumoulin waiting for his FdJ parachute

Yeah I think on the descents its wa the gravity of Froome's testicular fortitude that made the difference.

In the valleys though, he was painfully upright, he averaged 40kmh and at that speed 90% of resistance is aero drag. It's interesting that all of Sky marginal gains they haven't told him to tuck in a bit.

He used to ride a lot less upright and fall over constantly so maybe it was a way to over come it?

maybe he stuffed a few extra bidons up his top for the descents for a bit of extra weight.

I’ve always thought there’s an irony that, with all the focus on aero in cycling, the two winningest riders - Froome and Sagan - position themselves like pat the postman

Maybe the received wisdom, that an elegant style is most efficient, is straight up wrong? There are many examples of this being the case in cycling history.

How do you know that's not aero? What looks aero often isn't. There's no way Groomed hasn't been in a wind tunnel (or similar) if Sky were planning an 80km solo breakaway.

Froome's position on the bike and the head nodding is all about breathing technique. Even Dr Ferrari gives him props for it and Obree for positing it in the first place.

Gregs Barnet: ‘We got the chow right’.

You missed my point. Let me spell it out for you. It is, once again, a PR disaster and fuel for controversy and they keep making the same mistakes again. I wouldn’t know a potato from a watt per kilogram.

It is, once again, a PR disaster and fuel for controversy and they keep making the same mistakes again

Only because people like you are going "he didn't do this thing, it's a PR disaster", when you're not asking the same of other cyclists.

Were you asking to see Contador's data during the whole 'dodgy steak' era? And let's be fair, testing positive for clenbuterol is significantly worse than having too much asthma inhaler in your blood.

Sorry man, I wasn’t that much into posting on forums about doping issues back then. Maybe ‘people like me’ weren’t either.

Contador got his titles stripped and served his ban.

Double the amount of salbutamol allowed vs an almost intracable amount of clenbuterol is something to think about too, now you’re bringing it up.

Double the amount of salbutamol allowed vs an almost intracable amount of clenbuterol is something to think about too, now you’re bringing it up.

One is a banned substance, where even a nanogram is considered a positive, the other is a controlled substance which means it can be used up to a threshold level. That's a major difference.

It is all about intention and Brailsford is certainly not telling.

You going to tell that Prudhomme tomorrow?

http://www.velonews.com/2018/05/the-outer-line/the-outer-line-researchers-seek-the-power-to-believe-pro-cyclists_467803

May be an interesting development. I got about halfway through thanks to some Rum I got bored. A TL:DR would be appreciated

Froome’s ride got compared to Landis. As I was watching it unfold I was thinking about Contador’s race-winning attack in the Vuelta a few years back. And after I can’t help think if Contador has done it everyone would be purring.

Instead they raise the ghost of Landis. A rider with potential but at the time barely more than a domestique. He cracked the day before, lost time, dosed up and ride over 8 cols solo against the combined wrath of a doped peloton.

So a shite comparison to Froome. Winner on the Zoncolan, strong in the ITT, still in fourth and the leader of the race riding beyond himself.

This.

I know. A nanogram above zero, forbidden. 100% above threshold, forbidden. Too much is too much, one could argue.

testing positive for clenbuterol is significantly worse than having too much asthma inhaler in your blood

Technically, testing positive for clenbuterol is having too much asthma inhaler in your blood, it's just that the definition of too much varies between inhalers :)

It's more subtle than that, though. Being above the threshold is not forbidden per se, instead the athlete has an opportunity to explain what happened, and then, if the UCI anti doping tribunal aren't satisfied, they can open an anti-doping violation. They can also clear the rider too, if they are satisfied with the explanation.

With a banned substance, that element of doubt isn't there, a ban is issued, irrespective of the athlete's explanation.

I read that too, not a good comparison as Landis was the strongest rider all race ( be it doped up ) who had one ‘jour sans’ and followed it up with an unbelievable feat. Froome’s performance was all over the place in this Giro.

So were Chavez's and Yates's...