-
Once bitten, twice shy.. or in the case of pro cycling 100 times bitten, get to fuck any performance that looks remotely impressive. I kinda feel sorry for the bloke but given the history of the sport, too bad, we are fucking suspicious.
I think all these riders complaining about the questions now, including Froome, Wiggins and many others, were all part of the problem previously by their omissions rather than their actions.
They undoubtedly would have either been witness to or been involved in doping at some stage in their careers but chose the omerta. Now they're dealing with the repercussions so I don't feel bad for them having to defend themselves whether they're clean or not.
They were/are almost all part of generating the culture of suspicion we have now.
-
I think all these riders complaining about the questions now, including Froome, Wiggins and many others, were all part of the problem previously by their omissions rather than their actions.
They undoubtedly would have either been witness to or been involved in doping at some stage in their careers but chose the omerta. Now they're dealing with the repercussions so I don't feel bad for them having to defend themselves whether they're clean or not.
They were/are almost all part of generating the culture of suspicion we have now.
Reckon Wiggins would disagree with you
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/jul/29/cycling.tourdefrance1
-
@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 ;)
-
Reckon Wiggins would disagree with you
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/jul/29/cycling.tourdefrance1
Really?
That was after the fact which isn't quite the same. He's complaining about something of which he's played his part in by not doing something before.
Then, last year he just started getting defensive.
-
Can't find a definite answer anywhere. Was that last 15k the fastest on record? Heard people mention it was faster than lance in 2002 and others saying it was near to Pantani levels. Others saying it was nowhere near. Anybody know 100%
-
It is uncertain, but this site usually credited with doing the best job:
On the 15.65km section from St Esteve to the finish (Bedoin to Esteve being a preamble at shallow gradient), Froome posted the second fastest time since 2000. More strikingly he did it riding fast/slow, not tempo.
-
Thanks. So same as Lance in 2002 but nowhere near Pantani in 94. I know Mayo's time was for a 37k TT was Pantani's something similar or just the result of massive talent combined with massive amounts of EPO?
-
Time is so fucking variable. You CANNOT compare times.
-
I know what you mean but unless we have wind reports for every ascent for the last 20 odd years time is the only thing we can go on for now.
Edit: For the record I think wind must have played a factor since there's a reasonable chance Quintana could have stayed with Froome had he not burned himself out with a solo effort. In which case we'd be looking a two 'record holders' so to speak
-
Really?
That was after the fact which isn't quite the same. He's complaining about something of which he's played his part in by not doing something before.
Then, last year he just started getting defensive.
But you were saying they turned a blind eye to the doping going on around them in an earlier epoch, and that is why now they have to answer these difficult questions on a daily basis, and internet know-it-alls (present company excepted) using platforms like Twitter and forums to accuse and abuse them. I pointed out WQiggins very much broke Omerta earlier in his career, and was lauded for it by the same people that snigger at him now.
And I don't use the words 'abuse' and 'snigger' lightly. Even Vayer was calling Froome silly names on Twitter, and when I challenged him make a facetious reply. I don't disagree with their cycnicism, but often characters like him come across as people trying to grab the limelight. UCI Overlord is the prime example, and the disappearance of the Kimmage fund. But even Kimmage is another: often his words read like a personal vendetta. He tweeted the words of the Dumbo song 'ain't never seen an elephant fly' in response to Froome's performance on the Ventoux. Is that a respectable, serious response to the issue? Is it constructive in any way to call them silly names?
The clinic likes to think of itself as some serious platform for the 'truth', calling themselves the clinic 12 and never letting up in their belief that all cycling is dirty. But how quickly the throw a character like Walsh under the bus because he comes out in support of Sky. From freedom fighter to corporate sell out in one swift step. Even one of their own, Race Radio, a long time campaigner against Armstrong, posted there that he had had a meal with Porte, and thought he and Sky were on the level, and that Leinders is nowhere near a doping doctor like Fuentes or Ferrari, and they turned on him.
Or they post pictures of Wiggins in a daft suit, or Froome falling off his bike, and Brailsford face next to the face of Gollum and collectively laugh about it, and think that helps with the fight against doping.
Phew, went off on one there for a moment. And breath....
Yeah Wiggins got defensive. It is an admission of guilt somehow? Or just more dodgy innuendo? One thing is true: if these riders are riding clean then they are getting heavily punished for the sins of other people. Perhaps that is why they don't want to talk about it.
-
^^^
I don't see a basis for your comment regarding Quintana. If anything, Froome's effort was more taxing due to the drag sprints. Another thing - despite variable conditions Armstrong and Pantani always seem to be at the top of these lists. I guess they had adverse conditions by contrast to the tailwind carrying Froome round France. Also a shame that Contador couldn't get near his 2009 time despite the favourable tail wind.
-
But you were saying they turned a blind eye to the doping going on around them in an earlier epoch, and that is why now they have to answer these difficult questions on a daily basis, and internet know-it-alls (present company excepted) using platforms like Twitter and forums to accuse and abuse them. I pointed out WQiggins very much broke Omerta earlier in his career, and was lauded for it by the same people that snigger at him now.
Yes, I get that but I still don't think that the riders have done enough or been open enough. Some have been more so than others so maybe I'm being a little hard on Wiggo but largely, I still believe that their lack of openness and their observance of the Omerta (whether they were doping or not) that is partly to blame for the questions that are being asked now.
As for the clinic - it's a dark place that I occasionally visit. It takes a LOT of time to sift through any subject/thread to find something interesting/useful/objective. I'm not surprised it makes people angry!
-
Jimmy reads the clinic. The Clinic makes Jimmy angry.
They show Jimmy no respect. Jimmy don't like that
-
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.
T-V could you explain why you don't trust the current testing regime? When I read in L'Equipe this morning that Froome was tested three times in 24 hours I kinda assumed that that is pretty rigorous.
-
I won't answer for TV but for many the problem lies with the UCI and Hein's and Pat's possible collusion with Armstrong's doping to open up the American market and other more dubious commercial concerns. Basically Armstrong got away with it for so long because he was protected and while the testing remains in the control of the UCI few fully trust it.
-
T-V could you explain why you don't trust the current testing regime? When I read in L'Equipe this morning that Froome was tested three times in 24 hours I kinda assumed that that is pretty rigorous.
If you're talking EPO, then there's no way to hide the glow if you're tested three times in 24 hours - and surely the passport would do away with any possibility that bags have been involved?
I think Froome is about 69 kg and Armstrong was about 75kg - with the different training regimes and diets and that extra weight, does that put what he did into plausible rather than "not normal"?
Also, would Sky / Brailsford / Froome be that stupid to go flying up AX 3 and Ventoux with all the questions they knew it would raise if there was doping involved?
Should this be in doping >>>>>>>>>>?
-
This thread needs more ageism.
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. Do Sky use them? How many, if any, TUE certificates do they have?
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.
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?
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.Hi will :)
-
This thread is a good read today. It does'nt need to be in doping as the web of deceit in cyclings distant and recent past makes the two topics indistinguishable.
The TUE thing is jokes, are the numbers of them in the TDF peloton published or is it top secret as its personal 'medical' info? I don't know how many there are but rumours are its enough to make you think the race was a dying hospital ward being granted their final wish, akin to mass Great Ormond St trip to Disneyland. Lance having a TUE for saddle sores (I know that excuse was bollocks but it was still granted) sounds just weak sauce to me, what happened to a large measure of HTFU. It seems the TUE part of the regs is being abused, by all the teams, and I think the UCI needs to look at it, but we all know they're not exactly a paragon of virtue so I'm not holding my breath on that.
As for TV's query of it being 'fair' that 1 team has more resources than others, HA!, welcome to the modern world. There's a lot of shit that ain't fair. We don't want a procession with 200 riders all on the top step of the podium, who'd watch that? Its like soccerball, there is big teams and little uns and on whole the big teams prevail but there remains a chance of a giant killing and surprises, and thats what makes it exciting.
.I remember a few years back now DB saying that he had gone to visit the UCI to 'explain' their methods and demonstrate they were above board. I've just tried a brief google to find links for this but my google-fu is weak so no dice, Am I imagining it or did that happen? I remember at the time alarm bells going off for me thinking, cough Sysmex machine cough , access to holiday homes in St Lucia, suitcases of cash etc. Why is a team getting an exclusive audience with the UCI? Now that shit stinks as being unfair, and if I was a manager from another team I want to know exactly what was going on and where my invite was to visit those swanky offices in Aigle.
At the top levels of sport its very small margins that makes the difference between winning and losing. I recall a programme with a old Formula 1 boss, I think he was from Lotus in the olden days, who said that it is their jobs to push the envelope and to sit down with the rules and regs and go through it with a fine tooth comb and find areas they can exploit, and this is still the case with F1 today. Sky and DB seem very meticulous and part of marginal gains is surely to do just this. So be it a new wonder drug, colonic beetroot irigation or cherry flavoured nicotine patches or whatever, they will be trying out all sorts of shit. Does it sound sinister and not really in the spirit? To me, yes it does, but I think its naive to think it does'nt happen. They are sure as shit not doing it on bread and water alone. I know its the UCI's job to put any new performance enhancing stuff on the banned list, but they are, and always will be (irrespective of who is in charge) behind the curve on those new developments, so it seems we are destined to forever be adjusting the history books as new transgressions are discovered.
As Will says the performances are raising eyebrows but so far there is NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH to suggest any wrongdoing at all. If we start getting leaks from big pharma or ANY Lance-type evidence then sure, release the hounds and I'll join the queue of condemnation, but until then the guy deserves the benefit of the doubt. Despite what the raving loons in the Clinic think, Froome's performance yesterday was not totally alien and was in the realms of possibility. So why should Sky have to justify it? Sounds like sour grapes to me. I think DB has realised that it will help if they are a little bit more open and there must be some way of doing this without compromising the teams desired outcomes, so well done him.
However I do think Froome lives on a moon made of cheese if he thinks its out of order to question him and Sky about doping. The new era of cycling is supposed to be cleaner and slower but the stages so far have been anything but slow. So just as we've got to accept we can't be sure any rider is clean, they've got to expect some us to be doubting of their performance. The end.
TL:DR - pro cycliing still seems a bit fecked to me. I'll still watch it though, so meh.
-
However I do think Froome lives on a moon made of cheese if he thinks its out of order to question him and Sky about doping.
In one of the post stage interviews last week he said it was legitimate for him to be asked about doping (given cycling's history). The interview can probably be found on You tube if anyone can be arsed looking.
Chalfie
dan
dubtap
johnnyhotdog
Jimmy_Fingers
deleted
happytramp
skinny
the-smiling-buddha
TheOmnisis
Lynchman
Khornight2
blue_fleet
dave4-
Post a reply
About
Tour de France 2013
Posted by
@Sparky
jfgi