Tour de France 2013

It depends on how you view sport. I don't see sportspeople as role models for clean living. I never did, despite being a 'contender' in adolescent track and field, living a fairly ascetic lifestyle compared to my peers.

Sport is entertainment, and it's a collective ritual. Let those who dope race with those who don't, some of whom will have been provided with 'gains' via other means. While dope exists, irrespective of legality - a desert of shifting sand in itself - some people will choose to do it. Not everyone who dopes will create historic moments, and not everyone who creates historic moments will dope.

Peer pressure is moderated by education and realistic attitudes. I'm all for rules of gameplay in sport, amateur and professional - fuck, there need to be some boundaries - but as for personal/team decisions regarding preparation, that's their business, 'business' being the operative word. As an employee, you have the right to quit if you don't agree with the company's way of doing things.

Just because certain unsavoury behaviours were prevalent in cycling teams of the past when doping was a clandestine activity doesn't mean it would be the same if the attitudinal landscape changed and doping was publicly condoned.

I'm sure Sky train hard, but to suggest the other top GC riders are slacking is ridiculous.

OK, not slacking then. How about just not that good without the juice?

RPM, you've alluded to having an idea of what Sky are doing that the other teams aren't. Spill beenz pls

I think the real issue (and one that has needed adressing for a few years) is the donning of baseball caps for the jersey presentations. It has gone on long enough and needs to be looked into. Despite Rapha offering a range of nice cycling caps Froome instead chose a baseball cap. If things carry on like this then in two years time they will all be wearing New Era caps.

Luckely, OFQS are leading the line and as soon as they finnish a stage they put on cycling caps (hipsters). They do need to work on the jornty angle and casualy deliberate though. Small steps (not quick ones).

^^Froome has to get up every day and look in the mirror whilst reciting the 'every day in every way...' mantra, and then before each stage they all stand in a circle holding hands and praising some god or other.

...whilst wearing baseball caps.

^^^ see #capsnothats

thing is it is a tale of two narratives. Any successful team will say they are clean. Sky aren't the first team to talk about hard training, technical innovation, meticulous approach. you say 'sky are more professional' a dozen will say back 'and the other teams aren't?' I asked Johnny Vaughters about warming down in the clinic and he replied and i'll quote from memory) 'only about ten percent of the peloton warm down, most of them hop straight on the buses. You be amazed at how backward the peloton is.'

Vaughters said that. Yet the conspiracists will say all teams are professional, train hard etc, where do Sky really get their advantage from? The easy assumption is drugs, and call them a few names, and make a few snide remarks, after all, Vayer and Kimmage are doing it, why don't you?

the problem for Sky and Froome in particular is it sounds too familiar and looks too familiar. Froome even has a disease to explain the transformation away.

But I'll give the benefit of the doubt, if he's cheating the truth will out, until then lets enjoy the racing.

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.

Well put.

I'm not sure testing is getting half of what's out there and riders will push the boundaries. I think this is why there's been such resistance to teams giving full access to journalists – some stuff looks bad as it is 'questionable' even if it is UCI legal.

If DB is now willing to show all the medication his riders use then that's a great step forward.

Up and coming rock stars do not need to take drugs to compete with established rock stars, they just need to write better songs and perform better - there is no evidence that drugs help this.

I guess that depends where you stand on... ...sucking Satan's cock

What I said was that sport and health are seen hand in hand and therefore linking sport to drugs (or sport to smoking or drinking) is very dangerous.

Linking elite sport to 'healthy living' messages is dangerous.

'exercise is good for you, but don't take it to stupid levels like these nutjobs?'

I think we have the makings of a public health campaign right there. Your slogan + images of elite athletes being sick and hurt from training.

What the fuck's been going on in here today?

Froome's secret is for all to see anyway: get yourself a total mental of a gf as makes home life intolerable=spend more time on the bike to get out the house, and be relieved to sleep at the top of an active volcano on month long training camps having beetroot juice sluiced around your ass because you know she's miles away and you can finally leave sharp object lying around without fear of waking up a la Bobbit.

Part of the problem is undoubtedly that Froome doesn't have any credible Grand Tour rivals besides Wiggins. Perhaps the distortion of the playing field through doping has simply caused the best riders in his mould not to come through. It took him long enough, with his illnesses. Perhaps these people will get a better start if and when the sport is clean(er/ish).

I think most of the people currently considered as Grand Tour favourites are really better one-day riders or good in short tours, who have been bolstered all these years by doping, as seems to be coming out about Contador at least, whose worse 'form' does seem to be due to him not doping any longer in the same way. Armstrong, likewise, wasn't a natural Grand Tour favourite.

The competition and training regime for a professional cyclist far from healthy, let alone the use of so-called prescription medication and legal medical remedies.

Let those who dope race with those who don't, some of whom will have been provided with 'gains' via other means.

I think that's how it was viewed before EPO came along. A quick dose of amphetamines might perk you up at the end of a long stage, and a wee bit of cortisone might help you recover at the end of a particularly long stage. But it gave you a slight edge, in the same way as having a light bike or the best tyres. And so it was condoned and tolerated, because doping in those days just gave you an edge, but no more.

EPO changed all that, turning 'carthorses into racehorses' as they said about Riis. It wasn't just an edge, it was a 5%, 10%, 15% improvement. This led to the 'two races' syndrome. If you weren't on EPO it wasn't just a case that you lost an edge, you weren't even in the race at all. Pre-EPO dope might meant you won, but not being on EPO didn't mean you didn't win, it meant you weren't even competing. And that's when it stops being a matter of personal choice and personal ethics, at least if you want to even stand a chance.

Personally, I'm happy with the idea that winning means having the best bike, the best training and the best team. I'm not that happy with the idea that winning, and not dying in the process, should be determined by who's best at doping.

And no, I don't think Froome's juiced. There's really no evidence to support the rumours that he (or the rest of Sky) is, and trying to prove a negative is impossible.

And another thing!
Why are good performances suddenly an admission of doping!? Sporting performance is almost always improving. Humans are getting faster, it's evolution.

It's like that fool Greg Bauge virtually accusing Jason Kenny of taking something because he beat him last year.

It's not evolution, it's just better science and how much improvement are we seeing? 10% in the last 100 years. Whereas EPO provided up to 20% in 2 weeks.

Bauge was on the sauce himself so of course he'd be suspicious if he was beaten.

Has this been resolved yet then?

Dave's waiting on a phone call.

Has anyone considered, just for a moment, that Sky/GB (yes I say that because they have the same PD and share many staff and riders) have been doing a lot of work to find legal areas which can be improved? Remember what marginal gains actually are?

Perhaps most of the other teams haven't bothered in recent years to try and improve the things right under their noses, purely because all the attention was focused on how to dope and beat the testing?

I don't think this is such a naive view to take TBH. If you seriously believe that the national squad are heavily involved in anything to do with illegal substances then you are probably a tough nut to crack. There's so much at stake in cycling and in sport in this country which depends on our people staying clean first and foremost.

However, I'm prepared to eat my hat if sir DB is found out to be an evil genius who makes Lance look like Arthur Daley.
If that happens I'll need to eat my clothes anyway, as I won't have a job anymore.

What about all the other big budget teams? You think Garmin don't invest in tunnel time, don't have sports scientists and nutritionists doing the same shit? They certainly aren't finding 'the edge' like Sky. Mind you they don't have so many Aussies working for them so of course they will be a bit behind the curve.

Hayles was on the GB squad wasn't he? He's not squeaky clean.

Linking elite sport to 'healthy living' messages is dangerous.

Example being Sky GT riders these days. Wiggins, Froome and to some extent Thomas and others are so skinny and emaciated you'd think they were anorexic. There must be a hell of a lot of pressure on their internal organs with a body fat percentage that low.

(1) I find it incredible (but not impossible) that a new team linked for years to GB track cycling with an outspoken anti-doping stance would have the front to dope. One tiny mistake, you get caught, and you take down a decade of British cycling with you.

But also this ^.

There seems to be too much at stake to risk dopage.

Example being Sky GT riders these days. Wiggins, Froome and to some extent Thomas and others are so skinny and emaciated you'd think they were anorexic. There must be a hell of a lot of pressure on their internal organs with a body fat percentage that low.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jul/14/tour-de-france-team-sky-dietician

I think that's how it was viewed before EPO came along. A quick dose of amphetamines might perk you up at the end of a long stage, and a wee bit of cortisone might help you recover at the end of a particularly long stage. But it gave you a slight edge, in the same way as having a light bike or the best tyres. And so it was condoned and tolerated, because doping in those days just gave you an edge, but no more.

EPO changed all that, turning 'carthorses into racehorses' as they said about Riis. It wasn't just an edge, it was a 5%, 10%, 15% improvement. This led to the 'two races' syndrome. If you weren't on EPO it wasn't just a case that you lost an edge, you weren't even in the race at all. Pre-EPO dope might meant you won, but not being on EPO didn't mean you didn't win, it meant you weren't even competing. And that's when it stops being a matter of personal choice and personal ethics, at least if you want to even stand a chance.

Personally, I'm happy with the idea that winning means having the best bike, the best training and the best team. I'm not that happy with the idea that winning, and not dying in the process, should be determined by who's best at doping.

And no, I don't think Froome's juiced. There's really no evidence to support the rumours that he (or the rest of Sky) is, and trying to prove a negative is impossible.

You could just as well be describing the impact of big money on sport. A two-tier system is created at the very top; although sport is a multi-tiered system whatever, and people will ultimately gravitate towards the one which suits them best. Who wins or loses doesn't really mean anything, at any level. It's a spectacle designed to let people go through a cathartic process, vicariously experiencing the glory of the victor, or the romance of the underdog who nearly made it against all odds, or the humility of those who make up the ranks and enable the whole charade to take place.

If doping were to be tolerated and brought out into the open, the transparency of it all would change people's perspective. You'd probably end up with a new kind of peer pressure that saw athletes' decisions influenced more by friends and family - particulary if there was a sense that big risks came with big gains à la EPO - or people naturally splitting into doped/non-doped factions with separate leagues/competitions arising; for starters...

Where's skully? He'd know what I'm getting at.

Thx. It'd be nice to know what Sky have in the contracts regarding what happens if a doping scandal breaks...]

This really anoys me. Genraly it is the team who sugest a step up in 'preperation' when a rider shows enough prommise to warrent the extra kick. Then a rider is caught and the team drop him.

There are also SOOO many grey areas for 'preparation'. Drugs one is allow to take during the off season and different drugs one is allowed to take during the season.

The question is not, is the current pelaton doped, but is the current pelaton illigaly doped.

On a FAR more serious note though, how horrible are the new Giants than belkin are riding. Worst looking bike in the tour (and thats with Pinarelos in there!!!)

You could just as well be describing the impact of big money on sport.

I don't think that comparison really works. If you doubled Sky's budget, or the budget of any of the big teams, what could they really spend it on to improve their performances? I can't think of anything which would they could buy with the extra cash which would come even close to the additional performance which a USPS-style doping programme would provide.

To me the equation is quite clear. Doping = cheating. Of course you could change the rules to make doping legal, but for me it would still be cheating. But YMMV.

splitting into doped/non-doped factions with separate leagues/competitions arising

We currently have doped riders in the non-doped league; what makes you think that will change if there is a doped league option? People will still cheat.