thechemist

I guess gone are the days where people could win a stage/jersey and be praised without question of doping. Let them get the repercussions if indeed they doped but seriously... appreciate talent.

HardyWeinberg

Pretenders definitely eliminated.

TommyBing

They are obviously all doped on something that is not tested for.

Did you see the pace they were setting? Quintana attacked into the teeth of that pace and buried them. If this race happened when the only "drugs" were amphetamines, Quintana would've won by 12 minutes. He never even cracked, they just INCREASED the pace. Must be those quality English genes.

All this in the midst of MULTIPLE articles with Sky officials of all status defending not releasing any power numbers because "people don't know what they're looking at, they're not scientists." It's hilarious.

So maybe Froome again in 2014, then Porte for 2015 and 2016, then Sky break up, then 2022 this round of doping ends with all wins being abandoned when Sky admits having funded the engineering and testing of a new oxygen-boosting ATP-enhancing undetectable?

Yeah, I enjoy all talent.

HardyWeinberg

https://www.sportsscientists.com/2013...-vams-and.html

kenji666

There is no more doping in professional cycling because LA has been caught and punished.

OrionKhan

I used to think that way. The problem is that it's been proven time and time again that the "remarkable" efforts have been accomplished with the aid of doping. I don't know if the top contenders have stopped doping completely, but is really appears that Sky is doping or doping better than the others. Anytime you see all of the top contenders get destroyed like that an the only other rider that looks good is a teammate. It's got to be questioned. And I know someone will throw out the "he hasn't failed a test" nonsense. It's been proven time and time again that negative tests are not necessarily an indicator of a clean rider.

Giacomo 1 

You guys act as though Froome and Sky were some kind of long shots in this Tour. They were the runaway favorites to win this thing, and now that they have laid it out there and proven they are indeed the team to beat yet again, you say there doping.

Mike F

Anybody see the closeup of Froome's big chain ring? What kind was it... a Q-ring? Looked like the old bio-pace.

OrionKhan

No. Like I said it's the way it was one. Every time we've seen this sort of remarkable mountain ride, we've later learned the guys was doped. Froome was very close to LA's record for that climb. Faster than Ullrich's. Froome crushed all of the contenders. All of them remarkable climbers in their own right. Are you saying that you don't think Froome's (and Porte's) performance was suspect?

reef58

I think what people are saying is a few years ago Contador was being praised as one of the best GT riders ever. Andy finshed 1st and 2nd in the race. Cadel has won, and they were dropped like sprinters by the second best rider on Sky.

gsteinb

6.3 w/kg?

badhat

the position that suspicion of this ride is inappropriate is just absolutely laughable.

gimme a break.

this is like prime era disco but worse.

badhat

TdF fans are like battered wives. "this time will be different!"

OrionKhan

lol.

HardyWeinberg

They just have *really* scientific training methods.

KnowwhatImean? KnowhatImean?

Nudge, nudge, wink, wink...

Giacomo 1 

Sadly, there will always be suspicions, but the "remarkable" climbers in this race are not really in very good form these days.

Cadel is aging and has been off for awhile, Schleck is just Schleck, Contador looked awful in the Dauphine lead-up, Quintana a little to young yet, Valverde up and down, Talansky an unknown and unproven really, Hesjedale hurt, TJ was off and got dropped by a lot of riders. I guess what I'm saying, who is Froomes competition this time around? And didn't we think Porte would be very good this time around? (OK, maybe not that good!), but I'm just not seeing anybody beating these guys, and I thought that before it began. I expected a blowout here...

gsteinb

Froome's competition is irrelevant to his w/kg. 6.3 is 6.3 whether contador is on form or not. Besides its founding kind being on form is a euphemism for being doped. Maybe the guys who seem off form are clean (er).

Athens80

Ax-3-Domaines: History, VAMs and performance predictions for the 2013 Tour's first mountain finish

OrionKhan

See below for the proper response.

Giacomo 1 

Well, this was fun...

kenji666

So now, Team Sky has over a minute lead on its nearest competitors, so they don't have to dope AS MUCH for the rest of the tour to maintain their lead. They can just do normal doping and play defense for the next two weeks. They may need mother's little helper for the TT.

grolby

There are several reasons why this climb should not be considered, in isolation, to be proof that Froome is doped. The Science of Sport blog explains why that is pretty well. But I think you'd have to be wearing some pretty serious blinkers to see that climb, and subsequently the estimated power output for Froome, and not have some questions.

What I'm saying is, I hate cynicism and I very much want to believe. I thought Sky's performance was absolutely credible last year and have had no prior reason to suspect Froome of doping. But some healthy skepticism is warranted by a performance like that. Sky is going to get questions. They would do themselves a favor by accepting that and being completely open and transparent and answering questions. But they're not going to do that, and that's only going to enhance the suspicion raised by their performance today. To be clear, 6.3 w/kg is the lower of a couple of different estimates of Froome's power today. Another estimated him at 6.5. That's a pretty staggering power output for a nearly 30-minute climb.

TommyBing

I agree with everything you just said, especially about avoiding cynicism, but I don't think it's a remote stretch to say that Chris Froome and Richie Porte were certainly doping.

The pace they set was ridiculous. Quintana attacked at an 8.5% section and buried them. There is no human in the history of the world who could've caught and passed Quintana without doping, in my estimation. I truly believe this. However, if it is true that Froome and Porte are the greatest two cyclists in the history of the sport, I totally believe that this story is possible without blood boosters.

Quintana must be livid, he destroyed the entire race, never cracked, and I'm sure was pressured to finish with the Contador group to avoid in-fighting within Movistar about who the leader is.

grolby

Nope, sorry, you're making a number of assumptions there that stretch too far past skepticism into things you certainly don't know.

Is the individual performance suspicious? Yes. But there are lots of things we don't have, not the least of which is weather data on the climb, leading all the way up to Froome's SRM data. Contador's Verbier ride, Armstrong's Sestriere ride, are not enough on their own, were they the only unlikely performances those guys made, to demonstrate doping with certainty. They instead are emblematic of a pattern of unbelievable performances. We don't have enough other information to see Ax-3-Domaines in the same way!

Your assumptions about Quintana are scarcely worth addressing; it is very difficult to tell from the TV whether he slowed down, or held the same speed, how much he was suffering, and so on. Certainly, he did not blow up spectacularly and slow way down, but that's not the only way of cracking. We have no data on his performance and no quotes even. None. It makes far more sense that he finished with the Contador group because that's the best result he could muster. I'm not sure how well you understand how stage racing works; it's really not chess. It's power. If Quintana could've gone faster he would have, or he never would've been allowed off the leash for that attack to begin with.

cincipeddler

I hate to say it, but its hard not to be suspicious, and i to think it is something as yet undetectable.

I read that a doctor in 09 said Wiggins numbers made no sense.