Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Professional Cycling For the Fans (http://www.bikeforums.net/professional-cycling-fans/)
-   -   The Chris Froome thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/professional-cycling-fans/901378-chris-froome-thread.html)

jr59 07-14-13 01:48 PM

You guys really need to remember that this is pro cycling we are speaking of.

For 100 years it has been a dirty sport and things have been written about it.
No different than now. "do you think we ride the tour on just mineral water"?

You can say the drugs are better, and yes they are, but 100 years ago the riders
took what they thought would give them the best advantage. They didn't know about blood doping and EPO.
If they did, they would have taken those as well. Same thing goes on today. IT'S A DIRTY sport! Always has been.
Has been for 100 years, do you really think it's changed now? REALLY?

I watch it, it entertains me, and isn't that what sport is suppose to do?

cincipeddler 07-14-13 01:50 PM

Don't they, where did those numbers come from last week? Is that an independant analysis?

xfimpg 07-14-13 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bacciagalupe (Post 15850113)
Sky doesn't release power numbers.

That's right, didn't Froome reply a few days ago that numbers were over-exaggerated or something to that effect?

Anyhow, now we see the REAL Contador dope free and he's pretty average. He must be pissed that he left his blood bags at home.

Bacciagalupe 07-14-13 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pantani98 (Post 15850035)
if everyone was bonking or feeling depleated, then it just gave them that much of an advantage.

I agree it's an infraction, and Sky should pay the standard penalty.

However, it really didn't give them much of an advantage. All it did was save one domestique from ferrying water and snacks a short distance. It certainly didn't result in Froome & Porte climbing any faster, which is why there isn't much grousing about it.

Bacciagalupe 07-14-13 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xfimpg (Post 15850125)
That's right, didn't Froome reply a few days ago that numbers were over-exaggerated or something to that effect?

I think Brailsford said that the power estimations (used by some journos and Internet denizens) were off base.

TommyBing 07-14-13 01:56 PM

I thought the feed bag incident was crazy, yet I can't find a single reference to it on Velonews or Cyclingnews. Anyone have a link for me that openly questions this outside of an internet forum?

Anyone have a real time today on the climb? Is there an "official" climbing time? I've seen many reports, here and elsewhere, saying it was faster than Lance. But different reports quote different segments, i.e. "last 6km, 6.75km, 9km", so let's just lay out the numbers.

Let's just try to objectively compare winning times on Ventoux.

I watched the entire race unfold today. Peter Sagan is wonderful. And Sky Cycling should have every question asked of them at every single step of the course.

kenji666 07-14-13 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bacciagalupe (Post 15850129)
I agree it's an infraction, and Sky should pay the standard penalty.

However, it really didn't give them much of an advantage. All it did was save one domestique from ferrying water and snacks a short distance. It certainly didn't result in Froome & Porte climbing any faster, which is why there isn't much grousing about it.

If Saxo or Movistar want to complain about advantages, they should complain about all of the doping taking place by Sky.

Grumpy McTrumpy 07-14-13 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyBing (Post 15850146)
Anyone have a real time today on the climb? Is there an "official" climbing time? I've seen many reports, here and elsewhere, saying it was faster than Lance. But different reports quote different segments, i.e. "last 6km, 6.75km, 9km", so let's just lay out the numbers.

The best estimates are 48:35 measured from the 180˚ turn at St. Esteve to the finish line. Fortunately, Laurens Ten Dam was in the Yellow Jersey group at that point and has already uploaded his ride file to Strava. I analysed it and found his ascent to be 50:23. Race results have him 1:53 behind the winner. That's 48:40. Pretty close.

Here are some historical figures. It is important to compare apples to apples, and hence, time trials (especially in the Dauphine) are not apples. Tour performances, especially at or near the end of a stage, would be apples.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013...orward-by.html

(quoting from above)

"In the current era, the top 30 times are shown below, by ranking. I have indicated some noteworthy performances - the top times of 2000, 2002 and 2009 belong to Pantani & Armstrong (49:01), Armstrong (48:33) and Schleck & Contador (48:57), respectively "

jr59 07-14-13 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenji666 (Post 15850150)
If Saxo or Movistar want to complain about advantages, they should complain about all of the doping taking place by Sky.

People that live in glass houses, shouldn't throw rocks!

Bacciagalupe 07-14-13 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyBing (Post 15850146)
I thought the feed bag incident was crazy, yet I can't find a single reference to it on Velonews or Cyclingnews. Anyone have a link for me that openly questions this outside of an internet forum?

What's to question? They broke a rule, they can't possibly deny it, they'll pay a penalty.


Quote:

Let's just try to objectively compare winning times on Ventoux.
You can't. Conditions (wind, temperature, humidity, fans, length of stage, how early or late in the Tour) are too variable.

Besides, you can't look at times and on that basis declare someone was or wasn't cheating. If that was the case, they'd have thrown out 75% of the peloton every year for the past 50 years.

reef58 07-14-13 02:52 PM

What significance does the age of 28 have? Can you not win the Tour after the age of 28? Wiggins, Evans, Armstrong, Sastre, Hinault were all in their 30's when they won.

What about before then parasite how many stage races did he win? He is so much better than everyone surely someone would have noticed the guy producing over 6 watts per KG on a climb. Let's hear of his cycling accomplishments prior to joining Sky. Let's hear one race he won that someone has heard of. Just one.

Did Froome not burn up any reserves trying to limit his losses, or almost beating Tony Martin during the time trial?

If you look at my earlier post you will see I am not crediting doping for his success but to ignore, or say he didn't come out of nowhere is burying your head in the sand.

chewa 07-14-13 02:56 PM

I didn't see anything to suggest Froome was doping, and would be disappointed if he is. Armstrong was obviously doping the whole time, his recovery was too great ,his ability to destroy specialist climbers and then bounce back next day was inhuman . Last year, Froome could have ridden away from Wiggins but didn't. He has been training all year for this event.

Sky (who I don't particularly like) have spent a huge amount of time, and money, researching the small things that lead to performance benefits. They have changed the way teams approach training and prep for stage races.

If Sky have a new drug, well, I'll be sad, but as some have said before, the tone of this thread says more about the sceptical nature of some contributors rather than anything sensible about Froome.

As for Contador, he was quick and exciting when doping, not now. And as for quoting an Virenque, well, it's hardly reliable is it?

reef58 07-14-13 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chewa (Post 15850281)
I didn't see anything to suggest Froome was doping, and would be disappointed if he is. Armstrong was obviously doping the whole time, his recovery was too great ,his ability to destroy specialist climbers and then bounce back next day was inhuman . Last year, Froome could have ridden away from Wiggins but didn't. He has been training all year for this event.

Sky (who I don't particularly like) have spent a huge amount of time, and money, researching the small things that lead to performance benefits. They have changed the way teams approach training and prep for stage races.
If Sky have a new drug, well, I'll be sad, but as some have said before, the tone of this thread says more about the sceptical nature of some contributors rather than anything sensible about Froome.

As for Contador, he was quick and exciting when doping, not now. And as for quoting an Virenque, well, it's hardly reliable is it?

Can you be specific? What have they done differently?

cincipeddler 07-14-13 03:25 PM

Wouldn't listen to Virenque actually be the smart thing to do? A guy who has been there and done that, who better than an insider who very likely talks to many of today's cyclists and team management?
The bottom line is that clearly the speculation is rife, so its hardly just a few on a forum, its all over the net, the press ask about it, maybe its uncalled for, but when sky have done the things they have done........a previously convicted doctor, no transparancy despite saying that they would, not releasing numbers and the amazing way that steady riders turn into superstars in no time.....its impossible not to be very suspicious!

chewa 07-14-13 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reef58 (Post 15850343)
Can you be specific? What have they done differently?

According to all the documentaries I've seen they have changed the way athletes prepare for races, even changing the way they warm up and cool down (now all teams use static bikes for cool down). They have analysed all aspects of how athletes prepare for events and sought to make small improvements to each.

They have involved sports psychology more to aid athletes in mental preparation for big events. They control every aspect of the travel and hotel environment to minimise stress to the athletes, even bringing in air purifiers to make sure the overnight environment is the same.

They use nutritionists, dieticians, etc to ensure that the specific needs of each athlete are catered for.

They use the technology available to customise training for each rider and analyse to inform performance improvement(other teams do too, they just do it better). Dave Brailsford's drive is to make lots of small improvements to get the 15% improvement you could expect from drug use. Remember the same approach was taken to prepare the GB Olympic team, and I haven't seen any suggestion that they were doping.

Sky have a very aggressive, non forgiving, anti-drug policy. You just have to look at the names booted out or leaving when disclosure was requested.

As I say, I didn't see anything to me that suggested Froome was doping (and I can remember the Pantani, Armstrong, Landis, Basso, Rasmussen episodes as being VERY obvious). I'll be disappointed if he is.

I improved my hour personal best for this year last week by 14 seconds. No doubt I had EPO in my Frosties!

whitemax 07-14-13 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bacciagalupe (Post 15849879)
It isn't. It's not like he single-handedly bridged the gap on stage 13. Nor do I hear anyone blast Quintana as a doper, for taking off early and blowing away everyone except Froome.

This kind of climbing ability isn't out of character for Froome, we saw it several times last year -- often accompanied by a chorus of "Froome should screw Wiggins and win the Tour!" Yes, the fans are fickle indeed... ;)

Nor should it be all that surprising that he blew a bunch of riders out of the water today. Saxo burned up its energy on stage 13; Valverde obviously blew his wad on 13 as well, trying to get back in the break; Cuddles is 36, has always been inconsistent, and didn't do well last year either. Was anyone predicting a podium for Mollema or Ten Dam?



Meaning what, Postal was the only team systemically doping? Surely you jest.

Doping can explain why one rider recovers faster than another. But if everyone is doping, then it doesn't explain why one rider performs better than another.

I jest not and didn't imply that Postal was the only team doping. But...they did have a system which allowed them to evade detection for a very long time. It's plausible that someone would try to do it again.

Bacciagalupe 07-14-13 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whitemax (Post 15850398)
I jest not and didn't imply that Postal was the only team doping. But...they did have a system which allowed them to evade detection for a very long time.

That "system" was, apparently, microdosing and blatantly avoiding testers. It's the same thing everyone else did, and no one else got caught.

There are always ways to avoid getting caught. If Sky can get away with doping, so can anyone else.

colombo357 07-14-13 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whitemax (Post 15850398)
I jest not and didn't imply that Postal was the only team doping. But...they did have a system which allowed them to evade detection for a very long time.

What "system" are you talking about?

Tyler Hamilton's book and the USADA report, complete with affidavits, revealed a lot. The key doping method in the later years was homologous blood transfusions. Steroids aided recovery, but homologous blood was the key oxygen booster. It was too easy to detect EPO.

The Lance Armstrong "system" was actually quite simple... Michele Ferrari. Armstrong must have paid him a lot of money, because everyone else was going to Fuentes, a much more scatterbrained doctor who often mixed up bloodbags of different riders by accident. This is how Tyler Hamilton got caught, when he tested positive for having another rider's blood. Many people speculate that Contador's clenbeuterol positive was caused by the transfusion of a "tainted" blood bag - one that was extracted when the Contador had Clenbeuterol in his system. I'm not sure about Landis, but I think the situation was very similar yet again.

whitemax 07-14-13 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colombo357 (Post 15850444)
What "system" are you talking about?

Tyler Hamilton's book and the USADA report, complete with affidavits, revealed a lot. The key doping method in the later years was homologous blood transfusions. Steroids aided recovery, but homologous blood was the key oxygen booster. It was too easy to detect EPO.

The Lance Armstrong "system" was actually quite simple... Michele Ferrari. Armstrong must have paid him a lot of money, because everyone else was going to Fuentes, a much more scatterbrained doctor who often mixed up bloodbags of different riders by accident. This is how Tyler Hamilton got caught, when he tested positive for having another rider's blood. Many people speculate that Contador's clenbeuterol positive was caused by the transfusion of a "tainted" blood bag - one that was extracted when the Contador had Clenbeuterol in his system. I'm not sure about Landis, but I think the situation was very similar yet again.

Didn't say it was complex, didn't say it was simple, didn't say it wasn't something that others could have been or were using. The fact is, Postal avoided detection for 7 years. Can't make this anymore succinct.

Bacciagalupe 07-14-13 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reef58 (Post 15850275)
What significance does the age of 28 have? Can you not win the Tour after the age of 28?

You can, but a 36 year old does not recover as well as a 28 year old.


Quote:

What about before then parasite how many stage races did he win?
Brailsford allegedly saw Froome's potential back in 2006. http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/...to-2006_294574


Quote:

He is so much better than everyone surely someone would have noticed the guy producing over 6 watts per KG on a climb.
People have noticed it, for around 2 years. Most of that time he was working for Wiggo.

Quote:

Let's hear of his cycling accomplishments prior to joining Sky. Let's hear one race he won that someone has heard of. Just one.
Meaning what, anyone who hasn't fumbled around inconsistently like Sastre or Cuddles must be a doper?

Consider Ryder Hesjedal, who is one of the least likely riders in the pro peloton to be doping. He basically went from almost nothing, to 10th in Tour of California, to 1st in the Giro. Is that proof positive that he doped?


Quote:

Did Froome not burn up any reserves trying to limit his losses, or almost beating Tony Martin during the time trial?
The TT was before the rest day.

And yes, I'd say Froome did not work as hard on Stage 13 as the entire Saxo team. He realized he couldn't catch Saxo, and basically sat in the peloton. Same thing with Porte in the earlier split.

reef58 07-14-13 04:10 PM

Here is a quote from a cyclingnews article which sums up the doubt:

"In July 2011, Contador was the pre-eminent stage racer in world cycling, albeit fighting a doping sanction, while Froome was not even part of Sky's Tour de France line-up (he would finish a low-key 45th in that month's Brixia Tour), and the climb of Mont Ventoux provided a graphic illustration of just how remarkably the pendulum has swung over these past two years."

reef58 07-14-13 04:11 PM

Contador is not 36 so what is your point?

Athens80 07-14-13 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenji666 (Post 15849390)
^The saddest casualty of doping on sports is the distrust we all feel in the results.

+1

Quote:

Originally Posted by chewa (Post 15850395)
As I say, I didn't see anything to me that suggested Froome was doping (and I can remember the Pantani, Armstrong, Landis, Basso, Rasmussen episodes as being VERY obvious). I'll be disappointed if he is.

The most objective and suspicious indicator is that Froome's ascent of the Ax 3 Domaines to win stage 8 was the third fastest yet in Tour history, and the better and closest behind were doping-assisted. It's quite an improvement if a clean rider beats nearly all the doped riders of the near past.

Zinger 07-14-13 04:53 PM

Let's just say that anytime I consider weighing in counseling prudence in speculations a little voice under my tin foil hat tells me: "Remember Geert Leinders and Froome's E.T. up Ax 3."

So I won't anymore. I've always told the cynics in my boxing forum that the E.T.s on the critical climbs were an indication that the sport is starting to clean up. I've also said that WBO welterweight champion Juan Manuel Marquez was likely juicing in an uncontrolled fight with Pacquiao (as was probably he) since he hired the services of Angel "Memo" Heredia. Heredia is known to be a distributor of PEDs.....So it wouldn't be consistent of me to counsel prudence in speculations.

AnthonyG 07-14-13 05:05 PM

While the possibility of doping is still an issue the illegal feed station is front and centre. I don't think we need to speculate further for this stage. EVERY rider was hurting after such a fast stage up to the base of the mountain but only one team of riders got food to help them recover.

Anthony


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:08 AM.