Originally Posted by Athens80
(Post 15850510)
The most objective and suspicious indicator is that Froome's ascent of the Ax 3 Domaines....
"Objective evidence" would be finding a bunch of blood bags in the soigneur's car, or a positive doping test. It's quite an improvement if a clean rider beats nearly all the doped riders of the near past. |
[QUOTE=Bacciagalupe;15850618]That's not "objective evidence." It's supposition, which conveniently forgets that the Ax 3 climb usually comes later in the Tour, that Porte suffered the next day, and Froome also slowed up.
Haven't i read before that riders come into the tour at about 85% and ride into full fitness during the tour so as to peak? Im sure that was something i read in the Armstrong book? If that is the case, then times on ax 3 domaines would be faster around stage 11 to 16 or so? |
Originally Posted by Bacciagalupe
(Post 15850618)
That's not "objective evidence."
Originally Posted by Bacciagalupe
(Post 15850618)
Does that mean Hesjedal was doping? Did Evans win clean? Is Quintana doping? Does coming in 30 seconds slower than Froome prove or disprove his doping status?
|
Don't know if this relates, but being a track and field fan it hurts -
Tyson Gaye, America's 100 mtr. champion tests positive for doping. Does not dispute the findings and will drop out of Worlds. Jamaican sprinters Osafa Powel and Sherone Simpson have also tested positive. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mor...itive-test.ap/ http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mor.../?sct=obinsite What a mess the sporting world is becoming... |
All questioning Sky taking feeds at 10k. This article says it was legal since it was announced over race radio that feeds were allowed at that point.
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news...-1226679399416 The three riders from Froome's team that remained in the front group took a feedbag half way up the mountain. This can only be done when riding within your physical capacity. At the time, many thought this move was outside the rules but the race officials had announced, over race radio, that feeding was allowed at this point. The move was legal and it was smart. |
Originally Posted by Giacomo 1
(Post 15850661)
Don't know if this relates, but being a track and field fan it hurts -
Tyson Gaye, America's 100 mtr. champion tests positive for doping. Does not dispute the findings and will drop out of Worlds. Jamaican sprinters Osafa Powel and Sherone Simpson have also tested positive. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mor...itive-test.ap/ http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mor.../?sct=obinsite What a mess the sporting world is becoming... |
just read the article bruin11 posted. if that is in fact the case, then Sky was just smarter than everyone else. i would also start planning to have feedbags wherever i thought this might help my team as long as they were riding w/in their "physical capacity". which i'm assuming means still moving forward. if it's an advantage, i'd had food and supplements wherever they might need to get nourishment and energy. really though, we love watching the Tour. as someone stated earlier, it's just a shame that all the cheating in the past will cause us to always questions results. and the big budget teams will always be able to hide the doping.
|
What the past has taught is trust but verify. Unfortunately people who do not like Froome are 100% convinced he is doping without evidence. Froome fans use the same arguments Lance fans used, training harder than others, better prep, genetics ect. It doesn't appear any are really objective.
|
Just because a rider dopes, doesn't mean he doesn't need to work hard and prepare.
|
i kinda feel sorry for him now anyway. even if he is clean there is a huge cloud of suspicion over his win which has marred it. i myself think his ride today was abnormal and enough to warrant them suspicions. you cant just go out and destroy a field like that, specialist climbers dropped like hot potatoes. i know he can be strong or whatever but these climbers have so much advantage its unreal. weight and o2 capacity etc. when i seen it today i was upset cos it really did stink
|
at those ardently defending the purity of the sport and the riders the last few years ... it was amusing.
after the whole doping scandal blew up, to see these same people still displaying their naiveté ... its just sad. reasonable people dont jump on a single piece of evidence. hence "reasonable suspicion". the recent history of sky. compared to the riders overall history. the overall team performance. the *timing* of those performances from certain riders. the timing of their recovery. the ephemeral and unbelievable performances. they all compound to a damning conclusion. |
Originally Posted by reef58
(Post 15850736)
What the past has taught is trust but verify. Unfortunately people who do not like Froome are 100% convinced he is doping without evidence. Froome fans use the same arguments Lance fans used, training harder than others, better prep, genetics ect. It doesn't appear any are really objective.
|
Originally Posted by Athens80
(Post 15850653)
The clock and the mountain are the most objective indicators we have....
"The mountain" -- or to be precise, the route -- doesn't change. Environmental factors like wind, temperature, humidity and other factors like competition, the need to take time, the strength of the team, when it happens in the race, all change. Even some of the blood tests -- whose results I do trust, by the way -- are not entirely objective. Tests for synthetic testosterone, for example, requires interpretation on the part of the lab technicians. Witnesses, who can often be trusted, also don't provide "objective evidence." Froome had the fastest not-known-to-be-doped climb of Ax 3 Domaines in Tour history, that is objective. Explain it away by other factors. It's an indicator, but only an indicator. Are you suggesting that if Froome's time up Ax 3 Domaines is suspicious, that we must suspect the rider closest behind him as well? I'm saying that if "Froome beating people we knew used to dope" is valid, then other riders (like Hesjedal, Evans, Quintana, Porte etc) ought to be suspect. And yes, if you're going to suspect Froome based on his performance, then the same reasoning should produce suspicions of riders who produce similar performances. And yet, for some reason, we don't. Hmmmm. |
What are they taking that can't be detected in the urine or blood tests?
|
Quoting an opinion post: "skepticism should be encouraged"
A parallel universe - "cycling is in great health" A quick thought on the general state of cycling first, though. Imagine a 2013 Tour without Sky on Saturday afternoon on Ax-3-Domaines. The fastest ascent of the day would have been 24:18 by Alejandro Valverde, well over a minute slower than the best Ax-3-Domaines times of 2001. Behind him, a trail of riders with big time gaps on a short climb, including group of top Spanish climbers who lost over two minutes on the day, finishing in 25:16. These are times that would not even make the top 60 on this climb (even correcting for error in timing!). Had that happened, we would all be feeling pretty good about the world of cycling on Sunday morning, because the times would have gone in the "right" direction. We'd say "See, the sport has changed, the stricter testing of the passport and the increased scrutiny are doing the job". We'd be particularly impressed that these "slow" performances came on the very first mountain stage, when riders should be freshest. For context, a Twitter follower (ExRoadman1) reliably informs me that when the Tour did Ax-3-Domaines in 2001 and 2003 (the fastest ascents), they'd raced 1923km and 2095km before the stages, respectively. 2013? Only 1148 km, and so it was very slow despite better circumstances for a fast time. Yes indeed, had it not been for two riders on the day, we'd be very pleased with the 'health' of cycling! We'd be wrong to be so certain of course, in the same way that we'd be wrong to conclude that it's terrible and overrun with dopers (is it telling that Valverde would be the patron of a clean peloton, for example!) So, it was Froome and Porte who spun us around. Porte, for his part, had a terrible Sunday, something that can be viewed in one of two ways - either he paid the cost of a supra-maximal effort, a lack of pacing suited to a stage race, and we'd be more optimistic. Or his variability is suspicious. I'd go with the former, since doping is no longer as beneficial to once-off efforts. As for Froome, he rode well enough on Sunday, but not spectacularly fast - the estimates ranged from 5.0 to 5.2 W/kg on those climbs, and he was accompanied by 30 other riders, so you could make the case for it being a heavy day following a fast one. The point is, the efforts of two riders have raised eyebrows, specifically around one team, but should not by themselves be viewed as guilty. ... Looking ahead So the questions will continue, as they should, because national pride and promises are not a good enough reason to believe in people given the number of lies that have preceded them. My point is this: I think most of us want a cleaner sport. Some wish to arrive there by interrogating everything, by examining every detail, by challenging every performance. They can (and do) cross a line into unfair accusation from time to time. Others want to look in a new direction, forget the past and dismiss all questions as biased, destructive, jealous, racist (yeah, I got this one the other day). Somewhere in the middle is clean cycling, and denying and diverting the questions blocks off access to that point. The Tour now builds to its traverse of the Alps, and some incredibly difficult stages. Given the way Froome has looked, and the relative 'weakness' of his rivals, it is unlikely we will see another maximal effort in this Tour - he can follow wheels, and gain seconds near the summit of the climbs if he wishes. And so performance analysis becomes less and less powerful. The rest of the Tour, based on Ax-3-Domianes, will continue to ride the HC climbs at the pVAM, and so will Froome. How much he has in reserve, we'll never know, unless someone discovers another level and shakes the Tour up. We look forward to that. |
Originally Posted by Bacciagalupe
(Post 15850817)
No, they really aren't. "The clock" doesn't tell you wattage, or a true ceiling on what wattage a human can produce without doping.
"The mountain" -- or to be precise, the route -- doesn't change. Environmental factors like wind, temperature, humidity and other factors like competition, the need to take time, the strength of the team, when it happens in the race, all change. Even some of the blood tests -- whose results I do trust, by the way -- are not entirely objective. Tests for synthetic testosterone, for example, requires interpretation on the part of the lab technicians. Witnesses, who can often be trusted, also don't provide "objective evidence." It's speculation. And ultimately, I don't think it has much to do with Froome. I'm saying that you can't call speculations -- not even real numbers, but pure speculation -- about Froome's wattage "objective evidence." I'm saying that if "Froome beating people we knew used to dope" is valid, then other riders (like Hesjedal, Evans, Quintana, Porte etc) ought to be suspect. And yes, if you're going to suspect Froome based on his performance, then the same reasoning should produce suspicions of riders who produce similar performances. And yet, for some reason, we don't. Hmmmm. |
Originally Posted by Bacciagalupe
(Post 15850817)
I'm saying that if "Froome beating people we knew used to dope" is valid, then other riders (like Hesjedal, Evans, Quintana, Porte etc) ought to be suspect.
And yes, if you're going to suspect Froome based on his performance, then the same reasoning should produce suspicions of riders who produce similar performances. And yet, for some reason, we don't. Hmmmm. Michael Puchowicz: Aside for Froome's time, every single performance in the top 10 has come from a rider during cycling's known doping era. With the 3rd fastest ever, his time beat the top efforts from Jan Ulrich and Ivan Basso, and even beat two of three times for Armstrong. In contrast, the all-time list put Richie Porte and Alejandro Valverde, 2nd and 3rd on the day, just outside of the top 20 and top 30, respectively. The historical analysis of Froome's time puts his performance into territory dominated by top doping era cyclists and is not reassuring. Porte and Valverde's times are well off the highest marks and don't stand out otherwise. ... Also, the analysis will only pick up the effect of doping on top riders. Lesser riders who dope may achieve performances no better than top clean riders. Lastly, the field of cycling performance estimates and monitoring is basically in its infancy. It will likely still evolve significantly. Overall, the data suggests that the performances on AX3 fell within a range that could be expected for a relatively clean peloton with the exception of Froome. His performance on AX3 is clearly flagged as an outlier and warrants healthy rationale skepticism. Going forward, the progression of his performance should be closely followed over the rest of the Tour. |
Froome, whats he taking?
we know now that by history if anyone man is heads and shoulders above the other riders something is not Kosher?
Any thoughts.......he was almost too good today |
Record Times on MONT VENTOUX Mont Ventoux 2000-2013 + Pantani
EDIT: I'M DELETING THE QUOTE BECAUSE THE DATA QUOTED WAS NOT FROM THE FULL CLIMB AND I DON'T KNOW THE OBJECTIVE RATIONALE FOR EXCLUDING THE FIRST FIVE KILOMETERS.
From this post from @ammattipyoraily. Others/authorities are welcome to correct this. |
Coffee. Very strong coffee.
Discuss in Pro. |
I think he's spiking his peach with No-Doze
|
Ok, remove Froome, would Quintana be clean?
|
I dunno.....I mean look at his arms, he looks like a skeleton. I think his secret sauce may be a total lack of any body fat. Light weight may be his drug.
|
Originally Posted by Athens80
(Post 15850904)
From this post from @ammattipyoraily. Others/authorities are welcome to correct this.
|
Originally Posted by LeeG
(Post 15850934)
Ok, remove Froome, would Quintana be clean?
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:36 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.