Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 430
  1. #101
    Professional Fuss-Budget Bacciagalupe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,208
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Athens80 View Post
    The most objective and suspicious indicator is that Froome's ascent of the Ax 3 Domaines....
    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.

    "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.
    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?

  2. #102
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    [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?

  3. #103
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    290
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bacciagalupe View Post
    That's not "objective evidence."
    The clock and the mountain are the most objective indicators we have, short of everyone releasing their power meter logs, blood values, etc. I absolutely agree that other factors guide how you weigh that indicator, indicators such as wind, the place of the climb in the stage and in the overall Tour, relationship to rest days, etc. 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bacciagalupe View Post
    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?
    You'll have to explain your references. I've referred to Froome's time on stage 8. It was better than all but two doped performances on that climb. The next closest to Froome on that climb this year was Richie Porte, at 51 seconds back. 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? (Quintana was 2'02" back of Froome on stage 8; Evans was 4'36" back.)

  4. #104
    Senior Member Giacomo 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Queens NYC
    Posts
    1,614
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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...
    Colnago Super
    Basso Gap
    Fabio Barecci
    Miyata 1400A

    "Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride."
    ~
    John F. Kennedy, Former U.S. President

  5. #105
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    My Bikes
    Lynskey Helix, Serotta Fierta IT, Torelli, Raleigh Carbon Revenio 3.0
    Posts
    260
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  6. #106
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    My Bikes
    Lynskey Helix, Serotta Fierta IT, Torelli, Raleigh Carbon Revenio 3.0
    Posts
    260
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Giacomo 1 View Post
    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...
    Becoming? This is nothing new in that world either.

  7. #107
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Huntersville, NC
    My Bikes
    yes!
    Posts
    189
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    Tiemeyer For Sale
    http://s228.photobucket.com/user/cowboy600rr/library/Tiemeyer%20For%20Sale

  8. #108
    Senior Member reef58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    My Bikes
    Serotta Nove
    Posts
    1,606
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  9. #109
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    On yer left
    Posts
    1,650
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Just because a rider dopes, doesn't mean he doesn't need to work hard and prepare.

  10. #110
    Senior Member breadbin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    West of Ireland
    My Bikes
    Raleigh 531c, Marin Muirwoods, Brodie Romax
    Posts
    600
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    Odo=432
    Raleigh 531c
    Peugeot PGN-10
    Marin MTB
    Brodie Romax
    Pastey Howler
    http://www.flickr.com/evildiesel

  11. #111
    pluralis majestatis redfooj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    DEN
    My Bikes
    blue fuji, black khs, yellow giant, and a little red 'Rosa
    Posts
    2,547
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  12. #112
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Physically, CT / Mentally, San Francisco
    My Bikes
    BMC Team Machine, BMC Road Racer, BMC Streetfire, BMC AlpenChallenge
    Posts
    207
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by reef58 View Post
    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.
    Personally, it's not a matter of whether I like Froome or not. I actually DO sort of like him. Couldn't say the same of Wiggins, last year. Instinctively, watching the performances on stage 8 and again today, I don't believe those performances are natural. do I have pictures of Froome and SKY doping? of course not. But those performances are so outrageous that instinctively I believe they're the result of doping. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. I do think my strong reaction IS partially due to having been a supporter of LA, and buying into all of the same lies I now hear coming out of the SKY camp and the SKY supporters - better training, better prep, ect. Only this time, SKY - Froome - aren't even trying to hide it, they're just in your face with it. If SKY are clean, where's the transparency they promised prior to last season? Of all the doctors in the world, why did they hire a doping doctor? We've been down this road time after time after time and many people are not going to buy the lies and the pats on the head telling us "this time it's real."

  13. #113
    Professional Fuss-Budget Bacciagalupe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,208
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Athens80 View Post
    The clock and the mountain are the most objective indicators we have....
    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."


    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.
    It's speculation. And ultimately, I don't think it has much to do with Froome.


    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 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.

  14. #114
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    On yer left
    Posts
    1,650
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    What are they taking that can't be detected in the urine or blood tests?

  15. #115
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    290
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    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.
    More at Science of Sport.

  16. #116
    Senior Member reef58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    My Bikes
    Serotta Nove
    Posts
    1,606
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bacciagalupe View Post
    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.
    It is not difficult at all as the structure is different. You just need to perform the proper test

  17. #117
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    290
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bacciagalupe View Post
    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.
    Froome's time up Ax 3 Domaines was better than Ullrich, Armstrong's 2nd best, Basso, Vinokourov, etc. Those are the riders who have produced similar performances on that climb. They did produce suspicions, and those suspicions ultimately were followed by suspensions.

    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.

  18. #118
    Senior Member thehammerdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NJ
    My Bikes
    Road bike is a Bianchi C2C, Gary Fisher Mt Bike, Trek Tandem & 1980's Grandis
    Posts
    1,828
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    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

  19. #119
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    290
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    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.
    Last edited by Athens80; 07-14-13 at 09:23 PM. Reason: new info

  20. #120
    Super Moderator BillyD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hudson Valley, NY
    My Bikes
    Merlin Cyrene '04; Bridgestone RB-1 '92; Schwinn Continental '76.
    Posts
    10,790
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Coffee. Very strong coffee.

    Discuss in Pro.
    Where else but the internet can a bunch of cyclists go and be the tough guy? - - jdon
    Titanium Division

  21. #121
    Trek 500 Kid Zinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Spokane WA
    My Bikes
    '83 Trek 970 road --- '86 Trek 500 road
    Posts
    1,851
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think he's spiking his peach with No-Doze
    "I never lost a race because my bike was too heavy".......George Mount

  22. #122
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,156
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ok, remove Froome, would Quintana be clean?

  23. #123
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Merry Land
    My Bikes
    Guru Evolo R, Colnago Pista, Look AL 464P SS, various frankenbikes
    Posts
    433
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  24. #124
    Trek 500 Kid Zinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Spokane WA
    My Bikes
    '83 Trek 970 road --- '86 Trek 500 road
    Posts
    1,851
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Athens80 View Post
    From this post from @ammattipyoraily. Others/authorities are welcome to correct this.
    That's very interesting.
    "I never lost a race because my bike was too heavy".......George Mount

  25. #125
    I'm doing it wrong. RJM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    My Bikes
    Rivendell Roadeo, Rivendell Sam Hillborne.
    Posts
    1,714
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LeeG View Post
    Ok, remove Froome, would Quintana be clean?
    Quintana is a climber (is he a specialist at anything else?) and doesn't weigh much, he also got dropped hard by Froome, but I am still suspicious.
    Quote Originally Posted by canam73 View Post
    Rivendells do not rock; they jamboree.

Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •