Originally Posted by Bacciagalupe

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.