Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Off Topic => Sports Arena => Topic started by: UK Redsox on June 29, 2015, 01:14:33 PM
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/33310612
Chris Froome will be one of 10 Britons in this year's Tour de France, which begins on Saturday.
The 2013 winner will be joined on the Team Sky roster by Geraint Thomas, Ian Stannard, Luke Rowe and newly-crowned British champion Peter Kennaugh.
Meanwhile, Alex Dowsett rides for Movistar while Mark Cavendish has been named in the Etixx - Quick-Step team.
They are joined by twins Adam and Simon Yates (Orica GreenEdge) with Steve Cummings riding for MTN-Qhubeka.
It equals the record for the biggest British contingent in the Tour
-
Can't believe they are giving Yorkshire a miss, no interest in it any longer.
-
Will be watching 2 weeks of this from the west coast of Barbados every day with an ice cold rum and coke I hand. Bummer I know but someone's got to do it
-
Love this event and now with added interest with the BRit contingent
-
Don't forget to keep an eye out for Dan Martin too!
-
Heart says Quintana, head says Contador and his steak sandwiches. I think the French will do worse than last year despite the course tailored for them. With no Kittel, Cav should sweep up in the sprints but Sagan will get green if he cares enough to.
-
I think a Giro and Tour double could be quite tricky for Contador especially seeing how close he came to cracking on the last couple of days of the Giro so I think Froome will do it. I'd love to see one of the Yates' getting the white jersey although Quintana is still eligible for that I think.
-
A Nibali double for me with Froome in second. Both have very strong teams around them but I think Astana just a little bit better in the mountains.
Cav, Kristoff and Bouhanni fighting out the sprints.
Really looking forward to it.
-
Will be watching 2 weeks of this from the west coast of Barbados every day with an ice cold rum and coke I hand. Bummer I know but someone's got to do it
I have a similar issue, I'll miss the mountain stages as I'll be slumming it in Antigua and Guadeloupe. Quintana for me with the steak muncher running it close, Nibali for KOM.
-
When I first started watching cycling there would only ever be at best 1 Brit in the tour, normally Yates, then Boardman took the mantle on. It's amazing that this year there's going to be 10.
-
When I first started watching cycling there would only ever be at best 1 Brit in the tour, normally Yates, then Boardman took the mantle on. It's amazing that this year there's going to be 10.
My first memory was of Robert Millar winning KOM back in the early eighties. What a beast of a climber he was.
-
Love this event and now with added interest with the BRit contingent
Same here, the sports event of the summer for me and always a lovely prelude to my French holidays. It always comes along just in time to rescue me from avoiding Wimbledon which I can't stand
-
The Giro/Tour double is really difficult and I don't think that Contador will be on the podium come Paris. Nairo Quintana for GC (and if he doesn't, I'd back him for KOM), Vincenzo Nibali second and Chris Froome third.
Cav will pick up a couple or so stage wins, but Peter Sagan will take Green in Paris.
-
Anybody see the crash earlier?......ouch,ouch and ouch again.
-
Was just typing about the crash. Only benefit to being in yellow is you're more visible cartwheeling through the air into a field.
Spartacus going backwards with 14km to go. I don't think he'll be there tomorrow.
-
Froome in yellow and looking strong.
-
Probably the most spectacular crash that I've seen in the TdF.
However, what was with that on/off neutralisation ?
It must have been done before but I can't remember the race being stopped like that because of a crash.
Seems unfair on those teams that kept out of trouble
-
Crash
http://youtu.be/DMGahKyAlv0
MecaniCam
http://youtu.be/7raIxrzodt4
-
Probably the most spectacular crash that I've seen in the TdF.
However, what was with that on/off neutralisation ?
It must have been done before but I can't remember the race being stopped like that because of a crash.
Seems unfair on those teams that kept out of trouble
Absolutely the right thing to do, all the support crews were dealing with the crash, if another one occurred it could have put the race and many more at risk.
Cancellera still managed to ride 100 odd kms with a broken back. Fackin nails.
-
Yep,they have 2 medical helicopters avaliable at all times.Both were being used so the race had to stop.
-
Thanks for the additional info. That does explain why the race had to be stopped.
I assume that it was just poor/incorrect information that lead to the stop/start/stop confusion
-
The mechanic cam is pretty awesome, just shows the chaos that goes on in situations like that.
Fair play to OGE for the Youtube footage they put out; from the post race rider interviews , the mechanic cam and the Back Stage Pass.
-
Fairly benign day on the cobbles but still great seeing Team Sky and Geraint Thomas in particular driving things on.
-
Pleased for Tony Martin, and Sky will not be bothered by losing yellow at this time.
-
Christian Prudhomme has dropped a big hint that there will be another British Grand Départ in 2017. He's fast becoming my favorite Frenchman.
-
Christian Prudhomme has dropped a big hint that there will be another British Grand Départ in 2017. He's fast becoming the only Frenchman.
Fixed!
-
Problem tonight! Watch Le tour highlights or Ashes highlights? Too much good sport on at once and none of it football!
-
Problem tonight! Watch Le tour highlights or Ashes highlights? Too much good sport on at once and none of it football!
Le Tour unless our middle order get some runs, don't want to go to bed all depressed do you.
-
Fairly benign day on the cobbles but still great seeing Team Sky and Geraint Thomas in particular driving things on.
Benign ?
There would have been some seriously sore nuts after that lot
-
3 or 4 crashes already today on fairly flat and straight roads! Guessing the weather is not good?
-
Fairly benign day on the cobbles but still great seeing Team Sky and Geraint Thomas in particular driving things on.
Benign ?
There would have been some seriously sore nuts after that lot
I did the Paris Roubaix the day before the classic the last 2 years and my gentleman sausage and the area around said sausage took about 3 weeks to fully recover, mind you so did my arms, shoulders, neck, hands, wrists, hips, legs.
-
Surely this must be fake
http://deadspin.com/postman-flips-his-shit-over-being-blocked-by-tour-de-fr-1716224429
-
There's some H&V level puns in the comments on that story.
-
Sounds like the post was English, maybe it's this guy?
(http://thumbsnap.com/s/gyQ5q42t.jpg)[/url]
-
Froome says he won't wear the yellow today.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/07/news/froome-in-yellow-on-friday-its-his-choice_377475
-
Froome says he won't wear the yellow today.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/07/news/froome-in-yellow-on-friday-its-his-choice_377475
There appears tot be a lot of honour on the tour. The cynic in me thinks there must be at least equal amounts of skulduggery however the culprits are less keen to publicise it. Is that fair, or is this a sport where the Corinthian spirit really exists (ignoring the obvious drugs)?
-
Froome says he won't wear the yellow today.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/07/news/froome-in-yellow-on-friday-its-his-choice_377475
There appears tot be a lot of honour on the tour. The cynic in me thinks there must be at least equal amounts of skulduggery however the culprits are less keen to publicise it. Is that fair, or is this a sport where the Corinthian spirit really exists (ignoring the obvious drugs)?
You could spend all day quoting instances of honour vs disrespect at Le Tour or any cycle race.
George Hincapie being denied the lead out in Paris, stopping at Tom Simpsons memorial, respecting the jersey when they have a mechanical, you could go on all day.
At the end of the day it's all about money, those little chats the breakaway group has, they're not about who's going to work with me? They're about how much my team will pay you to help me to the stage win. Read Hincapies book, The Loyal Lieutenant a real eye opener into pro cycling hugely entertaining and obviously covers the whole Lying Lance saga as well.
-
Cav wins the sprint.
-
Great sprint by Cav.
-
Froome an absolute machine today.
Thomas incredibly impressive also
-
Sky we're ridiculous today.
Richie Porte setting tempo for Froome, dropping most of the best climbers on the planet and then catching and passing Quintana whilst grinning. ......
Geraint Thomas, 30 yrs old and suddenly able to climb with the best, believe me he had a lot in his locker left, he even said he just sat on for half the mountain after setting pace for Froome.
Not looking to start and argument but todays stage was a joke and I'm a bit annoyed.
-
What are you trying to stay and who are you arguing with?
-
Sky we're ridiculous today.
Not looking to start and argument but todays stage was a joke and I'm a bit annoyed.
No come on.
You saying Sky are cheating? It's the debate everyone wants to have so why not.
-
Sky we're ridiculous today.
Richie Porte setting tempo for Froome, dropping most of the best climbers on the planet and then catching and passing Quintana whilst grinning. ......
Geraint Thomas, 30 yrs old and suddenly able to climb with the best, believe me he had a lot in his locker left, he even said he just sat on for half the mountain after setting pace for Froome.
Not looking to start and argument but todays stage was a joke and I'm a bit annoyed.
You clearly are trying to start an argument.
-
I believe Sky ride clean, simply on the basis I trust Dave Brailsford's ethos and integrity.
-
You see, if I was convinced that Sky were cheating and thereby destroying this years TDF I'd be a tad more than "a bit annoyed".
Mind you, the rumours that someone hacked into Sky's computers mean that there might be a few others who are even more pissed off!
Look, I don't know if Froome and Sky are doping, I really hope not, but until there is more substantial evidence than rumours and innuendo then I'm happy to hail him and the likes of Geraint Thomas and Porte as superb cyclists. As soon as you or anyone else can come up with some decent evidence then I'll turn on them.
This isn't the same as Armstrong, the evidence against him was massive but covered up. There were whole books written about the doping culture back then and plenty of stories that were just dismissed because no one really wanted to destroy the Armstrong cult.
Froome may well be cheating, I may well be eating humble pie along with plenty of others if something comes out in the future, but until then I'll just enjoy watching a supreme cyclist at the very top of his form backed up by a brilliant team, just as I did Armstrong and Discovery until they were outed as cheating bastards. When the innuendo and rumour from the jealous and sceptics is backed up by actual facts and evidence then I'll stop cheering on Froome.
-
It wasn't Froome's perfromance which was so surprising, he only won by a minute, it was the fact that Porte and Thomas could stick with known climbers when they themselves are not usually at that level. For their performances to be credible you need to believe that all of Contador, Nibali, Quintana, TJvG, Pinot, Bardet, Uran had a bad day. It's too much.
-
Sky we're ridiculous today.
Richie Porte setting tempo for Froome, dropping most of the best climbers on the planet and then catching and passing Quintana whilst grinning. ......
Geraint Thomas, 30 yrs old and suddenly able to climb with the best, believe me he had a lot in his locker left, he even said he just sat on for half the mountain after setting pace for Froome.
Not looking to start and argument but todays stage was a joke and I'm a bit annoyed.
You clearly are trying to start an argument.
Firstly I'm not looking for argument, healthy discussion yes, if there were more of it back in the late 90's it would have been healthier for the sport.
Secondly, to believe team SKY based on Dave Brailsfords ethos and integrity is very naïve to me. What makes him above doing what the majority of DS' have done before and since? Because he is British?
Third, this is a situation we've all seen before
Hiring doping doctor/s when you shouldn't - check
Blaming other teams laziness/ignorance for your domination - check
Team riders dominating stages - check
High cadence - check
Blowing people away on the first mountain stage - check
Dodgy Illness excuse for complete career turnaround - check
Abuse of the TUE system - check
Missed test/s blamed on communication - check
That's the background to it, add in the numbers. Stages like Ventoux in 2013, AX-3, even yesterdays stage. Big power efforts, up there with many of the doping efforts of the past, not as high as Armstrong and Pantani etc during the complete free for all years but well up there with most historical efforts. How is it all of a sudden that someone who was DQ'd from a grand tour previously for holding on to a moto because he was blowing, had no pedigree as a TTer, certainly could not climb particularly well then at the age of 26 discovers the talent shown the last 4 years?
The efforts he's putting in would need incredibly high VO2 Max levels, certainly riders are tested from an early age to know their potential, did no one test Chris Froome? How did he pass under the radar? He wasn't even going to ride the 2011 Vuelta, he got the ticket through injury, they we're looking at releasing him the end of that season, then suddenly, he is a GT beast.
Skinny frame, incredibly low weight, but great at TT's? Where have we saw that before?
Mountain Leiutenants riding tempo then going on to finish very high up themselves in the stage? Where have we saw that before?
When/how did Geraint Thomas suddenly become one of the best 5 climbers in the world? He patted Valverde on the back at the end of the stage, it was easy for him. He is 30. It's happened overnight. Climbers are earmarked from a young age as having the ability, look at Adam Yates.
Marginal gains. From Nutella bans to pillows, making average GT riders in to the worlds best... come on something doesn't ring true. This all doesn't add up to Richie Porte setting the pace and then passing Quintana on a mountain top.
Take a look out there, there are much more clued up people than me, pouring over the numbers and comparing them. They aren't jealous and don't have an axe to grind, we just want to watch cycling and not have the wool pulled over our eyes. I've heard the same trotted out before, people hate Lance, can't believe in miracles, the French hate americans etc etc.
Actually what it was were people not believing what their eyes were showing them. Super fast times, incredible career turn arounds, George Hincapie riding well on mountains. It was put down to hard work, being more clever than the other teams, superior technology. We know what it was in the end. The same warning signs are there right now.
As for before there were rumours and now there are none, from my memory this is true to a degree. Lance made a lot of enemies, as you know he was a cocky, brash, bully and that caught up with him. Maybe this is one lesson SKY and Froome have learned. He seems a polite, humble, appreciative guy and always talks of the team more than himself. There are holes in his story if you look in to them. The parasite disease ''excuse'', even his own timelines on it make no sense. Fast tracked TUE's that he's used. Missed tests, if you were in the sport of cycling and there were as many cynical people out there towards you as Froome has, wouldn't you 100% make sure you didn't miss any tests? Make sure hotel staff allowed you to be disturbed for it? For the serious nature of it it makes no sense to not inform hotel staff. Then there's his numbers. That have appeared magically at 26, after showing pretty much nothing for years, psysiologically he has to be up there with the best, it was never mentioned before about his potential, what does that tell you?
Finally, the hacking of his data. The French man that published it claims it wasn't a hack but was leaked by someone on his team.
Only time will tell I guess.
-
It wasn't Froome's perfromance which was so surprising, he only won by a minute, it was the fact that Porte and Thomas could stick with known climbers when they themselves are not usually at that level. For their performances to be credible you need to believe that all of Contador, Nibali, Quintana, TJvG, Pinot, Bardet, Uran had a bad day. It's too much.
I'd just like to add to this that the time gaps are what make it even more suspicious to me.
Jonathan Vaughters has spent years saying cycling is cleaner because the number are lower than before and the time gaps are smaller because huge efforts are negated by teams now that riders aren't capable of putting huge, constant efforts like before.
A minute to second and two minutes to 5th is a big gap in the context of the last 6 years, when cycling got clean.
-
Well I'm going with Oleg Tinkov who states that rather than doping, Sky simply are better than anyone else.
And Froome is putting himself forward for physiological tests once the tour is finished.
-
Well I'm going with Oleg Tinkov who states that rather than doping, Sky simply are better than anyone else.
And Froome is putting himself forward for physiological tests once the tour is finished.
Will they also release historic data to compare values from before the Vuelta 11 until now? If they did it would go a way to disproving a lot of claims, if not, then what is the point of it?
Tinkov is hardly going to say otherwise, he isn't in an objective position. I don't recall any owner or Director sportif ever saying cycling is anything but clean, until the shit hits the fan. Then they admit it was dirty, but is clean now.
-
I'm going with Sky being better than anyone else as well.
As for the age thing and not finding form/strength until later in your career, there are other sports where strength and endurance are needed and unlike say football, you get stronger as you hit your late 20's and 30's.
-
I'm going with Sky being better than anyone else as well.
As for the age thing and not finding form/strength until later in your career, there are other sports where strength and endurance are needed and unlike say football, you get stronger as you hit your late 20's and 30's.
Sounds so familiar to what was repeated when US Postal would dominate, with riders that suddenly found their true potential at later ages.
It's one thing for a decent one dayer like Thomas to become a good mountain lieutenant at the age of 30, not common but I guess not out of this world. It's another for him to become a top 5 HC capable mountain goat, patting a doper with a pedigree like Valverde on the back like a training ride, saying he could have gone much harder... Not normal.
Put it this way. If Froome repeats what he did yesterday later in the tour on the Alpe D'huez, then statistically it will be a ride unmatched by anything done before by anyone on that mountain that wasn't doped. In other words, Froome physiologically will be one of if not the strongest clean rider ever. Who was terrible until he was 26/27......That's the kind of numbers he put out yesterday, for 40 minutes.
It's been said before, I Think by former sky coach and admitted doper Bobby Julich that Froome has test results from 2007. If there is nothing to hide, why not release them alongside test results from this year and let people decide for themselves. Instead of hiding behind secrecy and the Sky publicity machine.
-
On a brighter note, the Tourmalet and the tour in general is looking as beautiful as ever this year.
-
You see, everything said on this thread about Froome, implies an incredible amount of prior knowledge of how the tour and cycling's governing bodies try to combat drug cheats in this day and age. If Froome and Sky are doping, then that means that cycling is doing virtually nothing in order to stop them doping or retrospectively catch them.
After the Armstrong era and all that's come to light (much of which paints the governing bodies of the time terribly), I just could not see the UCI having such a blaise attitude to tour winners cheating, when they know that it will come out eventually anyway.
-
L’Equipe, who have always been leading voices against doping in cycling were sent Froomes perfomance data from 2011 to 2013 (just after his tour win) by Sky.
The expert L'Euipe used to analyse the data said it was entirely possible for Froome to have achieved his no's without doping.
-
I'm going with Sky being better than anyone else as well.
As for the age thing and not finding form/strength until later in your career, there are other sports where strength and endurance are needed and unlike say football, you get stronger as you hit your late 20's and 30's.
Sounds so familiar to what was repeated when US Postal would dominate, with riders that suddenly found their true potential at later ages.
It's one thing for a decent one dayer like Thomas to become a good mountain lieutenant at the age of 30, not common but I guess not out of this world. It's another for him to become a top 5 HC capable mountain goat, patting a doper with a pedigree like Valverde on the back like a training ride, saying he could have gone much harder... Not normal.
Put it this way. If Froome repeats what he did yesterday later in the tour on the Alpe D'huez, then statistically it will be a ride unmatched by anything done before by anyone on that mountain that wasn't doped. In other words, Froome physiologically will be one of if not the strongest clean rider ever. Who was terrible until he was 26/27......That's the kind of numbers he put out yesterday, for 40 minutes.
It's been said before, I Think by former sky coach and admitted doper Bobby Julich that Froome has test results from 2007. If there is nothing to hide, why not release them alongside test results from this year and let people decide for themselves. Instead of hiding behind secrecy and the Sky publicity machine.
What about Wiggins? Average to good cyclist most of his career, only won The Tour when he was 32. Another example of what I said or what you are implying?
-
I'm going with Sky being better than anyone else as well.
As for the age thing and not finding form/strength until later in your career, there are other sports where strength and endurance are needed and unlike say football, you get stronger as you hit your late 20's and 30's.
Sounds so familiar to what was repeated when US Postal would dominate, with riders that suddenly found their true potential at later ages.
It's one thing for a decent one dayer like Thomas to become a good mountain lieutenant at the age of 30, not common but I guess not out of this world. It's another for him to become a top 5 HC capable mountain goat, patting a doper with a pedigree like Valverde on the back like a training ride, saying he could have gone much harder... Not normal.
Put it this way. If Froome repeats what he did yesterday later in the tour on the Alpe D'huez, then statistically it will be a ride unmatched by anything done before by anyone on that mountain that wasn't doped. In other words, Froome physiologically will be one of if not the strongest clean rider ever. Who was terrible until he was 26/27......That's the kind of numbers he put out yesterday, for 40 minutes.
It's been said before, I Think by former sky coach and admitted doper Bobby Julich that Froome has test results from 2007. If there is nothing to hide, why not release them alongside test results from this year and let people decide for themselves. Instead of hiding behind secrecy and the Sky publicity machine.
What about Wiggins? Average to good cyclist most of his career, only won The Tour when he was 32. Another example of what I said or what you are implying?
That's the thing. If you think suddenly riders are able to defy the historical norm because they sleep on their own pillows, don't eat nutella and warm down then Wiggins is a perfect example. If you think it's all a load of hogwash how someone who's never shown any climbing capability at any level can podium a GT then he's almost as obvious as Froome.
At least Wiggo has a CV of some sort to back himself before 2009. TT's and Track mostly but at least it's something.
Someone like Froome, with the incredibly physiology he must have, would have shown it at some level. Dominating national level or juniors or something or having a few dangerous rides in the mountains as a younger rider.
-
L’Equipe, who have always been leading voices against doping in cycling were sent Froomes perfomance data from 2011 to 2013 (just after his tour win) by Sky.
The expert L'Euipe used to analyse the data said it was entirely possible for Froome to have achieved his no's without doping.
The data covered the start of The 2011 Vuelta, just when he came good, out of the blue. Remember, he wasn't even going to ride that tour, and was on the brink of losing his contract. In 2010 he was disqualified from the Giro for holding on to a moto up a climb, such was his climbing prowess back then.
Release data from before. He started cycling in 2005, there will be historical data regarding his physical capabilities from a young age. The easiest way to prove innocence would be to release it. It makes no sense not to.
-
You see, everything said on this thread about Froome, implies an incredible amount of prior knowledge of how the tour and cycling's governing bodies try to combat drug cheats in this day and age. If Froome and Sky are doping, then that means that cycling is doing virtually nothing in order to stop them doping or retrospectively catch them.
After the Armstrong era and all that's come to light (much of which paints the governing bodies of the time terribly), I just could not see the UCI having such a blaise attitude to tour winners cheating, when they know that it will come out eventually anyway.
They wouldn't even know what to test for right now if they tried.
In 10 years possibly. Look at EPO, prevalent from the later 80's to the mid 00's. It started out as a rumour in the peloton and ended up as something taken like vitamin supplements. It took nearly 20 years to collar on and have tests capable of detecting it.
The bio passport. In response to something that started nearly 10 years previous.
The UCI are almost useless at protecting the sport of cycling, too many vested interests. The Armstrong palava only came to light because of the American Doping agency, nothing to do with the UCI, they are always happy to brush things under the carpet and deal with the consequences later, blame others, and say things have changed, it's a new culture.
Happened in 98 after Festina, happened in 2013 after Armstrong.
-
L’Equipe, who have always been leading voices against doping in cycling were sent Froomes perfomance data from 2011 to 2013 (just after his tour win) by Sky.
The expert L'Euipe used to analyse the data said it was entirely possible for Froome to have achieved his no's without doping.
The data covered the start of The 2011 Vuelta, just when he came good, out of the blue. Remember, he wasn't even going to ride that tour, and was on the brink of losing his contract. In 2010 he was disqualified from the Giro for holding on to a moto up a climb, such was his climbing prowess back then.
Release data from before. He started cycling in 2005, there will be historical data regarding his physical capabilities from a young age. The easiest way to prove innocence would be to release it. It makes no sense not to.
That's fair enough, but there would be a lot of people who would wilfully misinterpret the data regardless of what it said.
I don't think Froome is doing anything out of the ordinary really. He's just in much better form than his GC rivals.
No one has said anything about Quintana taking minutes out of Contador and Nibali yesterday
-
Quintana is your traditional climber for me. Tiny frame. Good background. Winning races and climbing like he does since he was 20. Winning the Junior Tour, podium at the age of 22/23. He is what I'd expect to see as a climber and a grand tour challenger. Shows some class from a young age, how it used to be.
If he was 28/29 and had never really done nothing and then blew people away I'd just laugh and wonder what he is on, don't get me wrong, I think 90% of them will be doing something, just some to a bigger degree than others as always and I'd consider Quintana to be at the lower end of the scale.
He sucks at TT's too. How most of the climbers always used to. Until EPO and Blood transfusions took over then we had ridiculous spectacles of skinny riders like Rasmussen finishing in the top 10 in TT's (see Froome also).
I agree too, that some people will see in to data what they want to see, but the majority won't. We nearly all want as clean a race as possible. We nearly all want to believe what we are seeing. We need healthy scepticism in cycling right now because it hasn't gone far enough in changing the way it has been run. DS's with doping pasts, why are they still in the game? Doctors with doping pasts too. They all should serve no part in the sports future.
If the data came out and looked legit I would be happy to believe that the guy is just a freak of nature an outlier and enjoy watching what can only then be described as incredible rides. For now, it bares to many parallels with the past for me.
-
What is the data you are referring to? Is it these biological passports that have been introduced?
Regardless, can these numbers - whatever they are - be improved over time as fitness and body shape adjust to rigorous training etc?
I don't want to believe you but your argument is well made. My counter argument, which admittedly lacks the depth of knowledge that you've demonstrated, is that Brailsford's teams have excelled beyond just Team Sky and importantly at amateur level. Surely with the potential fame and fortune on offer someone would have shopped him in by now.
-
What is the data you are referring to? Is it these biological passports that have been introduced?
Regardless, can these numbers - whatever they are - be improved over time as fitness and body shape adjust to rigorous training etc?
I don't want to believe you but your argument is well made. My counter argument, which admittedly lacks the depth of knowledge that you've demonstrated, is that Brailsford's teams have excelled beyond just Team Sky and importantly at amateur level. Surely with the potential fame and fortune on offer someone would have shopped him in by now.
No, not biological passports. They just record a specific set of blood values at a given time.
I'm talking about V02 max levels, lactate thresholds, how efficient the body is at using the oxygen, data like that. They will be known about all riders. With some of them it is impossible to improve the levels to much of a degree once you are at the level a cyclist is. They are basically physical parameters to what you can humanly achieve.
For Froome to be doing what he is doing right now, he would need some insanely high parameters and they will have be known from a much younger age. His previous team will have known these as indeed would have Sky when they signed him.
If his old numbers were shown, and were relatable to what he is doing now it would end the debate of his legitimacy for any reasonable sceptic.
Brailsford has had great success. How it has been done will come out eventually it always has done. But there is only one other historical example of a team taking on, what you would consider at best very average grand tour riders, and turning them in to pedigree riders, later on in their careers, not juniors but mid to late 20's. They were US Postal as you know. And they used the excuse of working harder, targeting the tour and being more professional too.
I don't want to completely hijack this thread either and am happy to talk just about cycling if everyone wants me to shut the fuck up about doping.
Contador looked shagged yesterday and is finding out why only Pantani has done the double in the last 20 years. Nibali looks disinterested and the French guys have really fallen apart so far. Puts Nibalis win last year in to perspective, without the big 3.
-
L’Equipe, who have always been leading voices against doping in cycling were sent Froomes perfomance data from 2011 to 2013 (just after his tour win) by Sky.
The expert L'Euipe used to analyse the data said it was entirely possible for Froome to have achieved his no's without doping.
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/2001/feb01/feb09news.shtml
L'equipe's experts view on Armstrong. Not the most reliable expert really.
-
What is the data you are referring to? Is it these biological passports that have been introduced?
Regardless, can these numbers - whatever they are - be improved over time as fitness and body shape adjust to rigorous training etc?
I don't want to believe you but your argument is well made. My counter argument, which admittedly lacks the depth of knowledge that you've demonstrated, is that Brailsford's teams have excelled beyond just Team Sky and importantly at amateur level. Surely with the potential fame and fortune on offer someone would have shopped him in by now.
It's an interesting point you make about Brailsford.
Surely the suspicions over Froome would have to be extended to people like Chris Hoy, Mark Cavendish, Victoria Pendleton and Jason Kenny
-
Quintana is your traditional climber for me. Tiny frame. Good background. Winning races and climbing like he does since he was 20.
Vivian Richards wasn't your traditional batsman, but excelled in the art.
Surely it's worth pointing out here that Froome was raised in Kenya and South Africa, not turning professional until he was 22. Kenya and South Africa are hardly renowned for their road cycling, so perhaps in Froome's early career he was plagued by poor coaching, training methods, equipment etc. That and a lack of opportunity to showcase his potential to teams who would be able to help him progress
-
Cycling is dull, cyclists are duller and their arrogant takeover of our roads in their silly lurid Lycra is dullest.
-
Quintana is your traditional climber for me. Tiny frame. Good background. Winning races and climbing like he does since he was 20.
Vivian Richards wasn't your traditional batsman, but excelled in the art.
Surely it's worth pointing out here that Froome was raised in Kenya and South Africa, not turning professional until he was 22. Kenya and South Africa are hardly renowned for their road cycling, so perhaps in Froome's early career he was plagued by poor coaching, training methods, equipment etc. That and a lack of opportunity to showcase his potential to teams who would be able to help him progress
Viv Richards didn't have to carry his massive frame up a steep huge mountain :P. He had to bludgeon balls to death. I'd compare him to a Tony Martin. Although cycling and cricket are completely incomparable.
I'm sure Froomes training in the early years was nothing like how he trains now, same would go for equiptment, scientific and nutritional knowledge etc but he moved to Europe in 2008 and was crap for 4 years solid. Something happened at the end of 2011. Something to take someone from being dropped and DQ'd in the Giro, to blowing the Vuelta apart. I'd love to know what. It wasn't curing some bullshit disease I'm sure of that, that's a smokescreen to muddy the waters.
-
An exciting stage in the making today. Let's see how close they can get to past winning times on the climb.
Pantani 1998 43m20 6.1 w/kgs
Contador 2007 +48s 5.95
Armstrong 2004 + 2m 11 5.77
Armstrong 2002 + 2m 35 5.72
Vanandert 2011 + 3m 00 5.68
-
Thomas put in a fantastic ride today. Pulled for Froome an awful lot and finished in the select group of climbers.
I've read that the Froome group matched the time of Armstrong ala 2002 today.
Blurgh, that's wrong.
Froome group climbed the Plateau De Beille in 45.38. Faster than Armstrong 2002, slower than 2004.
-
With some of them it is impossible to improve the levels to much of a degree once you are at the level a cyclist is. They are basically physical parameters to what you can humanly achieve.
There's a great book called Bounce which strongly demonstrates through numerous examples that DNA has a lot less to do with success than hard work, also Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. Both books suggest that an individual can improve - they actually state that ones height/body type can actually change once put under enough stress - significantly once practicing hard enough and for a long enough duration. Based on the books, what Froome has done is possible.
-
Thomas put in a fantastic ride today. Pulled for Froome an awful lot and finished in the select group of climbers.
I've read that the Froome group matched the time of Armstrong ala 2002 today.
Blurgh, that's wrong.
Froome group climbed the Plateau De Beille in 45.38. Faster than Armstrong 2002, slower than 2004.
But it was all of them, so they have all improved, bikes, training and conditioning gets better and better.
It's like comparing marathon runners now to those of the past. If I had entered the first marathon in the Olympic Games on time alone I would have won the gold medal on the times I have run Marathons. This is due to better equipment, diet and conditioning. Technology is changing so quickly nowadays that any athlete has a great advantage over their predecessors, so comparisons are pointless in my opinion.
-
Thomas put in a fantastic ride today. Pulled for Froome an awful lot and finished in the select group of climbers.
I've read that the Froome group matched the time of Armstrong ala 2002 today.
Blurgh, that's wrong.
Froome group climbed the Plateau De Beille in 45.38. Faster than Armstrong 2002, slower than 2004.
But it was all of them, so they have all improved, bikes, training and conditioning gets better and better.
It's like comparing marathon runners now to those of the past. If I had entered the first marathon in the Olympic Games on time alone I would have won the gold medal on the times I have run Marathons. This is due to better equipment, diet and conditioning. Technology is changing so quickly nowadays that any athlete has a great advantage over their predecessors, so comparisons are pointless in my opinion.
There is a good article by a sports scientist on improvements from nutrition and technology that I will link to you later. Basically it's a red herring and we are no where near the point yet where natural performance will equal or surpass doped performance from 10 years ago, the incremental natural improvement is so low. There isn't a great advantage in technology, from the 80's yes, with carbon fibre equiptment etc but the 90's no. Technological change is cycling Is nowhere near as fast as you make out, it is limited, by the UCI. The hour record has actually regressed because of limits put on equiptment by them.
If these times were one offs or limited then there wouldn't be as many accusations, they aren't, they are the norm and together with a lot of other factors are building a picture much like under Armstrong that things aren't right as of now.
As for them all finishing in a group, that is neither here nor there. Contador is a known doper, Valverde is a known doper.
They all climbed the plateau de beille faster than Lance Armstrong, who by all accounts was half man half chemical trial, solely employing the best doping doctor in the world, with multi million dollar financial backing.
If performances and facts like yesterday do not raise your eyebrows then I can only conclude you do not want to even consider the possibility of this not being natural and will tow the SKY line no matter what.
http://sportsscientists.com/2013/07/clean-performances-to-surpass-doped-performances/
Let us not forget, Brailsford has spent the past few years telling us that ''amateur'' readings of Power outputs of his riders we're quasi science and not accurate, a stab in the dark. The leaked video of Froome up Ventoux has shown him to be lying, the numbers so called 'amateurs' worked out were near exact to what they actually were. The denial of use of Ketone drinks, not illegal as of now btw. Riders suddenly having asthma, using inhalers. There is a much bigger picture of deception that is being painted right now. We would be fools to believe without scrutinising it.
Cycling OWES it to the fans to be transparent, they haven't done anything like what is needed to be trusted whole heartedly again, and trails of lies, secrecy, deception and controversial figures will not help. Honesty and openness will.
-
With some of them it is impossible to improve the levels to much of a degree once you are at the level a cyclist is. They are basically physical parameters to what you can humanly achieve.
There's a great book called Bounce which strongly demonstrates through numerous examples that DNA has a lot less to do with success than hard work, also Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. Both books suggest that an individual can improve - they actually state that ones height/body type can actually change once put under enough stress - significantly once practicing hard enough and for a long enough duration. Based on the books, what Froome has done is possible.
I'm not saying that training and practice can't improve, if that were the case there would be no point in racing, just look at the base set of numbers and award wins by that.
What I'm saying is that given the riders inherent traits, there are some performances that physiologically they won't be able to achieve. This is proven, it's not about top riders not training hard enough, being on their bikes 6 hours a day, it's about top riders, at their peak fitness, having ridden all their lives there will be a limit to what they can produce. Riders producing 6.5 w/kgs of power for an effort of over a certain time is now regarded as not being natural for example, no amount of nutrition, training, practice etc can change that.
Read in to relationships between Vo2 max, oxygen efficiency, lactate acid and anaerobic thresholds.
For Froome to be an outlier which you suggest, the required physiology he'd need would put him at, I've read a one in a few billion. Which is possible, I'd guess but then would come the question..... why couldn't he do it before? Almost superhuman, a one in a billion man, not producing anything until one Vuelta at the age of 26.
From memory, I can't recall a single rider, having shown nothing up to the age of 26 suddenly becoming a once in a generation machine. capable of climbing and TT'ing, they've all shown their talent from an early age as you'd expect.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jul/21/team-sky-chris-froome-performance-data-stage-10
It appears that Pierre Sallet, the French doctor of physiology was either knowingly lying, or woefully incompetent at his job when on Sunday night he calculated Froomes power in watts as 7.04 per kilogram
-
Never mind all this!
Did anyone see Geraint Thomas spectacular crash yesterday? How he got up I do not know. Hard as nails these road race cyclists!
-
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jul/21/team-sky-chris-froome-performance-data-stage-10
It appears that Pierre Sallet, the French doctor of physiology was either knowingly lying, or woefully incompetent at his job when on Sunday night he calculated Froomes power in watts as 7.04 per kilogram
Lying more than likely.
Thomas' crash, I don't think I've ever seen a pro ride in to a lamppost before! Balls of steel man, riding down mountains overtaking motor bikes. Not for me. I like going up, not so much going down. At least if I fall off I know I'm only going 5mph if it's uphill.
-
I see Sky released some of Chris' stage 10 data today. In the words of Kimmage, it's a complete and utter mess.
-
Kimmage really has a bee in his bonnet about Froome and Sky doesn't he, it's "damned if you do...." with him.
Sky don't release data - it's because they are doping.
Sky release data - Yeah, but it doesn't prove they aren't doping.
He might be right, but at the moment he just sounds bitter.
As far as most analysts are saying (and I admit I've not looked too hard at the media stories so far), Froome was within the realms of what should be possible on that climb and well below the output of the likes of Armstrong and Pantani when they were EPO'd to the eyeballs, and of course technology has improved since then so gains will be made anyway.
-
Froome's autobiography 'The Climb' (a good read) gives a good account of his early days in cycling and how he developed as a rider. Seems to me that some are reluctant to acknowledge that what he has achieved is through hard work as well as the benefits that Sky provide.
Good luck to the man I hope he is still in yellow in Paris.
-
Kimmage really has a bee in his bonnet about Froome and Sky doesn't he, it's "damned if you do...." with him.
Sky don't release data - it's because they are doping.
Sky release data - Yeah, but it doesn't prove they aren't doping.
He might be right, but at the moment he just sounds bitter.
As far as most analysts are saying (and I admit I've not looked too hard at the media stories so far), Froome was within the realms of what should be possible on that climb and well below the output of the likes of Armstrong and Pantani when they were EPO'd to the eyeballs, and of course technology has improved since then so gains will be made anyway.
Dave you must not have been listening to Kimmage for the last decade. He's asked for relevant numbers to be put out. Not just from Froome, the whole of cycling needs to do it. Releasing average cadence and obviously incorrect numbers from stage 10, it's useless for the overall picture.
Technology hasn't improved much btw. UCI puts a limit on what changes can be made.
I'll leave it at that though, never ending circles. Everyone believes what they want to believe, so we can just enjoy watching what remains of the tour.
-
I actually feel a bit sorry for Sky (bloody hell, never thought I'd say that!)
Surely it's impractical for Sky to release all their data, exactly in the same way that Villa couldn't make their scouting reports on their opponents publicly known.
They can't be expected to give all the other teams a blueprint of how to beat them?
-
Been finding this tour a bit dull really, I want Froome to win but it'd be good to see him put under a bit of pressure. He's been snuffing out attacks so easily.
-
Kimmage really has a bee in his bonnet about Froome and Sky doesn't he, it's "damned if you do...." with him.
Sky don't release data - it's because they are doping.
Sky release data - Yeah, but it doesn't prove they aren't doping.
He might be right, but at the moment he just sounds bitter.
As far as most analysts are saying (and I admit I've not looked too hard at the media stories so far), Froome was within the realms of what should be possible on that climb and well below the output of the likes of Armstrong and Pantani when they were EPO'd to the eyeballs, and of course technology has improved since then so gains will be made anyway.
Dave you must not have been listening to Kimmage for the last decade. He's asked for relevant numbers to be put out. Not just from Froome, the whole of cycling needs to do it. Releasing average cadence and obviously incorrect numbers from stage 10, it's useless for the overall picture.
Technology hasn't improved much btw. UCI puts a limit on what changes can be made.
I'll leave it at that though, never ending circles. Everyone believes what they want to believe, so we can just enjoy watching what remains of the tour.
aj2k77 - I disagree with your opinion - currently - but I appreciate what you have to say. I'm speaking for myself here, obviously, but I think you opinion is very relevant to the thread and you should not censor it.
-
That last climb yesterday looked crazy from the air, like a mini Alpe D'huez packed in to 2 and a bit miles. Beautiful, I love how every year new climbs are found.
-
Bit of a dicey stage today!
-
Naughty Nibali, attacking as Froome had a mechanical.
-
No love lost between those two it seems. I think next year we will see a stronger Nibali , this defeat wont sit well with him.
-
Froome! Really pleased for him, had to really dig deep today.
-
Quintana the real hero of the tour. Froome won it by the time he took in Zealand with the peloton split. He will learn from that. His style is calculating but also exciting for the viewer. I'm glad there was no bother with Froome and the fans today, it is unfair.
-
There was a spitting incident, and earlier in the day, I'm sure the BBC reported an incident with the SKY vehicles.
Doping or not, it seems strange that the SKY team are taking so much flack when so many other are proven as on the juice (or mores than Froome).
-
Great stage today.
-
So how long will Lance's legacy continue in le tour? The fact that a number of fans seemed to have decided it's fair game to consider Froome a cheat regardless of a lack of evidence shows just how deep the scars are. If he is clean (and both the analysis released by sky and the stage data from the last 3 tours does back that up) it's got to be frustrating to have to put up with this and know that there's absolutely nothing he can do to put an end to it.
-
It's been a very interesting and riveting tour this year. Good on Froome for hanging in there from attack after attack over the past few days. Quintana was magnificent in his constant attacks and seems a real gent as well. His time will no doubt come very soon.
-
I'd like to see one of the young French riders; Pinot, Bardet develop into genuine contenders. Would add to the enjoyment of future Tours.
I hope Cav does it this afternoon although Greipal must be favourite on current form and with three key men of the Etixx lead out missing.
-
Pinaut can't climb as good as Froome or Quintana and can't TT either. He'll find it hard to better last years 3rd place. Imagine the crowds on a big climb with a genuine French GC contender though. Would be amazing.
-
So how long will Lance's legacy continue in le tour? The fact that a number of fans seemed to have decided it's fair game to consider Froome a cheat regardless of a lack of evidence shows just how deep the scars are. If he is clean (and both the analysis released by sky and the stage data from the last 3 tours does back that up) it's got to be frustrating to have to put up with this and know that there's absolutely nothing he can do to put an end to it.
I think the French are suspicious/jealous of British cycling success in general - as they don't understand/believe how Team GB/Sky have been so dominant on the track and on the road over the last 8-10 years or so.
-
Due to poor weather, they took the final placings when the riders reached the Champs Élysées for the first time.
Therefore Froome has won Le Tour.
The riders are continuing on for the 10 laps, with the sprinters able to take as many risks as they want without fear of losing places if they fall.
-
So how long will Lance's legacy continue in le tour? The fact that a number of fans seemed to have decided it's fair game to consider Froome a cheat regardless of a lack of evidence shows just how deep the scars are. If he is clean (and both the analysis released by sky and the stage data from the last 3 tours does back that up) it's got to be frustrating to have to put up with this and know that there's absolutely nothing he can do to put an end to it.
It will take a long time for the scars to heal. It's pretty safe to assume nearly every single race between 94 and 09 produced a winner enhanced by the juice. That's a whole generation of results, feats, dramas and winners destroyed. Cycling has a long way to go. Full honesty and openness about what happened would be a start, Lance is the scapegoat. From golden boy to the devil. Cycling is still not very transparent at all now. Having clowns like Vino still involved, the doctors, the DS'. People that enabled it are still there now, just in different guises.
It wouldn't hurt anyone to release more data. Full data. There is so little to lose compared to what they can gain from it. The blood passport has worked to a degree, but it's more put in place parameters of what is an acceptable level to cheat, much like the old haematocrit maximum level did. As suggested by Ross Tucker, a full biological passport, with physiological tests throughout the year, alongside the blood tests would leave cheats with much less scope to bend things in their favour, they'd be much more easier to flag up.
How important is it to the UCI to have a fully clean, slower, sport?
They could make it more likely to produce even cleaner winners, but we currently use a passport designed to catch cheats from a decade ago, they've moved on, the UCI haven't.
-
In a weird way, their certainty that froome is cheating is likely to encourage more cheats. By saying that Sky are doping and winning, but we haven't caught them yet, then is almost gives the other teams carte blanche to do this themselves.
-
In a weird way, their certainty that froome is cheating is likely to encourage more cheats. By saying that Sky are doping and winning, but we haven't caught them yet, then is almost gives the other teams carte blanche to do this themselves.
Sky cheating, based on what???
Stories in the French media as they have not had a tour winner for a long time.
-
In a weird way, their certainty that froome is cheating is likely to encourage more cheats. By saying that Sky are doping and winning, but we haven't caught them yet, then is almost gives the other teams carte blanche to do this themselves.
Sky cheating, based on what???
Stories in the French media as they have not had a tour winner for a long time.
Based on nothing, but it is how it is being reported by large chunks of the media.
-
You know what I've often thought this, particularly in relation to the tour, but I don't really care if they are doping. Drugs assisted or not you still have to be an incredible athlete to do what they do. And I include Armstrong in that. There, I've said it.
-
So how long will Lance's legacy continue in le tour? The fact that a number of fans seemed to have decided it's fair game to consider Froome a cheat regardless of a lack of evidence shows just how deep the scars are. If he is clean (and both the analysis released by sky and the stage data from the last 3 tours does back that up) it's got to be frustrating to have to put up with this and know that there's absolutely nothing he can do to put an end to it.
I think the French are suspicious/jealous of British cycling success in general - as they don't understand/believe how Team GB/Sky have been so dominant on the track and on the road over the last 8-10 years or so.
They were similar at the Olympics.
-
You know what I've often thought this, particularly in relation to the tour, but I don't really care if they are doping. Drugs assisted or not you still have to be an incredible athlete to do what they do. And I include Armstrong in that. There, I've said it.
The danger of this stance is that the doping will start younger and younger in order for the benefit to still have effect. This has already happened in East Germany were girls were unknowingly pumped full of so much testosterone that they chose to have sex changes once they became adults because their bodies were so so altered.
-
You know what I've often thought this, particularly in relation to the tour, but I don't really care if they are doping. Drugs assisted or not you still have to be an incredible athlete to do what they do. And I include Armstrong in that. There, I've said it.
The danger of this stance is that the doping will start younger and younger in order for the benefit to still have effect. This has already happened in East Germany were girls were unknowingly pumped full of so much testosterone that they chose to have sex changes once they became adults because their bodies were so so altered.
Fair point, I suppose you can't just give a total green light to this sort of thing when people's health is at stake.
-
Last Friday and Saturday's stages were some of the best road cycling we have seen for ages!
-
In a weird way, their certainty that froome is cheating is likely to encourage more cheats. By saying that Sky are doping and winning, but we haven't caught them yet, then is almost gives the other teams carte blanche to do this themselves.
Sky cheating, based on what???
Stories in the French media as they have not had a tour winner for a long time.
Based on nothing, but it is how it is being reported by large chunks of the media.
French media. The way he ended the tour shows the fine margins...he was slightly better than his nearest competitors, therefore he is doping. The French media are basing it on past tours with no actual data or evidence.
-
Last Friday and Saturday's stages were some of the best road cycling we have seen for ages!
Agree Simon, the last few days were pretty exciting with attack after attack on Froome and Sky. it was great to watch.
-
In a weird way, their certainty that froome is cheating is likely to encourage more cheats. By saying that Sky are doping and winning, but we haven't caught them yet, then is almost gives the other teams carte blanche to do this themselves.
Everyone who will cheat will already be cheating right now. Pressure for contracts, vanity, glory, peer pressure. I all the books I've read these were the reasons given for doping. The French media accusations are the same ones thrown at them when they wanted Armstrong outed. By and large they love the sport of cycling. Wanting a cleaner more transparent sport doesn't mean they are being mental, nationalistic and jealous. They want proof. And why not. The same people running the show, very little changed.
Sky started with their own doctors. Within a year after poor results they employed Leinders, Rabobanks doping doctor. Co-incidence? Who knows.
Cookson, President of the UCI, his son works for SKY. Not a good position for neutrality I'd say.
Their is a lot of insinuations. Can anyone come up with a reason for teams not being more transparent?
I'm not limiting this just to SKY, it's something the whole peleton needs to do.
Thibault Pinot has a 5 yr study on him, available on the internet for anyone to read and make their own assumptions, very detailed. Why don't more teams and riders do it? The data is available but the will isn't their yet.