Le Tour 2015

[Dave Cooper please]

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.

[lovejoy]

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.

[aj2k77]

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.

[aj2k77]

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.

[AlexAlexCropley]

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.

[aj2k77]

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.

[usav]

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.   

[aj2k77]

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.

[aj2k77]

On a brighter note, the Tourmalet and the tour in general is looking as beautiful as ever this year.

[taylorsworkrate]

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.

[taylorsworkrate]

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.

[usav]

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?

[aj2k77]

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.

 

[aj2k77]

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.

[aj2k77]

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.