Log in:  

Register

Froome Talk Only

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen, Valv.Piti

Re: Froome Talk Only

12 Jun 2018 17:37

samhocking wrote:
red_flanders wrote:
DFA123 wrote:
The other issue with this is that why would the special program - which seems to be based around weight loss - only work with a few riders. Or why did they only trial it with a few riders. Why didn't they turn EBH into a GT winner, or Cummings?


I think in EBH you have the career arc of a naturally talented rider who has decided not to dope. His results are probably about what a clean rider can hope for, at least classics-wise, which seems to be his skill set. Who knows, however, what a full program would have allowed him to do.


Is that suggesting Sky's program is not team-based but an individual rider decision then? Assuming Sky have a magic cocktail, magic doctor nobody else has and not detectable, why give him a contract at all to allow him to ride clean and rhen renew his contract again two years later? He was there for 4 years with Wiggins & Froome.


That a team would have a doping program and that decisions about doping are made by individuals are two things not in conflict. That would be normal, and as such I don't think your question makes sense.

When you start talking about magic this or that, it suggests you're less looking for an answer to those questions than poking fun at a notion that Sky have some kind of advantage. That's fine, it does seem unlikely they have special knowledge at this point, after all the transfers in and out of the team. But it's certainly not impossible.

To put a finer point on the team/individual component, it's a fact that Froome's original breakout in the Vuelta was a huge surprise to the team. The obvious conclusion, at least to me, is that he started a program individually, likely with Bermon (viewtopic.php?f=20&t=29971). Clearly Froome was not in position to be part of any inner circle of doping, if it existed at the time, and clearly his ascendance pissed of Wiggins beyond just a power struggle. One had the distinct feeling Froome wasn't supposed to be there. Whether the last bit is the case or not, you almost certainly have at least one rider doping outside of the framework of the team at one point in time.

What that means as far as how they conduct any program they may have is unclear. Teams have long had circles of riders who are in our out of a program, that would not be new or unusual. And riders outside of the inner circle have been gainfully employed for extended periods, but do not tend to make the team for big races like the Tour. But sometimes they have, so who knows?

What you have in EBH is a rider who was fantastic in youth and junior racing, who came to the pros and had some early results, and then was blown away by what appears to be a resurgence in full-tilt doping after what appears to have been a reduction in doping at the time of the passport's introduction. It all fits a view that new testing had some effect on doping at the time and then teams, as they do, figured out ways around it.

There is no case to be made that because EBH isn't doping that Sky aren't running a full program. Makes no sense. His career path is compatible with team-wide, inner-circle wide, or individual doping. Sky's results strongly suggest but do not prove team-wide doping. A team-wide cover-up of doping on the team is not in question. See Sky's reaction to the surprise of Froome as the first concrete example of this.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,045
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

12 Jun 2018 18:51

EBH cleans? I like the guy and all, and would like to buy the career trajectory argument as it kinda makes sense. But 2012 tdf mountain domestiqueing on the lower slopes was a bridge too far for me. OFC, sky in 2012 was the definition of ridiculous.

So no, not fully.
User avatar meat puppet
Member
 
Posts: 1,964
Joined: 29 May 2011 06:57

Re:

12 Jun 2018 19:58

meat puppet wrote:EBH cleans? I like the guy and all, and would like to buy the career trajectory argument as it kinda makes sense. But 2012 tdf mountain domestiqueing on the lower slopes was a bridge too far for me. OFC, sky in 2012 was the definition of ridiculous.

So no, not fully.


With Froome’s alien antics of the last few years we forget about Sky’s 2012 3000km team time trial around France :cool:
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,084
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re:

12 Jun 2018 21:03

meat puppet wrote:EBH cleans? I like the guy and all, and would like to buy the career trajectory argument as it kinda makes sense. But 2012 tdf mountain domestiqueing on the lower slopes was a bridge too far for me. OFC, sky in 2012 was the definition of ridiculous.

So no, not fully.


EBH clean, nope.

The guy is apparently smart so probably thinks of the long term health aspects befor eshovellling bucket loads of PEDs. Does enough to have a career or maybe he does bucket laods and doesn't repsond. Thems the breaks of PEDs....
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,297
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

12 Jun 2018 23:33

EBH has had a lot of illnesses and injuries that could explain his drop in performance since his High Road and early Sk days. His bad luck along with his ridiculous focus on packing on weight for the cobbled classics would probably have pushed a lesser rider out of the big time of World Tour cycling.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was doping during his heyday, but I find his career trajectory believable considering his enormous talent and results as a junior and his health issues as an established pro. Too bad he isn't like Froome and only gets better the worse his health gets.
User avatar Saint Unix
Member
 
Posts: 648
Joined: 14 Feb 2014 11:00
Location: Norway

Re:

13 Jun 2018 00:32

Merckx index wrote:Quite a while back, I posted some studies of EPO that showed that different individuals (not elite athletes, FWIW) exhibited different increases in HT to the same dose. So beyond the fact that a lower natural HT allowed a greater increase in the 50% era (and even after that, allowed a larger % increase--e.g., going from 40 to 42 is a 5% increase, whereas going from 48 to 50 is about 4%), some people just get more of a boost from a given dose than others. Then, on top of this, as thehog noted in his post about Vaughters, there tends to be a negative correlation between natural HT and events downstream that convert oxygen intake into power. So even if two riders get the same boost from EPO, the one with the lower HT tends to get greater oxygen utiliization and power increase. Only a rough correlation, but the point is, these are the kinds of things that can make big differences in how much power increase two riders on the same program might get. Even if you skip the reticulocyte stage, and just transfuse without EPO to raise your HT, there can still be differences in the increase in oxygen delivery to tissues and the resulting power increase.

Wrt warning riders about suspicious blood values, remember that the precursor of the biological passport was the off-score, and it was standard practice to warn riders when their off-scores were high. One of the most notable examples of this was Tyler in 2004. He failed the transfusion test in the Olympics that year, but because the B sample was messed up, didn't get sanctioned. Then in the Vuelta, he failed again, and this time did get banned. But before all that, back in April or May, he had a suspicious off-score, and was called in by UCI to talk about that.

You can certainly look at the off-score, then the passport, as a way for UCI to control doping rather than eradicate it. In fact, since the passport depends on a significant increase from a baseline, it's always going to be possible to blood dope to some degree under the radar. Again, I posted some links a while back to Ashenden's studies demonstrating this. But just a warning--"while we can't prove you're transfusing, we think you are, and we're watching you very closely"--has to be considered a worthwhile deterrent.


Pragmatic measure. 2 thumbs up.
Alpe73
Member
 
Posts: 615
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

Re:

13 Jun 2018 08:17

Merckx index wrote:You can certainly look at the off-score, then the passport, as a way for UCI to control doping rather than eradicate it. In fact, since the passport depends on a significant increase from a baseline, it's always going to be possible to blood dope to some degree under the radar. Again, I posted some links a while back to Ashenden's studies demonstrating this. But just a warning--"while we can't prove you're transfusing, we think you are, and we're watching you very closely"--has to be considered a worthwhile deterrent.


Just to add to this, alerts triggered by bio-passport irregularities are also used to inform targeted testing. Indeed when the passport programme first started, while profile data was accruing and the administrative process was being set up, this was the main use of it. As before, an individual could choose to continue to dope and beat all the tests but (s)he had to recognise the increased risk (and paranoia) in that choice. Together with the whereabouts system as the other arm of the pincer movement, this probably also influenced the selection of appropriate training locations.

I think sometimes the science, the procedures and the official language tend to obscure the pragmatism that's visible behind it all. The sport's governors fundamentally understand doping, the what, how and where of it, and these are their tools. Despite the frequent and often justified accusations of incompetence or inadequacy, if you accept that eradicating doping is an impossible and sometimes even undesirable objective, these tools are pretty useful.
User avatar L'arriviste
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,020
Joined: 23 Feb 2010 13:14
Location: Belgium

13 Jun 2018 09:43

So, despite David Lappartient claiming during the Giro d'Italia that ASO had the power to block Froome from riding the Tour de France, last week Christian Prudhomme bounced the ball back into the UCI's court:
"David Lappartient said it multiple times, it is a decision that must be taken by the UCI," he said. "It is quite evident this is what we need. What people may be struggling to understand, cycling works like anything else. You can't imagine the World Cup not being done by FIFA. It's FIFA that makes the rules and makes sure that the rules are respected. We are the organisers of the… we don't make the rules.

"It's very different to any other sports – including the IOC – they make the rules and put on the event. We are very different, we must obey the rules. We want answers, that's clearly what we want."
Despite all the rumours and speculation and high hopes, Prudhomme is not sounding like a man preparing to whack Froome over the head with the disrepute clause and instead it looks like the UCI and ASO are playing the blame game.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,570
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re:

13 Jun 2018 09:49

Merckx index wrote:Wrt warning riders about suspicious blood values, remember that the precursor of the biological passport was the off-score, and it was standard practice to warn riders when their off-scores were high.
Which does rather give the lie to the claim that Leinders was hired because having him in a new team with his experience on this front would have been pivotal. Just about everyone had a direct line to Zorzoli and got warned if any of their riders flew too close to the sun.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,570
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re:

13 Jun 2018 10:18

Merckx index wrote:Quite a while back, I posted some studies of EPO that showed that different individuals (not elite athletes, FWIW) exhibited different increases in HT to the same dose. So beyond the fact that a lower natural HT allowed a greater increase in the 50% era (and even after that, allowed a larger % increase--e.g., going from 40 to 42 is a 5% increase, whereas going from 48 to 50 is about 4%), some people just get more of a boost from a given dose than others. Then, on top of this, as thehog noted in his post about Vaughters, there tends to be a negative correlation between natural HT and events downstream that convert oxygen intake into power. So even if two riders get the same boost from EPO, the one with the lower HT tends to get greater oxygen utiliization and power increase. Only a rough correlation, but the point is, these are the kinds of things that can make big differences in how much power increase two riders on the same program might get. Even if you skip the reticulocyte stage, and just transfuse without EPO to raise your HT, there can still be differences in the increase in oxygen delivery to tissues and the resulting power increase.

Wrt warning riders about suspicious blood values, remember that the precursor of the biological passport was the off-score, and it was standard practice to warn riders when their off-scores were high. One of the most notable examples of this was Tyler in 2004. He failed the transfusion test in the Olympics that year, but because the B sample was messed up, didn't get sanctioned. Then in the Vuelta, he failed again, and this time did get banned. But before all that, back in April or May, he had a suspicious off-score, and was called in by UCI to talk about that.

You can certainly look at the off-score, then the passport, as a way for UCI to control doping rather than eradicate it. In fact, since the passport depends on a significant increase from a baseline, it's always going to be possible to blood dope to some degree under the radar. Again, I posted some links a while back to Ashenden's studies demonstrating this. But just a warning--"while we can't prove you're transfusing, we think you are, and we're watching you very closely"--has to be considered a worthwhile deterrent.



I wouldn’t so much say deterrent. I would suggest “dialling it back”. We wouldn’t want anyone to stop doping, we just don’t want them getting caught or putting themselves in hospital Ricco style.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,084
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

13 Jun 2018 10:34

L'arriviste wrote:I think sometimes the science, the procedures and the official language tend to obscure the pragmatism that's visible behind it all. The sport's governors fundamentally understand doping, the what, how and where of it, and these are their tools. Despite the frequent and often justified accusations of incompetence or inadequacy, if you accept that eradicating doping is an impossible and sometimes even undesirable objective, these tools are pretty useful.
Pretty useful for what?

This cuts to the heart of what anti-doping actually exists for. I think most everyone with a brain acknowledges that it is not about clean sport, it is not about the eradication of pharmaceutical enhancement, that such practices will always exist, in the same way that murder, bank robbery and breaking the speed limit will always exist.

So what is anti-doping meant to achieve? Is it about protecting the health of the athletes? Is it about protecting the jobs of the doctors, who have medicalised sport? Is it about creating some form of level(ish) playing field, ensuring that all are equal? If we can say that the way the existing tools are used is useful, we must have some idea of what is being achieved: what is being achieved? Isn't it true that, particularly over the twenty years since Festina, anti-doping's greatest achievements have come from outside the system? What has actually been achieved from within the anti-doping system?
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,570
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

13 Jun 2018 10:46

fmk_RoI wrote:
L'arriviste wrote:I think sometimes the science, the procedures and the official language tend to obscure the pragmatism that's visible behind it all. The sport's governors fundamentally understand doping, the what, how and where of it, and these are their tools. Despite the frequent and often justified accusations of incompetence or inadequacy, if you accept that eradicating doping is an impossible and sometimes even undesirable objective, these tools are pretty useful.
Pretty useful for what?

This cuts to the heart of what anti-doping actually exists for. I think most everyone with a brain acknowledges that it is not about clean sport, it is not about the eradication of pharmaceutical enhancement, that such practices will always exist, in the same way that murder, bank robbery and breaking the speed limit will always exist.

So what is anti-doping meant to achieve? Is it about protecting the health of the athletes? Is it about protecting the jobs of the doctors, who have medicalised sport? Is it about creating some form of level(ish) playing field, ensuring that all are equal? If we can say that the way the existing tools are used is useful, we must have some idea of what is being achieved: what is being achieved? Isn't it true that, particularly over the twenty years since Festina, anti-doping's greatest achievements have come from outside the system? What has actually been achieved from within the anti-doping system?


...or it’s about marketing and the promotion of the sport (being clean) and an industry in itself.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,084
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

13 Jun 2018 10:47

L'arriviste wrote:
Merckx index wrote:You can certainly look at the off-score, then the passport, as a way for UCI to control doping rather than eradicate it. In fact, since the passport depends on a significant increase from a baseline, it's always going to be possible to blood dope to some degree under the radar. Again, I posted some links a while back to Ashenden's studies demonstrating this. But just a warning--"while we can't prove you're transfusing, we think you are, and we're watching you very closely"--has to be considered a worthwhile deterrent.


Just to add to this, alerts triggered by bio-passport irregularities are also used to inform targeted testing. Indeed when the passport programme first started, while profile data was accruing and the administrative process was being set up, this was the main use of it. As before, an individual could choose to continue to dope and beat all the tests but (s)he had to recognise the increased risk (and paranoia) in that choice. Together with the whereabouts system as the other arm of the pincer movement, this probably also influenced the selection of appropriate training locations.

I think sometimes the science, the procedures and the official language tend to obscure the pragmatism that's visible behind it all. The sport's governors fundamentally understand doping, the what, how and where of it, and these are their tools. Despite the frequent and often justified accusations of incompetence or inadequacy, if you accept that eradicating doping is an impossible and sometimes even undesirable objective, these tools are pretty useful.


One of the best posts I've ever read on this forum. Thanks.
Alpe73
Member
 
Posts: 615
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

Re:

13 Jun 2018 10:51

fmk_RoI wrote:So, despite David Lappartient claiming during the Giro d'Italia that ASO had the power to block Froome from riding the Tour de France, last week Christian Prudhomme bounced the ball back into the UCI's court:
"David Lappartient said it multiple times, it is a decision that must be taken by the UCI," he said. "It is quite evident this is what we need. What people may be struggling to understand, cycling works like anything else. You can't imagine the World Cup not being done by FIFA. It's FIFA that makes the rules and makes sure that the rules are respected. We are the organisers of the… we don't make the rules.

"It's very different to any other sports – including the IOC – they make the rules and put on the event. We are very different, we must obey the rules. We want answers, that's clearly what we want."
Despite all the rumours and speculation and high hopes, Prudhomme is not sounding like a man preparing to whack Froome over the head with the
disrepute clause
and instead it looks like the UCI and ASO are playing the blame game.


Well if that (bread 'n butter topic) can't be discussed on here ... what's the point of going on, really? Really? :lol:
Alpe73
Member
 
Posts: 615
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

Re: Froome Talk Only

13 Jun 2018 16:10

red_flanders wrote:
samhocking wrote:
red_flanders wrote:
DFA123 wrote:
The other issue with this is that why would the special program - which seems to be based around weight loss - only work with a few riders. Or why did they only trial it with a few riders. Why didn't they turn EBH into a GT winner, or Cummings?


I think in EBH you have the career arc of a naturally talented rider who has decided not to dope. His results are probably about what a clean rider can hope for, at least classics-wise, which seems to be his skill set. Who knows, however, what a full program would have allowed him to do.


Is that suggesting Sky's program is not team-based but an individual rider decision then? Assuming Sky have a magic cocktail, magic doctor nobody else has and not detectable, why give him a contract at all to allow him to ride clean and rhen renew his contract again two years later? He was there for 4 years with Wiggins & Froome.


That a team would have a doping program and that decisions about doping are made by individuals are two things not in conflict. That would be normal, and as such I don't think your question makes sense.

When you start talking about magic this or that, it suggests you're less looking for an answer to those questions than poking fun at a notion that Sky have some kind of advantage. That's fine, it does seem unlikely they have special knowledge at this point, after all the transfers in and out of the team. But it's certainly not impossible.

To put a finer point on the team/individual component, it's a fact that Froome's original breakout in the Vuelta was a huge surprise to the team. The obvious conclusion, at least to me, is that he started a program individually, likely with Bermon (viewtopic.php?f=20&t=29971). Clearly Froome was not in position to be part of any inner circle of doping, if it existed at the time, and clearly his ascendance pissed of Wiggins beyond just a power struggle. One had the distinct feeling Froome wasn't supposed to be there. Whether the last bit is the case or not, you almost certainly have at least one rider doping outside of the framework of the team at one point in time.

What that means as far as how they conduct any program they may have is unclear. Teams have long had circles of riders who are in our out of a program, that would not be new or unusual. And riders outside of the inner circle have been gainfully employed for extended periods, but do not tend to make the team for big races like the Tour. But sometimes they have, so who knows?

What you have in EBH is a rider who was fantastic in youth and junior racing, who came to the pros and had some early results, and then was blown away by what appears to be a resurgence in full-tilt doping after what appears to have been a reduction in doping at the time of the passport's introduction. It all fits a view that new testing had some effect on doping at the time and then teams, as they do, figured out ways around it.

There is no case to be made that because EBH isn't doping that Sky aren't running a full program. Makes no sense. His career path is compatible with team-wide, inner-circle wide, or individual doping. Sky's results strongly suggest but do not prove team-wide doping. A team-wide cover-up of doping on the team is not in question. See Sky's reaction to the surprise of Froome as the first concrete example of this.


I'm not using the term magic in that way, I'm using it to imply we don't know how Sky are winning in so far assuming you believe its via doping but other teams are doping too, so still unknown in effect.

To me, even a basic doping strategy would involve all riders in a team. Doping is cheap. Corticosteroids are £7, EPO £20, Testosterone £8. Why would you make the decision to put a randomly doping individual or a non-doper in to a team who's doping is organised. Is that not increasing risk of getting popped by that rider or if clean, simply weakening the team? Even if your GC guys are inner circle, why purposely weaken the team by not team doping everyone.
Alternatively if doping is purely individual.acros the team, then doping is actually then definitely the same as every other team because those riders come from every other team prior to arriving at Sky. That's still not going to explain winning either.
What I'm still puzzled about is, the assuredness of the clinic Sky are winning because they are doping, yet that doping is in other teams too, so doesn't explain the imbalance in success. Sure if the jiffy bag claim was something we've never heard about on cycling, or revealed some secret squirrel doctor or substance, yes that would torally explain it. Testosterone, Corticosteroids and TUEs are not going to explain it, no matter how much proof there is that's what Sky riders have been given, because that is not advanced doping that is doping of 20 years ago any rider could perform perfectly adequately external to Sky.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,355
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re: Froome Talk Only

13 Jun 2018 18:07

samhocking wrote:
red_flanders wrote:
samhocking wrote:
red_flanders wrote:
DFA123 wrote:
The other issue with this is that why would the special program - which seems to be based around weight loss - only work with a few riders. Or why did they only trial it with a few riders. Why didn't they turn EBH into a GT winner, or Cummings?


I think in EBH you have the career arc of a naturally talented rider who has decided not to dope. His results are probably about what a clean rider can hope for, at least classics-wise, which seems to be his skill set. Who knows, however, what a full program would have allowed him to do.


Is that suggesting Sky's program is not team-based but an individual rider decision then? Assuming Sky have a magic cocktail, magic doctor nobody else has and not detectable, why give him a contract at all to allow him to ride clean and rhen renew his contract again two years later? He was there for 4 years with Wiggins & Froome.


That a team would have a doping program and that decisions about doping are made by individuals are two things not in conflict. That would be normal, and as such I don't think your question makes sense.

When you start talking about magic this or that, it suggests you're less looking for an answer to those questions than poking fun at a notion that Sky have some kind of advantage. That's fine, it does seem unlikely they have special knowledge at this point, after all the transfers in and out of the team. But it's certainly not impossible.

To put a finer point on the team/individual component, it's a fact that Froome's original breakout in the Vuelta was a huge surprise to the team. The obvious conclusion, at least to me, is that he started a program individually, likely with Bermon (viewtopic.php?f=20&t=29971). Clearly Froome was not in position to be part of any inner circle of doping, if it existed at the time, and clearly his ascendance pissed of Wiggins beyond just a power struggle. One had the distinct feeling Froome wasn't supposed to be there. Whether the last bit is the case or not, you almost certainly have at least one rider doping outside of the framework of the team at one point in time.

What that means as far as how they conduct any program they may have is unclear. Teams have long had circles of riders who are in our out of a program, that would not be new or unusual. And riders outside of the inner circle have been gainfully employed for extended periods, but do not tend to make the team for big races like the Tour. But sometimes they have, so who knows?

What you have in EBH is a rider who was fantastic in youth and junior racing, who came to the pros and had some early results, and then was blown away by what appears to be a resurgence in full-tilt doping after what appears to have been a reduction in doping at the time of the passport's introduction. It all fits a view that new testing had some effect on doping at the time and then teams, as they do, figured out ways around it.

There is no case to be made that because EBH isn't doping that Sky aren't running a full program. Makes no sense. His career path is compatible with team-wide, inner-circle wide, or individual doping. Sky's results strongly suggest but do not prove team-wide doping. A team-wide cover-up of doping on the team is not in question. See Sky's reaction to the surprise of Froome as the first concrete example of this.


I'm not using the term magic in that way, I'm using it to imply we don't know how Sky are winning in so far assuming you believe its via doping but other teams are doping too, so still unknown in effect.

To me, even a basic doping strategy would involve all riders in a team. Doping is cheap. [b]Corticosteroids are £7, EPO £20, Testosterone £8.[/b] Why would you make the decision to put a randomly doping individual or a non-doper in to a team who's doping is organised. Is that not increasing risk of getting popped by that rider or if clean, simply weakening the team? Even if your GC guys are inner circle, why purposely weaken the team by not team doping everyone.
Alternatively if doping is purely individual.acros the team, then doping is actually then definitely the same as every other team because those riders come from every other team prior to arriving at Sky. That's still not going to explain winning either.
What I'm still puzzled about is, the assuredness of the clinic Sky are winning because they are doping, yet that doping is in other teams too, so doesn't explain the imbalance in success. Sure if the jiffy bag claim was something we've never heard about on cycling, or revealed some secret squirrel doctor or substance, yes that would torally explain it. Testosterone, Corticosteroids and TUEs are not going to explain it, no matter how much proof there is that's what Sky riders have been given, because that is not advanced doping that is doping of 20 years ago any rider could perform perfectly adequately external to Sky.


Blimey that’s cheap, where ya getting ya gear Sam......asking for a friend :D
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 655
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Froome Talk Only

13 Jun 2018 18:51

samhocking wrote:
I'm not using the term magic in that way, I'm using it to imply we don't know how Sky are winning in so far assuming you believe its via doping but other teams are doping too, so still unknown in effect.

To me, even a basic doping strategy would involve all riders in a team. Doping is cheap. Corticosteroids are £7, EPO £20, Testosterone £8. Why would you make the decision to put a randomly doping individual or a non-doper in to a team who's doping is organised. Is that not increasing risk of getting popped by that rider or if clean, simply weakening the team? Even if your GC guys are inner circle, why purposely weaken the team by not team doping everyone.
Alternatively if doping is purely individual.acros the team, then doping is actually then definitely the same as every other team because those riders come from every other team prior to arriving at Sky. That's still not going to explain winning either.
What I'm still puzzled about is, the assuredness of the clinic Sky are winning because they are doping, yet that doping is in other teams too, so doesn't explain the imbalance in success. Sure if the jiffy bag claim was something we've never heard about on cycling, or revealed some secret squirrel doctor or substance, yes that would torally explain it. Testosterone, Corticosteroids and TUEs are not going to explain it, no matter how much proof there is that's what Sky riders have been given, because that is not advanced doping that is doping of 20 years ago any rider could perform perfectly adequately external to Sky.


To the first bolded, we know that successful teams have operated in the past with people in and out of the group of those doping, so it doesn't make sense to me to argue that a basic strategy would necessitate the whole team doping. Not sure how else to respond to assertions not based in what we know to be facts.

To the second, come on. There is no monolithic opinion shared by the varied users in this forum––certainly you know that. Most of the opinion I read here from people who realize Sky are doping, and so is everyone else. A few think Sky is on some special sauce, and none of them know what it is. Again, your statement simply isn't supported by the facts.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,045
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Froome Talk Only

13 Jun 2018 18:58

samhocking wrote:
red_flanders wrote:
samhocking wrote:
red_flanders wrote:
DFA123 wrote:
The other issue with this is that why would the special program - which seems to be based around weight loss - only work with a few riders. Or why did they only trial it with a few riders. Why didn't they turn EBH into a GT winner, or Cummings?


I think in EBH you have the career arc of a naturally talented rider who has decided not to dope. His results are probably about what a clean rider can hope for, at least classics-wise, which seems to be his skill set. Who knows, however, what a full program would have allowed him to do.


Is that suggesting Sky's program is not team-based but an individual rider decision then? Assuming Sky have a magic cocktail, magic doctor nobody else has and not detectable, why give him a contract at all to allow him to ride clean and rhen renew his contract again two years later? He was there for 4 years with Wiggins & Froome.


That a team would have a doping program and that decisions about doping are made by individuals are two things not in conflict. That would be normal, and as such I don't think your question makes sense.

When you start talking about magic this or that, it suggests you're less looking for an answer to those questions than poking fun at a notion that Sky have some kind of advantage. That's fine, it does seem unlikely they have special knowledge at this point, after all the transfers in and out of the team. But it's certainly not impossible.

To put a finer point on the team/individual component, it's a fact that Froome's original breakout in the Vuelta was a huge surprise to the team. The obvious conclusion, at least to me, is that he started a program individually, likely with Bermon (viewtopic.php?f=20&t=29971). Clearly Froome was not in position to be part of any inner circle of doping, if it existed at the time, and clearly his ascendance pissed of Wiggins beyond just a power struggle. One had the distinct feeling Froome wasn't supposed to be there. Whether the last bit is the case or not, you almost certainly have at least one rider doping outside of the framework of the team at one point in time.

What that means as far as how they conduct any program they may have is unclear. Teams have long had circles of riders who are in our out of a program, that would not be new or unusual. And riders outside of the inner circle have been gainfully employed for extended periods, but do not tend to make the team for big races like the Tour. But sometimes they have, so who knows?

What you have in EBH is a rider who was fantastic in youth and junior racing, who came to the pros and had some early results, and then was blown away by what appears to be a resurgence in full-tilt doping after what appears to have been a reduction in doping at the time of the passport's introduction. It all fits a view that new testing had some effect on doping at the time and then teams, as they do, figured out ways around it.

There is no case to be made that because EBH isn't doping that Sky aren't running a full program. Makes no sense. His career path is compatible with team-wide, inner-circle wide, or individual doping. Sky's results strongly suggest but do not prove team-wide doping. A team-wide cover-up of doping on the team is not in question. See Sky's reaction to the surprise of Froome as the first concrete example of this.


I'm not using the term magic in that way, I'm using it to imply we don't know how Sky are winning in so far assuming you believe its via doping but other teams are doping too, so still unknown in effect.

To me, even a basic doping strategy would involve all riders in a team. Doping is cheap. Corticosteroids are £7, EPO £20, Testosterone £8. Why would you make the decision to put a randomly doping individual or a non-doper in to a team who's doping is organised. Is that not increasing risk of getting popped by that rider or if clean, simply weakening the team? Even if your GC guys are inner circle, why purposely weaken the team by not team doping everyone.
Alternatively if doping is purely individual.acros the team, then doping is actually then definitely the same as every other team because those riders come from every other team prior to arriving at Sky. That's still not going to explain winning either.
What I'm still puzzled about is, the assuredness of the clinic Sky are winning because they are doping, yet that doping is in other teams too, so doesn't explain the imbalance in success. Sure if the jiffy bag claim was something we've never heard about on cycling, or revealed some secret squirrel doctor or substance, yes that would torally explain it. Testosterone, Corticosteroids and TUEs are not going to explain it, no matter how much proof there is that's what Sky riders have been given, because that is not advanced doping that is doping of 20 years ago any rider could perform perfectly adequately external to Sky.



what the hell, people paying all this money for carbon bikes, they'd be cheaper getting on a doping program and riding cheap bikes
rick james
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,799
Joined: 02 Sep 2014 13:21
Location: Ecosse

Re: Froome Talk Only

13 Jun 2018 20:20

Testo - £8
Corticos - £7
epo - £20
Dottore Ferrari - Priceless
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,346
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: Froome Talk Only

14 Jun 2018 07:28

gillan1969 wrote:Testo - £8
Corticos - £7
epo - £20
Dottore Ferrari - Priceless


:D

This is OT but I often receive enquiries through my website from folks who seem to have misunderstood what it is about.

For those who are interested in the price of fish the following, sent by an organisation apparently blacklisted in the United States, represents a current USD price list per 100g:

MK-677 - $1200
Ostarine - $220
GW1516 - $400
SR9009 - $1300
AICAR - $2500
RAD140 - $1450
LGD-4033 - $670
S4 - $200
YK-11- $1600
S23 - $380
ACP-105 - $1950

Some of these I have never even heard of and I doubt they are all detectable already.
User avatar L'arriviste
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,020
Joined: 23 Feb 2010 13:14
Location: Belgium

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Benotti69, Google Adsense [Bot], ruamruam and 25 guests

Back to top