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: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 11:36

TourOfSardinia wrote:
samhocking wrote:Leinders comes from within existing cycling teams of 10-20 years ago though? Why does Leinders contribution to Sky, 20 years later work so well with Sky riders, but not Rabobank riders at the time? He was at Rabobabnk for years and years. At Sky 9 months? Rabobank never won Tour de France with him.

Elephant in the room
Chicken


Indeed. And extreme weight loss wasn't the go to strategy throughout most of Leinders career. It was all about huge doses of EPO and blood bags. The doping game changed with the introduction of the bio-passport.

Also, as unpopular as this opinion is in the clinic, doping is not the only factor that decides who wins a bike race.
User avatar DFA123
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,360
Joined: 07 Nov 2010 16:00
Location: Valencia

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 11:45

samhocking wrote:Having the worlds most advanced Leinders doping program clearly wasn't that advanced then as he didn't even get to Paris lol!


Huh? Rasmussen was never popped, despite practically glowing in the dark and being so strong as to beat a fully-juiced Contador. Sounds like he had a pretty good program to me.

If only he had been less careless in his whereabouts reporting...
Mamil
Junior Member
 
Posts: 109
Joined: 11 Jan 2018 11:24

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 11:47

DFA123 wrote:
samhocking wrote:OK, well the how is the big mystery for everyone lol. Clearly it isn't EPO, Testosterone, HGH, Corticosteroids and Salbutomol because all teams have access to that to loose weight and gain power/keep power anyway.

It's only an observation, i'm not claiming or disproving anything, simply nobody can possibly know, yet we have thousands of posts claiming such transformations by Froome must be from doping. Doping might explain the transformation, but it doesn't explain why a transformation is only available to Froome/Sky when one would assume more talented/gifted racehorses in other teams with proven palamares unlike Froome can't dope and beat Froome with arguably better riders to work their doping on.

That's not clear at all. We already know that some riders in the blood doping era respond much better than other riders to certain products and cocktails. If Froome is a "super-responder" to something that he wasn't previously taking, or was taking sub-optimally for his physiology, then it's quite logical that he would gain considerably more relative to his peers. In fact, I would go as far to say him being a super-responder to something fairly common and accessible is the most likely reason behind his big improvement.


Genuine question...maybe covered before (i've obviously heard the stories about Armstrong etc) but what exactly is a super responder?

To my, admittedly limited and mostly anecdotal, knowledge...drugs do what drugs do. There's a balance to be struck between positive results and side effects, and yes personal tolerance to side effects is certainly a thing in the bodybuilding world for example. And yes, getting the right dose and combinations of products takes a bit of practice, mostly trial and error if you like. But again..what is a 'super response'?

If we take EPO for example...it works. Full stop. There's no super response, with fairly basic and simple medical supervision you get the dose right and raise your HCT to the desired level. There's a sweetspot of what that level is. There's no magical response where someone's level jumps way higher than someone elses, that would be counterproductive. So, you get the dose right, you get the levels right, that's it. One rider might need to take less than another to get to the right levels, but there's no 'super response'. EPO does what it does, same for everybody unless they have some kind of contraindication to its use.

Testosterone....again only used very sparingly for cyclists. In the bodybuilding world its a free for all, the more you take the bigger you get, and the more troublesome the side effects (actually bodybuilders just take even more drugs to combat the side effects but thats another story!). But most of the effects above a certain dose (rapid weight gain) would be undesireable for cyclists. They're just taking minimal doses to aid recovery. So again, any kind of 'super response' to Testosterone wouldn't be a good thing for a cyclist.

Same goes for HGH, and most anabolic steroids really, most of the benefits to cyclists would only be seen at relatively modest doseages. Go higher, or have a 'super response' and its generally not good.

No idea on Salbutamol...but Clenbuterol which i understand to act similarly, you wouldn't want a 'super response'. Get the dosing wrong on this and the side effects are awful. In the bodybuilding world lots of people have used this and vowed never again because they can't stand the side effects when using in quantities significant enough to get any desireable effects. Such known side effects would not be good for a cyclist.

I really dont understand the 'super responder' theory, but maybe someone can enlighten me. Im not trying to be smart here, just curious :confused:
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 898
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 11:48

silvergrenade wrote:Is his mind you already do, except the AAF, which you'd know once the case is resolved.
Whats the worry? Give it time. ;)


Indeed. We patiently await an outcome at his lordship's pleasure :D
Mamil
Junior Member
 
Posts: 109
Joined: 11 Jan 2018 11:24

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 12:02

brownbobby wrote:
DFA123 wrote:
samhocking wrote:OK, well the how is the big mystery for everyone lol. Clearly it isn't EPO, Testosterone, HGH, Corticosteroids and Salbutomol because all teams have access to that to loose weight and gain power/keep power anyway.

It's only an observation, i'm not claiming or disproving anything, simply nobody can possibly know, yet we have thousands of posts claiming such transformations by Froome must be from doping. Doping might explain the transformation, but it doesn't explain why a transformation is only available to Froome/Sky when one would assume more talented/gifted racehorses in other teams with proven palamares unlike Froome can't dope and beat Froome with arguably better riders to work their doping on.

That's not clear at all. We already know that some riders in the blood doping era respond much better than other riders to certain products and cocktails. If Froome is a "super-responder" to something that he wasn't previously taking, or was taking sub-optimally for his physiology, then it's quite logical that he would gain considerably more relative to his peers. In fact, I would go as far to say him being a super-responder to something fairly common and accessible is the most likely reason behind his big improvement.


Genuine question...maybe covered before (i've obviously heard the stories about Armstrong etc) but what exactly is a super responder?

To my, admittedly limited and mostly anecdotal, knowledge...drugs do what drugs do. There's a balance to be struck between positive results and side effects, and yes personal tolerance to side effects is certainly a thing in the bodybuilding world for example. And yes, getting the right dose and combinations of products takes a bit of practice, mostly trial and error if you like. But again..what is a 'super response'?

If we take EPO for example...it works. Full stop. There's no super response, with fairly basic and simple medical supervision you get the dose right and raise your HCT to the desired level. There's a sweetspot of what that level is. There's no magical response where someone's level jumps way higher than someone elses, that would be counterproductive. So, you get the dose right, you get the levels right, that's it. One rider might need to take less than another to get to the right levels, but there's no 'super response'. EPO does what it does, same for everybody unless they have some kind of contraindication to its use.

Testosterone....again only used very sparingly for cyclists. In the bodybuilding world its a free for all, the more you take the bigger you get, and the more troublesome the side effects (actually bodybuilders just take even more drugs to combat the side effects but thats another story!). But most of the effects above a certain dose (rapid weight gain) would be undesireable for cyclists. They're just taking minimal doses to aid recovery. So again, any kind of 'super response' to Testosterone wouldn't be a good thing for a cyclist.

Same goes for HGH, and most anabolic steroids really, most of the benefits to cyclists would only be seen at relatively modest doseages. Go higher, or have a 'super response' and its generally not good.

No idea on Salbutamol...but Clenbuterol which i understand to act similarly, you wouldn't want a 'super response'. Get the dosing wrong on this and the side effects are awful. In the bodybuilding world lots of people have used this and vowed never again because they can't stand the side effects when using in quantities significant enough to get any desireable effects. Such known side effects would not be good for a cyclist.

I really dont understand the 'super responder' theory, but maybe someone can enlighten me. Im not trying to be smart here, just curious :confused:


I think it's a bit of blurring between Super-Responders from training and if those Super-Responders dope too. Basically their fitness increases unexpectedly faster than most. They do not obtain higher fitness from doping to a normal responder, just can get there more quickly.

It's a bit of a red-herring in doping. There's a percentage of any exercise/medical study that always has a percentage of super-responders in the results. One would expect the same percentage to exist in cycling across all teams too in my opinion, unless cycling somehow filters them out earlier in their career and they never make it. Perhaps Froome not coming through classical European Junior > Senior > Pro road racing palamares manages to creep into World Tour lol!
Last edited by samhocking on 12 Jun 2018 12:04, edited 1 time in total.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,962
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 12:04

brownbobby wrote:
DFA123 wrote:
samhocking wrote:OK, well the how is the big mystery for everyone lol. Clearly it isn't EPO, Testosterone, HGH, Corticosteroids and Salbutomol because all teams have access to that to loose weight and gain power/keep power anyway.

It's only an observation, i'm not claiming or disproving anything, simply nobody can possibly know, yet we have thousands of posts claiming such transformations by Froome must be from doping. Doping might explain the transformation, but it doesn't explain why a transformation is only available to Froome/Sky when one would assume more talented/gifted racehorses in other teams with proven palamares unlike Froome can't dope and beat Froome with arguably better riders to work their doping on.

That's not clear at all. We already know that some riders in the blood doping era respond much better than other riders to certain products and cocktails. If Froome is a "super-responder" to something that he wasn't previously taking, or was taking sub-optimally for his physiology, then it's quite logical that he would gain considerably more relative to his peers. In fact, I would go as far to say him being a super-responder to something fairly common and accessible is the most likely reason behind his big improvement.


Genuine question...maybe covered before (i've obviously heard the stories about Armstrong etc) but what exactly is a super responder?

To my, admittedly limited and mostly anecdotal, knowledge...drugs do what drugs do. There's a balance to be struck between positive results and side effects, and yes personal tolerance to side effects is certainly a thing in the bodybuilding world for example. And yes, getting the right dose and combinations of products takes a bit of practice, mostly trial and error if you like. But again..what is a 'super response'?

If we take EPO for example...it works. Full stop. There's no super response, with fairly basic and simple medical supervision you get the dose right and raise your HCT to the desired level. There's a sweetspot of what that level is. There's no magical response where someone's level jumps way higher than someone elses, that would be counterproductive. So, you get the dose right, you get the levels right, that's it. One rider might need to take less than another to get to the right levels, but there's no 'super response'. EPO does what it does, same for everybody unless they have some kind of contraindication to its use.

Testosterone....again only used very sparingly for cyclists. In the bodybuilding world its a free for all, the more you take the bigger you get, and the more troublesome the side effects (actually bodybuilders just take even more drugs to combat the side effects but thats another story!). But most of the effects above a certain dose (rapid weight gain) would be undesireable for cyclists. They're just taking minimal doses to aid recovery. So again, any kind of 'super response' to Testosterone wouldn't be a good thing for a cyclist.

Same goes for HGH, and most anabolic steroids really, most of the benefits to cyclists would only be seen at relatively modest doseages. Go higher, or have a 'super response' and its generally not good.

No idea on Salbutamol...but Clenbuterol which i understand to act similarly, you wouldn't want a 'super response'. Get the dosing wrong on this and the side effects are awful. In the bodybuilding world lots of people have used this and vowed never again because they can't stand the side effects when using in quantities significant enough to get any desireable effects. Such known side effects would not be good for a cyclist.

I really dont understand the 'super responder' theory, but maybe someone can enlighten me. Im not trying to be smart here, just curious :confused:

I think there are various ways a rider could be a 'super-responder', but the most straight forward is if they are naturally quite low in some physiological markers. The classic one regarding Armstrong was the haematocrit. Although it obviously changes at times, he was naturally around 40%, so he could take a large amount of EPO and still be under the 50% UCI limit. Another rider with a natural haematocrit of around 48%, could take much less EPO without risking tripping the wire by going over 50%. Any big fluctuations could be easily explained away by dehydration, altitude training and various other 'reasons'.

In the era of the bio-passport, where there are set limits for various things, a rider who is naturally quite low can benefit more from taking drugs to get his numbers up to the passport limits, than a rider who is naturally much closer to the limits. So, in that sense, a super responder would be someone who has a competitive power at lactate threshold, but with a big buffer to improve certain values before they hit the passport limits. Of course you have to explain any big jumps under the passport system, but cases like Kreuziger's proved how limited it is in front of a court. Things like altitude training, and even the legendary Bilharzia could be used as justifications.

Slightly differently I guess, a super-responder could also refer to a rider who just has a great response to a particular drug or cocktail. You're right that EPO works pretty much the same for everyone if taken in the same quanitites, and things like clen have to be carefully managed within a strict range. But the combination of other less potent things (who knows what... maybe even tramadol, sabutamol?) could certainly have a different impact on some rides than others. I doubt there is some magic bullet, but every rider is physiologically different and will respond slightly differently to some stimuli. And if one rider has stumbled across (or been shown the way by a doctor) a combo that works well for them, or, more likely, that helps to cover a particular weakness in their current performance (e.g. recovery, power at vo2 max, losing too much power with weight loss), that will benefit them more than a rider who has different weaknesses.
User avatar DFA123
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,360
Joined: 07 Nov 2010 16:00
Location: Valencia

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 12:11

brownbobby wrote:Genuine question...maybe covered before (i've obviously heard the stories about Armstrong etc) but what exactly is a super responder?


brownbobby wrote:If we take EPO for example...it works. Full stop. There's no super response, with fairly basic and simple medical supervision you get the dose right and raise your HCT to the desired level. There's a sweetspot of what that level is. There's no magical response where someone's level jumps way higher than someone elses, that would be counterproductive. So, you get the dose right, you get the levels right, that's it. One rider might need to take less than another to get to the right levels, but there's no 'super response'. EPO does what it does, same for everybody unless they have some kind of contraindication to its use.


If you are fit and have a relatively low natural haematocrit level EPO is going to be more beneficial for you than it will be for someone who is fit and has a relatively high natural haematocrit level. You've more to gain, allowing for the 50% limit that used to exist before the ABP. So LA, he was said to be a super responder to EPO because he was believed to have a relatively low natural haematocrit level whereas, say, JV, whose haematocrit level was relatively high, was not such a super responder.

While the term might have had some meaning in the days of the 50% rule, it's really not clear what meaning it has today other than a belief among some that some athletes 'respond' better to doping than others, allowing them to explain the performance differences between assumed doping programmes. Eddy Merckx, for instance, was clearly a super responder to amphetamines given his superiority over others who had access to the exact same drugs. Or so the logic goes. Basically, you replace any notion of innate athletic ability with a genetic propensity to respond better to particular drugs.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,880
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 12:15

fmk_RoI wrote:
brownbobby wrote:Genuine question...maybe covered before (i've obviously heard the stories about Armstrong etc) but what exactly is a super responder?


brownbobby wrote:If we take EPO for example...it works. Full stop. There's no super response, with fairly basic and simple medical supervision you get the dose right and raise your HCT to the desired level. There's a sweetspot of what that level is. There's no magical response where someone's level jumps way higher than someone elses, that would be counterproductive. So, you get the dose right, you get the levels right, that's it. One rider might need to take less than another to get to the right levels, but there's no 'super response'. EPO does what it does, same for everybody unless they have some kind of contraindication to its use.


If you are fit and have a relatively low natural haematocrit level EPO is going to be more beneficial for you than it will be for someone who is fit and has a relatively high natural haematocrit level. You've more to gain, allowing for the 50% limit that used to exist before the ABP. So LA, he was said to be a super responder to EPO because he was believed to have a relatively low natural haematocrit level whereas, say, JV, whose haematocrit level was relatively high, was not such a super responder.

While the term might have had some meaning in the days of the 50% rule, it's really not clear what meaning it has today other than a belief among some that some athletes 'respond' better to doping than others, allowing them to explain the performance differences among assumed doping programmes. Eddy Merckx, for instance, was clearly a super responder to amphetamines given his superiority over others who had access to the exact same drugs. Or so the logic goes. Basically, you replace any notion of innate athletic ability with a genetic propensity to respond better to particular drugs.


I think you're in danger of conflating the careers Froome with Merckx there.... ;)
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,502
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 12:15

Mamil wrote:
silvergrenade wrote:Is his mind you already do, except the AAF, which you'd know once the case is resolved.
Whats the worry? Give it time. ;)


Indeed. We patiently await an outcome at his lordship's pleasure :D

:razz:
SeriousSam wrote: Peña Cabarga is like Froome's Mount Doom, the place where his great power was forged into fearsome weapon. He was never going to lose here
User avatar silvergrenade
Member
 
Posts: 1,657
Joined: 23 Jan 2016 17:30

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 12:17

fmk_RoI wrote:
brownbobby wrote:Genuine question...maybe covered before (i've obviously heard the stories about Armstrong etc) but what exactly is a super responder?


brownbobby wrote:If we take EPO for example...it works. Full stop. There's no super response, with fairly basic and simple medical supervision you get the dose right and raise your HCT to the desired level. There's a sweetspot of what that level is. There's no magical response where someone's level jumps way higher than someone elses, that would be counterproductive. So, you get the dose right, you get the levels right, that's it. One rider might need to take less than another to get to the right levels, but there's no 'super response'. EPO does what it does, same for everybody unless they have some kind of contraindication to its use.


If you are fit and have a relatively low natural haematocrit level EPO is going to be more beneficial for you than it will be for someone who is fit and has a relatively high natural haematocrit level. You've more to gain, allowing for the 50% limit that used to exist before the ABP. So LA, he was said to be a super responder to EPO because he was believed to have a relatively low natural haematocrit level whereas, say, JV, whose haematocrit level was relatively high, was not such a super responder.

While the term might have had some meaning in the days of the 50% rule, it's really not clear what meaning it has today other than a belief among some that some athletes 'respond' better to doping than others, allowing them to explain the performance differences between assumed doping programmes. Eddy Merckx, for instance, was clearly a super responder to amphetamines given his superiority over others who had access to the exact same drugs. Or so the logic goes. Basically, you replace any notion of innate athletic ability with a genetic propensity to respond better to particular drugs.

Or, as most sensible people would do, you realize that things are often multi-factorial. And that a combination of innate athletic ability, combined with responding well to particular drugs, is going to elevate a rider above competitors who just have one or the other.
User avatar DFA123
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,360
Joined: 07 Nov 2010 16:00
Location: Valencia

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 12:17

samhocking wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
DFA123 wrote:
samhocking wrote:OK, well the how is the big mystery for everyone lol. Clearly it isn't EPO, Testosterone, HGH, Corticosteroids and Salbutomol because all teams have access to that to loose weight and gain power/keep power anyway.

It's only an observation, i'm not claiming or disproving anything, simply nobody can possibly know, yet we have thousands of posts claiming such transformations by Froome must be from doping. Doping might explain the transformation, but it doesn't explain why a transformation is only available to Froome/Sky when one would assume more talented/gifted racehorses in other teams with proven palamares unlike Froome can't dope and beat Froome with arguably better riders to work their doping on.

That's not clear at all. We already know that some riders in the blood doping era respond much better than other riders to certain products and cocktails. If Froome is a "super-responder" to something that he wasn't previously taking, or was taking sub-optimally for his physiology, then it's quite logical that he would gain considerably more relative to his peers. In fact, I would go as far to say him being a super-responder to something fairly common and accessible is the most likely reason behind his big improvement.


Genuine question...maybe covered before (i've obviously heard the stories about Armstrong etc) but what exactly is a super responder?

To my, admittedly limited and mostly anecdotal, knowledge...drugs do what drugs do. There's a balance to be struck between positive results and side effects, and yes personal tolerance to side effects is certainly a thing in the bodybuilding world for example. And yes, getting the right dose and combinations of products takes a bit of practice, mostly trial and error if you like. But again..what is a 'super response'?

If we take EPO for example...it works. Full stop. There's no super response, with fairly basic and simple medical supervision you get the dose right and raise your HCT to the desired level. There's a sweetspot of what that level is. There's no magical response where someone's level jumps way higher than someone elses, that would be counterproductive. So, you get the dose right, you get the levels right, that's it. One rider might need to take less than another to get to the right levels, but there's no 'super response'. EPO does what it does, same for everybody unless they have some kind of contraindication to its use.

Testosterone....again only used very sparingly for cyclists. In the bodybuilding world its a free for all, the more you take the bigger you get, and the more troublesome the side effects (actually bodybuilders just take even more drugs to combat the side effects but thats another story!). But most of the effects above a certain dose (rapid weight gain) would be undesireable for cyclists. They're just taking minimal doses to aid recovery. So again, any kind of 'super response' to Testosterone wouldn't be a good thing for a cyclist.

Same goes for HGH, and most anabolic steroids really, most of the benefits to cyclists would only be seen at relatively modest doseages. Go higher, or have a 'super response' and its generally not good.

No idea on Salbutamol...but Clenbuterol which i understand to act similarly, you wouldn't want a 'super response'. Get the dosing wrong on this and the side effects are awful. In the bodybuilding world lots of people have used this and vowed never again because they can't stand the side effects when using in quantities significant enough to get any desireable effects. Such known side effects would not be good for a cyclist.

I really dont understand the 'super responder' theory, but maybe someone can enlighten me. Im not trying to be smart here, just curious :confused:


I think it's a bit of blurring between Super-Responders from training and if those Super-Responders dope too. Basically their fitness increases unexpectedly faster than most. They do not obtain higher fitness from doping to a normal responder, just can get there more quickly.

It's a bit of a red-herring in doping. There's a percentage of any exercise/medical study that always has a percentage of super-responders in the results. One would expect the same percentage to exist in cycling across all teams too in my opinion, unless cycling somehow filters them out earlier in their career and they never make it. Perhaps Froome not coming through classical European Junior > Senior > Pro road racing palamares manages to creep into World Tour lol!


Yes, this was kind of where i was coming from...as a cyclist being a 'super responder' to most conventional doping products would most likely mean you would need to back off/reduce the doseage, because effects above a certain level are generally not desireable...

The bit about training response makes sense i guess..
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 898
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

12 Jun 2018 12:30

Yep I agree. I think the main point I was trying to make is there is more than likely a percentage of super-responders in the peloton. Froome could well be one, but then there will be others too. Simply implying the rider winning the most, must be the best super-responder because everyone is doping is probably a factor in results, but as DFA123 says there are multiple factors to winning bike races consistently. I'd say the doping factor , assuming your competitors are doping with you probably explains very little in itself.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,962
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re:

12 Jun 2018 12:41

samhocking wrote:Yep I agree. I think the main point I was trying to make is there is more than likely a percentage of super-responders in the peloton. Froome could well be one, but then there will be others too. Simply implying the rider winning the most, must be the best super-responder because everyone is doping is probably a factor in results, but as DFA123 says there are multiple factors to winning bike races consistently. I'd say the doping factor , assuming your competitors are doping with you probably explains very little in itself.

I think this is particularly relevant to Froome, because it's something that is so often disregarded when it comes to evaluating his performances. You simply don't stay at the top of the sport for six years solely because of a doping programme or because you are super responder. Those things might get you a seat at the top table, but there are a whole host of other genetic, psychological and tactical factors which go towards determine who wins - let alone who dominates GTs for a generation.

The only caveat is unless there is some kind of protection from the UCI, or a motor ( :rolleyes: ) which are complete game changers. But, as far as I can see, there remains no evidence of either with regards to Froome.
User avatar DFA123
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,360
Joined: 07 Nov 2010 16:00
Location: Valencia

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 12:46

DFA123 wrote:
samhocking wrote:Yep I agree. I think the main point I was trying to make is there is more than likely a percentage of super-responders in the peloton. Froome could well be one, but then there will be others too. Simply implying the rider winning the most, must be the best super-responder because everyone is doping is probably a factor in results, but as DFA123 says there are multiple factors to winning bike races consistently. I'd say the doping factor , assuming your competitors are doping with you probably explains very little in itself.

I think this is particularly relevant to Froome, because it's something that is so often disregarded when it comes to evaluating his performances. You simply don't stay at the top of the sport for six years solely because of a doping programme or because you are super responder. Those things might get you a seat at the top table, but there are a whole host of other genetic, psychological and tactical factors which go towards determine who wins - let alone who dominates GTs for a generation.

The only caveat is unless there is some kind of protection from the UCI, or a motor ( :rolleyes: ) which are complete game changers. But, as far as I can see, there remains no evidence of either with regards to Froome.


Good stuff. I think too often, and hence the reason for querying it, people throw in the phrase 'super responder' without really thinking about what it means.

Its a very neat and convenient way to fill in some of the missing gaps in the search for answers to the Froome puzzle.
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 898
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 12:54

brownbobby wrote:
DFA123 wrote:
samhocking wrote:Yep I agree. I think the main point I was trying to make is there is more than likely a percentage of super-responders in the peloton. Froome could well be one, but then there will be others too. Simply implying the rider winning the most, must be the best super-responder because everyone is doping is probably a factor in results, but as DFA123 says there are multiple factors to winning bike races consistently. I'd say the doping factor , assuming your competitors are doping with you probably explains very little in itself.

I think this is particularly relevant to Froome, because it's something that is so often disregarded when it comes to evaluating his performances. You simply don't stay at the top of the sport for six years solely because of a doping programme or because you are super responder. Those things might get you a seat at the top table, but there are a whole host of other genetic, psychological and tactical factors which go towards determine who wins - let alone who dominates GTs for a generation.

The only caveat is unless there is some kind of protection from the UCI, or a motor ( :rolleyes: ) which are complete game changers. But, as far as I can see, there remains no evidence of either with regards to Froome.


Good stuff. I think too often, and hence the reason for querying it, people throw in the phrase 'super responder' without really thinking about what it means.

Its a very neat and convenient way to fill in some of the missing gaps in the search for answers to the Froome puzzle.

Definitely. I certainly think there could be some validity in the theory that Froome responds better than average to a certain program - or, perhaps, more concretely, that he has found a specific thing that works really well for him personally. Just like I think Contador probably did or Nibali probably does. But just like with those two, there are undoubtedly many other non-Clinic factors contributing to Froome's dominance.
User avatar DFA123
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,360
Joined: 07 Nov 2010 16:00
Location: Valencia

Re:

12 Jun 2018 13:02

samhocking wrote:Leinders comes from within existing cycling teams of 10-20 years ago though? Why does Leinders contribution to Sky, 20 years later work so well with Sky riders, but not Rabobank riders at the time? He was at Rabobabnk for years and years. At Sky 9 months? Rabobank never won Tour de France with him.
I thought the argument was that Leinders was hired because of his ability to get TUEs - the butter on his head, or whatever it was - rather than any notion that his knowledge of doping was the equal of Ferrari (Sky didn't need a new Ferrari, they had access to Cecchini through Sciandri). Though why Sky needed someone with butter on their head in order to get TUEs is not so easily explained, given the UCI apparently gave them out like snuff at a wake.

The more recent argument for the hiring of Leinders (and others such as Bartalucci at the same time) is that he had better knowledge of récup than anyone else they could find. That, though, was somewhat scuppered by the introduction of the no needles policy shortly after he was hired.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,880
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 13:15

fmk_RoI wrote:
samhocking wrote:Leinders comes from within existing cycling teams of 10-20 years ago though? Why does Leinders contribution to Sky, 20 years later work so well with Sky riders, but not Rabobank riders at the time? He was at Rabobabnk for years and years. At Sky 9 months? Rabobank never won Tour de France with him.
I thought the argument was that Leinders was hired because of his ability to get TUEs - the butter on his head, or whatever it was - rather than any notion that his knowledge of doping was the equal of Ferrari (Sky didn't need a new Ferrari, they had access to Cecchini through Sciandri). Though why Sky needed someone with butter on their head in order to get TUEs is not so easily explained, given the UCI apparently gave them out like snuff at a wake.

The more recent argument for the hiring of Leinders (and others such as Bartalucci at the same time) is that he had better knowledge of récup than anyone else they could find. That, though, was somewhat scuppered by the introduction of the no needles policy shortly after he was hired.


In saying all that they were using needles on Wiggins per his injections. Leinders most certainly had Ferrari like levels of experience as we later found out through various Rabobank riders. Additionally and it would need to be 100% fact checked I don’t think Leinders ever have a rider test positive whilst at Rabo or Sky. That’s a good record.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,484
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 13:40

thehog wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
samhocking wrote:Leinders comes from within existing cycling teams of 10-20 years ago though? Why does Leinders contribution to Sky, 20 years later work so well with Sky riders, but not Rabobank riders at the time? He was at Rabobabnk for years and years. At Sky 9 months? Rabobank never won Tour de France with him.
I thought the argument was that Leinders was hired because of his ability to get TUEs - the butter on his head, or whatever it was - rather than any notion that his knowledge of doping was the equal of Ferrari (Sky didn't need a new Ferrari, they had access to Cecchini through Sciandri). Though why Sky needed someone with butter on their head in order to get TUEs is not so easily explained, given the UCI apparently gave them out like snuff at a wake.

The more recent argument for the hiring of Leinders (and others such as Bartalucci at the same time) is that he had better knowledge of récup than anyone else they could find. That, though, was somewhat scuppered by the introduction of the no needles policy shortly after he was hired.


In saying all that they were using needles on Wiggins per his injections. Leinders most certainly had Ferrari like levels of experience as we later found out through various Rabobank riders. Additionally and it would need to be 100% fact checked I don’t think Leinders ever have a rider test positive whilst at Rabo or Sky. That’s a good record.


Different kinds of injections compared to known recovery products.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,465
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

12 Jun 2018 13:45

On the early days of Sky, do we have any idea what went on in 2010?

Wiggins' 2009 while at Garmin was the real transformation, but I understand that he was really under BC team that would become the basis for Sky. So presumably we was on the juice.

Then 2010 happens it looks like 2009 was a one off. I can't believe he stopped doping with a new team - it was basically the same crew doping him at BC.

Then 2011 happens and everything is back to 2009 and better?

Was there a key member of the BC team that didn't join Sky (or someone that was key that stayed at Garmin)?

2010 certainly looks like the expertise dropped off - presumably Leinders was brought in to fill the knowledge gap for 2011?
wansteadimp
Junior Member
 
Posts: 282
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 12:16

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 13:47

King Boonen wrote:
thehog wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
samhocking wrote:Leinders comes from within existing cycling teams of 10-20 years ago though? Why does Leinders contribution to Sky, 20 years later work so well with Sky riders, but not Rabobank riders at the time? He was at Rabobabnk for years and years. At Sky 9 months? Rabobank never won Tour de France with him.
I thought the argument was that Leinders was hired because of his ability to get TUEs - the butter on his head, or whatever it was - rather than any notion that his knowledge of doping was the equal of Ferrari (Sky didn't need a new Ferrari, they had access to Cecchini through Sciandri). Though why Sky needed someone with butter on their head in order to get TUEs is not so easily explained, given the UCI apparently gave them out like snuff at a wake.

The more recent argument for the hiring of Leinders (and others such as Bartalucci at the same time) is that he had better knowledge of récup than anyone else they could find. That, though, was somewhat scuppered by the introduction of the no needles policy shortly after he was hired.


In saying all that they were using needles on Wiggins per his injections. Leinders most certainly had Ferrari like levels of experience as we later found out through various Rabobank riders. Additionally and it would need to be 100% fact checked I don’t think Leinders ever have a rider test positive whilst at Rabo or Sky. That’s a good record.


Different kinds of injections compared to known recovery products.


?? It’s still a needle used after the no needles policy. You’d use the same needle for intramuscular with kenalog and into the roll of fat on your stomach to microdose EPO. Blood doping is still a needle connected into the tubing of the bag. I’m not seeing a difference, needles were continued to be used. Leinders “could” have assisted with that as was outlined by the Rabo riders whom Leinders injected personally.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,484
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JosephK and 13 guests

Back to top