From a doping point of view, what do you expect Froom in the vuelta?

[lemoogle]

Errm, pro cycling is business. Sponsors put money to get visibility and, at least according to the clinic view, teams are ready to fullfill the expectations at any cost. You really think they would give up the second GT win for this year just to give a lesson to Froome?

If only what you call business was so simple. If you believe no team has ever laid low for a while... There is no coverage of the Vuelta in the UK, Sky has a lot less to gain, definitely would take less risks. Keeping Froome in check for all you know will earn them loads if it gets them to control him or prevent a massive scandal etc.

Now once again, I'm not saying I believe what I said, I'm only saying it's a plausible explanation. I'm replying to you because things really aren't as simple as trying to win everything especially when you're getting as much suspicion as sky, and the people that would defend you aren't even watching. Federer doesn't compete in every single tournament, because it's not always about immediate gain ( now I know the ATP 500/250 tourneys cant be compared to a GT but I'm only making a bad comparison here )

Just look at the Team GB track team, their lack of domination between the olympics clearly shows that it IS quite possible to choose not to dominate when you clearly can. Otherwise we're believing in 4 yearly peaks of 2 weeks.

As to "sponsors put money for visibility" , sky isn't even trying to put the vuelta on tv ( they are a tv network !), or get people to watch it, so .... no.

 

[lemoogle]

I think you need to re-read what I wrote: I said there is a such a thing of fatigue. And that would be your explanation.

And Sky put someone in the break. Wow well that certainly proves your point. Sky are hanging Froome out to dry.

Sky know their race is run. It's a case of damage limitation, preserve Froome's GC standings and go for a stage win. If Froome was in red, Henao would have been there pulling for him. But he's not so he was allowed to get away and almost bagged the win

Sorry haha I guess I misread.

Just because Froome isn't winning the GC means they don't care about his final ranking? now you must be kidding me... every second counts for froome not having henao there didn't help preserve froome's standing at all, they don't want to see him drop. It's not like he's so used to winning that he can't settle for a top 5, same for sky.... one TdF and now they can only bother for the win?

Also , your point contradicts that stage at the tour that valverde won (can't remember which sorry ) . Wiggins was way clear of the competitors and all they did was make Froome ride at wiggin's pace and sacrificed an easy stage win.... but a massive gamble on henao way further from the finish is going for the win to you?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Also , your point contradicts that stage at the tour that valverde won (can't remember which sorry ) . Wiggins was way clear of the competitors and all they did was make Froome ride at wiggin's pace and sacrificed an easy stage win.... but a massive gamble on henao way further from the finish is going for the win to you?

One difference was that Wiggins was on the verge of winning the Tour while Froome was at best going for fourth place. If I was going to play it safe on one of those it would be the former. All it takes is a puncture it change things so why risk it?

 

[JimmyFingers]

Sorry haha I guess I misread.

Just because Froome isn't winning the GC means they don't care about his final ranking? now you must be kidding me... every second counts for froome not having henao there didn't help preserve froome's standing at all, they don't want to see him drop. It's not like he's so used to winning that he can't settle for a top 5, same for sky.... one TdF and now they can only bother for the win?

Also , your point contradicts that stage at the tour that valverde won (can't remember which sorry ) . Wiggins was way clear of the competitors and all they did was make Froome ride at wiggin's pace and sacrificed an easy stage win.... but a massive gamble on henao way further from the finish is going for the win to you?

No you're trying to make a square peg fit a round hole. Defending fourth place is important, but also is a Grand Tour stage win. Again in the Tour they are defending yellow,is wasn't an 'easy' stage win as Valverde was up the road, Froome had already won a stage as had the team in a ITT and Cav's sprint win. They ended with six if you'll remember. What do they have at Vuelta? Nada, a fourth place GC finish to defend and no stages, despite some early, folorn efforts to lead out Swift. They will want to salvage something further in the stages remaining, while trying to defend Froome's GC position.

Your argument doesn't hold water: Sky aren't punishing Froome for insubordination, believe me, and they aren't racing strangely

 

[lemoogle]

One difference was that Wiggins was on the verge of winning the Tour while Froome was at best going for fourth place. If I was going to play it safe on one of those it would be the former. All it takes is a puncture it change things so why risk it?

Heh, why risk anything then, this is a human sport, not "war games", I won't support that attitude.

Europcar let Rolland go for the win in 2011 at l'alpe d'Huez, even with Voeckler desperately trying his complete best to hold on to the yellow jersey and doing a pretty good job at it.

If Wiggins can't casually stroll miles ahead of the other GC riders without needing babysitting for 2 minutes then really , what a truly exciting sport you are willing to watch.

 

[lemoogle]

Your argument doesn't hold water: Sky aren't punishing Froome for insubordination, believe me, and they aren't racing strangely

Once again, all I was saying is that it's plausible, no team wants an out of control jealous all powerful-feeling rider. There's enough movies about this kind of stuff for you to know that it happens that some guys think they're above the resources they've been given to get there. That's ALL I'm saying, I'm NOT saying I believe that, I simply believe it's possible.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Once again, all I was saying is that it's plausible, no team wants an out of control jealous all powerful-feeling rider. There's enough movies about this kind of stuff for you to know that it happens that some guys think they're above the resources they've been given to get there. That's ALL I'm saying, I'm NOT saying I believe that, I simply believe it's possible.

Oh right, its in the movies....

 

[Avoriaz]

Okay, I get the impression you don't believe what you are writing, but...

If only what you call business was so simple. If you believe no team has ever laid low for a while...

There is no coverage of the Vuelta in the UK, Sky has a lot less to gain, definitely would take less risks.

As to "sponsors put money for visibility" , sky isn't even trying to put the vuelta on tv ( they are a tv network !), or get people to watch it, so .... no.

Erm, okay. It is on British Eurosport and it is on the ITV channels. it is reported in the written press - and for the first week at least when Froome was riding high, it frequently appeared on the radio.

Sky are a multimedia network - the money is in the bundles (TV/Telecoms/Internet), so don't need to show it on their channels. To get eurosport, I subscribe to Sky (okay, yes, I could get it elsewhere).

My phone is provided by T-Mobile but they never texted me to tell me how many stages Zabel had won in the Tour.

As for Sky not being bothered because they won the Tour with Wiggins. Course they are bothered. The Tour is (not quite) forgotten and absorbed by the Olympic games. What better way to eclipse that but by book ending the summer by winning 2 GTs in one year. The first two ever won by British riders. If anything, rather than put him down, they would carry him no matter what

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Europcar let Rolland go for the win in 2011 at l'alpe d'Huez, even with Voeckler desperately trying his complete best to hold on to the yellow jersey and doing a pretty good job at it.

Pretty sure Tommy was fried when he got himself stuck in no mans land for most of the stage. He was not going to come back from that.

If Wiggins can't casually stroll miles ahead of the other GC riders without needing babysitting for 2 minutes then really , what a truly exciting sport you are willing to watch.

When your GC man is about to win the Tour why take a risk. I am sure Purito is wishing that his guys had been 'babysitting' a bit more.

 

[lemoogle]

Oh right, its in the movies....

oh come on... I'm not quoting teletubbies, I'm talking about a human behaviour that's commonly accepted as common in these situations of sudden fame and sudden power. I don't have to quote movies.... just look around you... in the world... how many sudden rise to power are followed by personality embellishment.

 

[JimmyFingers]

oh come on... I'm not quoting teletubbies, I'm talking about a human behaviour that's commonly accepted as common in these situations of sudden fame and sudden power. I don't have to quote movies.... just look around you... in the world... how many sudden rise to power are followed by personality embellishment.

Just nonsense: sweeping generalisations that have no relevance to, well anything. I think I have to stop talking to you: you are either very young or trolling

 

[lemoogle]

Okay, I get the impression you don't believe what you are writing, but...



Erm, okay. It is on British Eurosport and it is on the ITV channels. it is reported in the written press - and for the first week at least when Froome was riding high, it frequently appeared on the radio.

Sky are a multimedia network - the money is in the bundles (TV/Telecoms/Internet), so don't need to show it on their channels. To get eurosport, I subscribe to Sky (okay, yes, I could get it elsewhere).

My phone is provided by T-Mobile but they never texted me to tell me how many stages Zabel had won in the Tour.

As for Sky not being bothered because they won the Tour with Wiggins. Course they are bothered. The Tour is (not quite) forgotten and absorbed by the Olympic games. What better way to eclipse that but by book ending the summer by winning 2 GTs in one year. The first two ever won by British riders. If anything, rather than put him down, they would carry him no matter what

I understand that, you seem to live in the UK. I do too. Availability doesn't reflect media coverage. They did mention Froome at the vuelta but let's not pretend it was much. None of the people at my work or that i know in london even know the vuelta is going on ( or what it is ) and they were ALL talking about the TdF and cycling at the olympics.
Heck many of them were watching the tour on their sky tv online thing during work, now how many?
Please let us not pretend anyone (aside from the people on this forum) in the UK has a clue about the vuelta.

 

[Krebs cycle]

http://www.cyclesportmag.com/features/aldo-sassi-the-philosophy-of-coaching/

“A cyclist has certain physiological attributes: VO2 Max, power output at anaerobic threshold, body fat per cent… It is like Formula 1: if you only have the driver and no car then you cannot win. You have to have the car as well as the driver. Some might try to show that if you have a good driver you could still win with a bad car. This is not true in cycling. Either you have to be able to produce six watts per kilogramme on the climbs or you lose.”

But of course Aldo was a dumba$$. Wasn't he the coach of your hero?

More important: who is riding at certain watts.

Back on topic: Froome is cooked. His power outputs have downgraded 0.5w/kg since the first week.

Yeah so what is your problem? Wiggins and Froome rode above 6 w/kg on short climbs and below on long climbs. They are performing exactly where Aldo says the best undoped cyclists in the world should be, not beyond. I trust Aldo and I believe that he ran a clean shop and that legacy remains.

Back on topic. Froome is performing exactly as one would expect if he were doped. Froome is also performing exactly as you would expect if he were clean. Thus IMO, his Vuelta performance relative to his TdF performance prove absolutely nothing about doping. But the MO here is to first state that so and so is 100% on the PEDs, thereafter you put on your tin foil hats and read whatever you want and no matter what the outcome, to you it is conclusive evidence of doping. Hooray for you and your GWB logic "I believe what I believe is right".

One moment you guys are saying "oh you can't sustain a year long peak without doping" therefore sky are doping. Next minute you're (thehog in particular) saying "oh you can't dope for a full 6-8 months because you get dopers fatigue from having to remove and re-infuse too much blood". Another moment people are saying Sky is on some magical next level sh!t that can't be detected, but suddenly you invent a new theory and say they just decided not to use it anymore because they don't want to make it "too obvious". According to that logic the only thing that would make it "look" like the best performing clean cyclists really are clean, is lose on purpose. Lets imagine if that really were true. Team Sky lose on purpose, so then everyone says that Movistar are the dopers, so next Movistar lose on purpose and so on and so on. Then it becomes a race to the bottom and the next thing you know, pro cyclists are going up Alpe d'Huez so slow that you or I could walk up faster. Can anyone not see how completely and utterly ridiculous that line of reasoning is?

hey look there's our MO again.... and again. Believe first that someone is doping then flip flop all over the place no matter what happens and call that your "evidence". What a joke. Jimmy is right, for a forum that is supposed to be one of the preeminent cycling websites on the internet, some of the crackpot theories that get presented in this place are downright embarrassing.

 

[the big ring]

some of the crackpot theories that get presented in this place are downright embarrassing.

Tell me about it: climber-gate and timetrial-gate.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Tell me about it: climber-gate and timetrial-gate.

This is a good post, the big ring.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Yeah so what is your problem? Wiggins and Froome rode above 6 w/kg on short climbs and below on long climbs. They are performing exactly where Aldo says the best undoped cyclists in the world should be, not beyond. I trust Aldo and I believe that he ran a clean shop and that legacy remains.

And again you are missing the most important part:

More important: who is riding at certain watts.

“If he [Wiggins] goes as they have been, where Richie Porte is pulling and you are on the wheel pushing 420 watts, then explain to me, where are you going to go?

And, of course Froomey isn't able to ride as he did in the Tour, nobody can do two GT's in 9 weeks. He did have a 8 week peak, even longer when we take the Dauphineé in account. Allmost three months of peak form for Chris, beginning of june till the the last week of august, that is quite a stretch in my book. What do you as a physician think of such lenghts of peak form?

 

[JimmyFingers]

Dopers fatigue alright.

Have you ever doped yourself? Do you know what its like to extract that much blood and then infuse it for the 8th time in one season? Not pretty.

Alas I think he reached for the final bag today and he'll have a "surprise" return of form in the final few days.

Just watch.

Mark this post and remind me of it on Sunday - Froome the comeback to make the podium.

Well it's Tuesday but worth bringing this up again, since we were asked to do it.

 

[function]

Tell me about it: climber-gate and timetrial-gate.

Didn't you start a conspiracy theory thread about why pro cyclists get sick often?

 

[the big ring]

Didn't you start a conspiracy theory thread about why pro cyclists get sick often?

I did. And in that thread, we learnt that
* precedence: there are a number of infamous incidents where multiple members of teams left grand tours under dubious circumstances, claiming "virus" success
* plausibility: an increase in cortisol can suppress your immune system (leading to "virus" success), and use of cortisone will do the same thing. You know. Cortisone - what LA was pinged for in 1999?

There was disagreement from others, and at no point did I put them down or denigrate them. KC does this in nearly every post.

I also started the thread by questioning my own reasoning - although I understand the sincerity of that may be hard for you to accept.

It's my opinion that the sickness thread and its theory holds far more water than KC's claim that Wiggins showed climibing potential in 2004 or TT ability vs Tony Martin in 2011. Now compare our claims to fame: PhD with 10 years experience working with elite athletes and coaches vs some guy who is good at forum searches.

YMMV.