Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[acoggan]

What about power data, which places a rider near the top of the doped performances of all time, combined with the rider's history, which is very very unremarkable? Would you not expect a rider with the potential to achieve a VO2Max of 90 to have blazed his way through the junior and U23 ranks?

I think that there are lots of reasons to suspect any professional athlete in any sport of doping. The question is, what do you do with those suspicions?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Why not Löfkvist or Uran?

Uran was looking really, really good at the Giro this year. (2013) Except he had to ride Wiggo in and lost a bunch of time on at least one stage doing so.

You may not remember Uran picking up 2nd place at the Olympic road race in London? Uran's glance back on the run-in to the finish where Vino attacks was memorable for so many reasons!

Let's see who ends up on the Vuelta squad.

 

[acoggan]

BTW, I agree that the Outside article has some questionable points. Mainly, I just don't think that under the right set of circumstances, 6.5 w/kg for 20:00 is impossible without doping. That said, it's nice that someone is at least asking the question because his performance relative to his competition is pretty unbelievable, particularly for a guy who wasn't exactly a world-beater in his early years.

While I find completely moronic is Allen's proclamation that "he's clean, get over it". That's right out of the Lance playbook. "don't ask questions, just trust us", alone with a visceral, angry tone directed at anyone who dares ask the question.

He doth protest a little too much.

Probably because he coaches some athletes presently in the TdF that he believes to be clean, but by the standards of forums such as this one (or the Outside article) would be considered guilty of doping simply because of their level of performance.

 

[vrusimov]

What about power data, which places a rider near the top of the doped performances of all time, combined with the rider's history, which is very very unremarkable? Would you not expect a rider with the potential to achieve a VO2Max of 90 to have blazed his way through the junior and U23 ranks?

The gist of this is not just what Froome did, it is what all others did not do. I'm a big picture guy and at the myopic level, yes one can mitigate and argue all the reasons why his performance is plausible, why 6.5w/kg is the new standard for the hour, when we can peruse the data of KNOWN dopers who put up comparable performances. Unless of course Froome is the biggest talent since Eddy Merckx, otherwise, in the words of Ross Tucker...well, you know.

Brailsford's Commonwealth analysis of Froome [especially his "substandard" gear] is perplexing to say the least, and especially for a guy that finished over 5 minutes behind the winner. His "because the human race moves forward" line is hilarious if not pitifully disingenuous. Evolution does not take place in 4 years, the time since the last [really] jacked up tour [2009].

 

[LaFlorecita]

Do you think Contador and team coaches(do they even have those on Saxo?) even know what a TSS is?


Omg

 

[acoggan]

Because correcting the name isn't enough.

As if that would have made any difference?

 

[D-Queued]

I'm sure you are more qualified to "prove" he is doped only by the strength of your beliefs

I am.

I believed Lance was lying and I believed that Lance doped. I also believed that Floyd and Tyler were lying, and that they doped.

I listened to *qualified* experts like Tyler Hamilton's lawyers, Allen Lim, PhD, Ed Coyle PhD and Arnie Baker, MD. I even read about drunken mice with high Testosterone levels.

I was right. All the experts were wrong.

I have an unblemished track record at identifying who is, or isn't doping than almost all the experts who have asserted an opinion on the matter.

Dave.

 

[sprenten]

The thing is that you didn't even bother to read piles of data compiled in clinic. I know the road you are heading, it's been done many times before, especially with Armstrong. It's wide-eyed, country boy, naive approach 'the rider x makes me very skeptic, I wouldn't say he is doping because ________ (fill with whatever you want). And then the farce goes on for 10+ pages regurgitating all the little things said person can think of (marginal gains, special fabric, bilharzia etc.). And all that so that in some point in time you could say 'well he never tested positive'. So let me spare you and us all the unnecessary bull****. There is no smoking gun.
The only good thing Armstrong fiasco brought is that we now know the pattern. If you come up from obscurity to obliterate the field of dopers you say you had a disease. Suddenly you are best climber and best TT-er in the world, change of position, wind tunnel, loss of weight. You are beating known dopers, peloton is cleaner, you are training harder than anyone else and you have more scientific approach. I'm sure that before the Tour is over we will hear that there is something special when it comes to Froomes cadence.
Regarding near record on Alpe. Top 20 is not company I would like to be in if I'm clean. Of course, word is that Froome said 38 minutes is possibility. But since that is slower than Pantani he is in the clear.

You presume too much, I say you need more data and that data needs to be put in context. One time efforts are entirely possible and without actual real data we can only make estimates and estimates are prone to error therefore we need more data to smooth out the error.

 

[filipo]

Not 100% sure, but the rider on the right looks like Froome to me

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/photos/2006/mar06/commgames06/index.php?id=men_rr/_DSC6496

This rider looks a big more like pre-Sky Froome to me...

 

[IzzyStradlin]

The question is, what do you do with those suspicions?

Uhhhh....write about them on the internet?

 

[vrusimov]

Probably because he coaches some athletes presently in the TdF that he believes to be clean, but by the standards of forums such as this one (or the Outside article) would be considered guilty of doping simply because of their level of performance.

Well lets just hope the athletes in question weren't the ones that had their hats handed to them last Saturday on AX3.

 

[roundabout]

Uran was looking really, really good at the Giro this year. (2013) Except he had to ride Wiggo in and lost a bunch of time on at least one stage doing so.

You may not remember Uran picking up 2nd place at the Olympic road race in London? Uran's glance back on the run-in to the finish where Vino attacks was memorable for so many reasons!

Let's see who ends up on the Vuelta squad.

God knows when I made that post. Hopefully pre-London, even if the medal came about due to being in the right move.

 

[biokemguy]

Scary

ITTP?

Maybe you mean ITPP? If so, it looks potent in mice.

If I understand the mechanism of action properly, it wouldn't trip the ABP since blood parameters don't change, it just makes O2 delivery more efficient.

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1926.long

It also appears to be short (within 24hrs of administration) acting, meaning it would have to be used during the race and is detectable for at least 24hrs in horses (no idea how that translates to humans).

The big question is, do they test for it?

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Probably because he coaches some athletes presently in the TdF that he believes to be clean, but by the standards of forums such as this one (or the Outside article) would be considered guilty of doping simply because of their level of performance.

Apparently he coaches Froome.

 

[vrusimov]

I am.

I believed Lance was lying and I believed that Lance doped. I also believed that Floyd and Tyler were lying, and that they doped.

I listened to *qualified* experts like Tyler Hamilton's lawyers, Allen Lim, PhD, Ed Coyle PhD and Arnie Baker, MD. I even read about drunken mice with high Testosterone levels.

I was right. All the experts were wrong.

I have an unblemished track record at identifying who is, or isn't doping than almost all the experts who have asserted an opinion on the matter.

Dave.

This reminds me of the ridiculous study by the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology citing the ineffectiveness of EPO as a performance enhancer, when we KNOW for a fact what it does for performances. A real step backward for sport science in my opinion.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

BTW, I agree that the Outside article has some questionable points. Mainly, I just don't think that under the right set of circumstances, 6.5 w/kg for 20:00 is impossible without doping. That said, it's nice that someone is at least asking the question because his performance relative to his competition is pretty unbelievable, particularly for a guy who wasn't exactly a world-beater in his early years.

While I find completely moronic is Allen's proclamation that "he's clean, get over it". That's right out of the Lance playbook. "don't ask questions, just trust us", alone with a visceral, angry tone directed at anyone who dares ask the question.

He doth protest a little too much.

The key point in the article is the comparision with performances by Grand Tour podium finishers in 2002-2007. It's weird that some of the same people who claim you couldn't get anywhere near the sharp end of the peloton in a mtn stage in the LA years shrug off Froome beating the dpvam by 2%.

Do you think 6.5 W/kg for 1h is plausible? That's awfully close to Ferrari's 6.7 W/kg at threshold (duration not specified but really unlikely he meant more than 1h). People used to throw around numbers like 10-15% improvement, but now the clean guys are just 3% behind the EPO-kings? Really?

 

[vrusimov]

The key point in the article is the comparision with performances by Grand Tour podium finishers in 2002-2007. It's weird that some of the same people who claim you couldn't get anywhere near the sharp end of the peloton in a mtn stage in the LA years shrug off Froome beating the dpvam by 2%.

Do you think 6.5 W/kg for 1h is plausible? That's awfully close to Ferrari's 6.7 W/kg at threshold (duration not specified but really unlikely he meant more than 1h). People used to throw around numbers like 10-15% improvement, but now the clean guys are just 3% behind the EPO-kings? Really?

Call it Brailsford's new Evolutionary training methods! It is funny that the standard for excellence in physiology comes from a man who had no compunction about pumping riders full of EPO and marveling at the achievements that followed.

A similar thing occurred in 2009, after Contador's 1800+ VAM ride up Verbier, which made even Riis' ascent to Hautacam in 96 look pedestrian. What did we hear? ... bedazzling tales of VO2, oxygen consumption, tailwinds, efficiency, possibility and plausibility. But in the end, it did not take a rocket scientist to figure Contador was juiced, just a careful examination of the doping record.

 

[sprenten]

Well I'm no fanatic if that is your insinuation. Call me a misanthropic, nihilistic cynic and we will call it a day. Most of us here have watched all the 6.5 - 7w/kg performances of Armstrong, Riis, Pantani, Ullrich and Indurain and they were not so long ago as everyone keeps attempting to remind us. Frankly I find this all rather funny. I guess Brailsford's placating pitch on human evolution's stupendous effects on future performances seeped into the consciousness of most and found a home. You still have not said who will challenge him. And if the challengers are all at or below baseline performances then how will YOU know that Froome is doped or not if he only follows wheels to Paris, which, as it stands currently, looks pretty prescient. In other words, who is going to push him to his limits? I would say no one in this tour my friend. These guys have been weighed, measured and filleted. I also find it fascinating that if you take Froome out of the tour, it all of a sudden becomes wide open and competitive!

Vayer gives Froome a 6.5 while others have him at 6.3 and 6.35 (I have seen one as low 6.22). Assuming there is error and there likely is, it is possible Froome is over 6.5 in the 6.7 range, but it is also only estimated by time, distance, and elevation, but not backed by true SRM data so in the same respects those 6.3 and 6.35 could be as low as 6.1-6.2 and that is a huge grey area (.5kg). If a 3 week grand tour can be won on a Cat 1 climb and a 33k TT then it can be won clean. I am looking for the guys who keep similar W/kg up Ventoux as they did the Bonascre to start flagging, then flag those up Le Alpe. If Froome was 6.5 up Bonascre he should be at best be 6.2 up Ventoux and anyone greater than 6.2 up Ventoux is likely doping. A more likely doping scenario has someone who was 5.8-5.9 up Bonascre going 6.0-6.1 up Ventoux an almost miraculous gain in fitness during a race at Stage 15 despite the lack of mountains.

 

[EnacheV]

"I have an unblemished track record at identifying who is, or isn't doping than almost all the experts who have asserted an opinion on the matter."

If you think 30 riders are doped and 3 are found ... 1+1

Under annonimity, on an internet forum, its easy to say "X is doped". Say that about 30, its sure some will be doped.

I bet all guys that accuse everyone (even the TT winner from yesterday, they dug up something ancient on him) here will keep their mounth shout in a real life situation.

I don;t see any of you having the guts to tell a BBC reporter, in an interview, 'X is doped". You live in a tent for a rest of your life when the lawyers finish with you

 

[thehog]

The key point in the article is the comparision with performances by Grand Tour podium finishers in 2002-2007. It's weird that some of the same people who claim you couldn't get anywhere near the sharp end of the peloton in a mtn stage in the LA years shrug off Froome beating the dpvam by 2%.

Do you think 6.5 W/kg for 1h is plausible? That's awfully close to Ferrari's 6.7 W/kg at threshold (duration not specified but really unlikely he meant more than 1h). People used to throw around numbers like 10-15% improvement, but now the clean guys are just 3% behind the EPO-kings? Really?

Correct me if I'm wrong but Ferrari's magic number is during training.

ie they'd test it on a one off climb. Therefore under race conditions Froome is probably at 6.7/.8 if he performed a one of climb outside of racing.

 

[Balabar]

ITTP?

Maybe you mean ITPP? If so, it looks potent in mice.

If I understand the mechanism of action properly, it wouldn't trip the ABP since blood parameters don't change, it just makes O2 delivery more efficient.

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1926.long

It also appears to be short (within 24hrs of administration) acting, meaning it would have to be used during the race and is detectable for at least 24hrs in horses (no idea how that translates to humans).

The big question is, do they test for it?

Probably not yet. That paper was published last month. It will take some time for a human method to be developed and cross-validated in the testing laboratories.

The plasma detection window (max 6 hours) is too short to be useful for anti-doping. The urine detection window (max at 1.5 hours, up to 24 hours) is better, but still pretty short.

If this drug is effective, and its use in horse racing suggests that it is, it would be undetectable by anti-doping labs at present, like EPO in the 90s.

 

[DirtyWorks]

If a 3 week grand tour can be won on a Cat 1 climb and a 33k TT then it can be won clean.

You forgot to add successfully defending 60+ KM of multiple coordinated attacks over mountains.

None of that is clean. Check those time gaps again. Froome's performance definitely qualifies as NOT NORMAL.

 

[BigBoat]

The key point in the article is the comparision with performances by Grand Tour podium finishers in 2002-2007. It's weird that some of the same people who claim you couldn't get anywhere near the sharp end of the peloton in a mtn stage in the LA years shrug off Froome beating the dpvam by 2%.

Do you think 6.5 W/kg for 1h is plausible? That's awfully close to Ferrari's 6.7 W/kg at threshold (duration not specified but really unlikely he meant more than 1h). People used to throw around numbers like 10-15% improvement, but now the clean guys are just 3% behind the EPO-kings? Really?

The Outside article was well done, especially the "simulated power" using SRM data from other riders (I THINK that's what they did.)

In my opinion I believe Hunter is lying if he did write what is posted here (I cant read the actual post from Allen as I'm not a member). I think he knows Froome is doped, and he is protecting his assets in some way. I think I remember Allen getting upset over the USADA investigation last year and saying he though it was a witch hunt (or something to that effect, again not a direct quote).

 

[sprenten]

This reminds me of the ridiculous study by the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology citing the ineffectiveness of EPO as a performance enhancer, when we KNOW for a fact what it does for performances. A real step backward for sport science in my opinion.

EPO as a performance enhancer requires effective training. I can give you EPO at sea level until your hematocrit is Riisque at 55-60% and you will not see any benefit, because I would have to keep pumping you the drugs and would have no way to stress the body to keep the residuals intact. This is one reason I am always skeptical about training camps at altitude which don't last 3-4 weeks in duration. Short duration camps at altitude are required to keep the EPO stimulation to doped levels else sleep in oxygen tents (alla LA).

 

[sprenten]

You forgot to add successfully defending 60+ KM of multiple coordinated attacks over mountains.

None of that is clean. Check those time gaps again. Froome's performance definitely qualifies as NOT NORMAL.

You mean the submaximal efforts over 4 Cat 1s on Stage 9? All of those ascents are slower than previous tours.