Hi, I've been a long time viewer of the forums and especially the clinic, mainly due to the LA affair and following reading books from T Hamilton and D Walsh amongst others.
This is my first post, forgive me if I veer off topic but I want to provide a little context and brief background.. I am from the UK, a former sports journalist and now keen cyclist and although I followed the TDF many years ago (maybe around early 90s to early 00s), interest was renewed only after the sudden emergence of Team Sky, continued success of British Cycling and my own cycling.
I have been growing ever more suspicious of the above's success, not just because it has been a relatively new phenomenon in a sport the UK is not culturally and historically associated with as strongly as many other countries but also because of the build-up and planning to London 2012 and the expected returns (financially and emotionally) from all the investment.
This investment in an Olympics and a bizarre need for medals in kind has proven over and over to result in doping programs, most often, right from the very top. We in the UK love to point fingers at foreigners and find it much easier to believe that other nations don't play by the same rules as we upstanding plucky losers do, well the truth is very different. The UK is under the same and maybe even more pressure to succeed and are susceptible to all the temptations and short-cuts.
Sky/Wiggins
Wiggins was clearly a very talented bike rider. He then clearly wanted to become a legend and adapted his skills to the road and ultimately the TDF.
It would be naïve to think that transition could be done as quickly and successfully without pushing every boundary to the limit.
It has been accepted by almost everyone involved in pro cycling that to reach and remain at the top, or at least at a level considered to be successful during the last 20 years (in the evolved professional sporting world), riders HAD to enhance their natural ability with some or all the available doping products and methods.
This, I believe to be undeniable. If anyone reading this forum disagrees with that statement then I would urge you to look at the evidence, much of which is documented in this very place.
Is it realistic to then fly through and dominate the sport... BC on the track, now Sky on the road without breaking through those same boundaries, even with more scientific understanding, financial clout, cloak of respectability.
Stand up, Sir David of Brailsford.
Ok, enough waffle.
Froome.
I am British. I'm not particularly patriotic and believe in things on their own merit. Was I proud when Wiggins won the TDF and Olympics last year?
Not really. Why? Read further above.
Clearly obvious to me as an intelligent and balanced person (I hope) that to reach the top in any sport; you need an edge. Sometimes, the very best do have an obvious physical advantage.. the extra special technique and belief to take them to the top.
e.g. Federer. e.g. Woods (Now, I am not saying that these two have never taken PEDS. My gut says not but maybe but I do still believe the natural talent and desire of these two means they would dominate their sport with or without)
Cycling I think is different. Technique is important yes, but physical capability and endurance is massive and this is the area where doping has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to absolutely transform performance to the point of "don't bother turning up unless you are properly juiced".
People say, oh its cleaner now. Since when? Since when the next batch of undetectable PEDS came out?
Since when 1 or 2 teams made a genuine effort to be clean teams.
By the way, how are Garmin doing in this year's TDF?
I believe it is cleaner by 1 or 2 teams max. That's it. Look at the lessons of life, do old dogs learn new tricks? No! Only new shortcuts!
My educated guess is that 5-20 years ago, 95% of the TDF field were on dope, as recently as 3 years ago 90% of the TDF field were on dope.
Last year I believe that 85% of the field were doping.
This year I think that at least 80% of the field are doping.
Now, taking into account all the red flags about Froome -
- the 'convenient' bilzaria
- the rise from nowhere
- the drastically improved results
- issues with his build/health/riding style
Combine that with the reality of what has to be done to even compete at the top of the most iconic and important event in the sport -
- i.e. Doping is compulsory (Hey, even Lance finally said so)
Now, combine that with what we have seen from Froome this year -
- utterly dominant in the mountains
- another gear entirely to the best climbers
- still seems/acts well within himself - very likely even more available in the tank if required
- also a monster in the ITT - even massive dopers like Indurain weren't as dually 'gifted'. This is a huge red flag with his build.
In fact, the 4+ minute lead he has built could have been much, much larger if the team so wished. In fact, Sky's problems have probably kept the big lead down to a minimum. I think they will probably cruise it now, might lose a bit here and there but offset it on the ITT and Alpe.
They will stick to a script and try and keep it within the realms of believability (for the average sports fan and naïve/non-questioning types).
However, as far as I am concerned. The game is up.
1) Froome is very, very dirty - one of the most doped riders in the history of cycling.
2) Sky and BC are possibly the source of the dirt but at the very least are dirty by association.
I am actually ashamed to be British because this weird in-built thing of "oh we're british, so we must be clean" is quite clearly bull~hit, does not stack up when given the evidence and is quite frankly arrogant and ignorant.
I have a strange feeling that something big is going to happen before the end of this TDF.
I think someone in the race may make a stand. I don't think he will get popped but in my gut, I think there is a chance that the massively dominant Chris Froome may not win the 2013 TDF.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram