Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

There aren't many winners in this game, The Hitch.

Millar's a definite winner in the game.

He's got to profit from cheating, he's got to return to the sport, he's got to make money as a pundit, he's got British Cycling to overturn the rules on ex-dopers competing for the UK at the Olympics for him, and he's got to sit on the UCI's anti-doping commission because he has more knowledge of doping than a clean cyclist would.

He's still profiting from his doping today. He is the Bono of cycling - all the good that he does is instantly erased by the disingenuous nature of its being done: to make sure you know David Millar is a good guy. Not one of those nasty dopers like Vino who don't say sorry. Not one of those bad dopers who attack other riders when they see themselves in them like Ras or Frei. A good guy.

Other dopers who've come clean, like Sella or Manzano, haven't got TV deals and a place of favour with the UCI. Millar's still winning.

I'm almost 100% certain this is wrong. I think Dwain Chambers challenged the BOA through WADA as the rule contravened WADA's by-laws. David Millar said he wouldn't fight it but would ride if the decision went against the BOA and he was selected. Happy to be proven wrong but pretty sure that's how it went down.

 

[42x16ss]

Re:

Would like to see ITV ask David Millar about his doping history. Ask him to say with a straight face that he deliberately left EPO vials on his book shelf because he felt guilty about doping and wanted to get caught so he could confess.

Didn't go to turn himself in people who actually do feel guilty about commiting a crime and want to get caught do. No, he took the maverick way. Bully the accusers, refuse to cooperate, and even when caught hold out until the police make clear they have you by the balls.

Would love to see David Millar's face when confronted with his lies.

Ah yes, Millar's "trophies"

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

There aren't many winners in this game, The Hitch.

Millar's a definite winner in the game.

He's got to profit from cheating, he's got to return to the sport, he's got to make money as a pundit, he's got British Cycling to overturn the rules on ex-dopers competing for the UK at the Olympics for him, and he's got to sit on the UCI's anti-doping commission because he has more knowledge of doping than a clean cyclist would.

He's still profiting from his doping today. He is the Bono of cycling - all the good that he does is instantly erased by the disingenuous nature of its being done: to make sure you know David Millar is a good guy. Not one of those nasty dopers like Vino who don't say sorry. Not one of those bad dopers who attack other riders when they see themselves in them like Ras or Frei. A good guy.

Other dopers who've come clean, like Sella or Manzano, haven't got TV deals and a place of favour with the UCI. Millar's still winning.

This should be reposted every day in the Millar thread........


Not too many losers in the reasoned decision from where i am sitting. No fines, no loss of earnings ill gotten, no ban (winter holiday), team owners, grand fondos, tv commentators, GT wins............

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

There aren't many winners in this game, The Hitch.

Millar's a definite winner in the game.

He's got to profit from cheating, he's got to return to the sport, he's got to make money as a pundit, he's got British Cycling to overturn the rules on ex-dopers competing for the UK at the Olympics for him, and he's got to sit on the UCI's anti-doping commission because he has more knowledge of doping than a clean cyclist would.

He's still profiting from his doping today. He is the Bono of cycling - all the good that he does is instantly erased by the disingenuous nature of its being done: to make sure you know David Millar is a good guy. Not one of those nasty dopers like Vino who don't say sorry. Not one of those bad dopers who attack other riders when they see themselves in them like Ras or Frei. A good guy.

Other dopers who've come clean, like Sella or Manzano, haven't got TV deals and a place of favour with the UCI. Millar's still winning.

I'm almost 100% certain this is wrong. I think Dwain Chambers challenged the BOA through WADA as the rule contravened WADA's by-laws. David Millar said he wouldn't fight it but would ride if the decision went against the BOA and he was selected. Happy to be proven wrong but pretty sure that's how it went down.

The decision to go to CAS follows a war of words in recent days between the BOA’s chairman, Colin Moynihan, and WADA president, John Fahey, and comes a month after an expert in sports law had described the BOA’s bylaw as being “on shaky ground” after a CAS ruling in a separate case involving Olympic 400 metres champion LaShawn Merritt of the United States.

In that case, CAS held that Rule 45 of the International Olympic Committee’s Charter, which bans athletes who have served a doping ban of six months or more from competing at the next Games after returning from their ban, was invalid.

The grounds for that decision were that the rule placed athletes in a position of double jeopardy, that is being punished twice for the same offence, and also because the World Anti-doping Code (WADC) is deemed to be an integral part of the Olympic Charter, meaning that the rule was in conflict with the Charter itself.

Following that ruling, both Millar and another athlete banned from representing his country at the Olympics, the sprinter Dwain Chambers, said that they did not plan to challenge the BOA’s bylaw. Shot putter Carl Myerscough is also subject to the ban.

http://road.cc/content/news/47834-wada-legal-challenge-boas-lifetime-ban-david-millar-eligible-london-2012-if-its

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

There aren't many winners in this game, The Hitch.

Millar's a definite winner in the game.

He's got to profit from cheating, he's got to return to the sport, he's got to make money as a pundit, he's got British Cycling to overturn the rules on ex-dopers competing for the UK at the Olympics for him, and he's got to sit on the UCI's anti-doping commission because he has more knowledge of doping than a clean cyclist would.

He's still profiting from his doping today. He is the Bono of cycling - all the good that he does is instantly erased by the disingenuous nature of its being done: to make sure you know David Millar is a good guy. Not one of those nasty dopers like Vino who don't say sorry. Not one of those bad dopers who attack other riders when they see themselves in them like Ras or Frei. A good guy.

Other dopers who've come clean, like Sella or Manzano, haven't got TV deals and a place of favour with the UCI. Millar's still winning.

Don't forget the 5 figure salary he raked in to be an advisor on the Hollywood Armstrong film.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I think it's revolting that WADA, off their own bat entirely, decided to battle BOA to allow ex-dopers to compete at the olympics. I had not really even considered this before...

BOA chairman Colin Moynihan confirmed that the organisation had received a letter from WADA asking it to drop its bylaw and maintained that the country would "vigorously defend any challenge to the selection policy," reports the website, More Than The Games.

"It is a remarkable challenge from WADA in the absence of any challenge form a British athlete," commented Moynihan, after a unanimous decision by the BOA to request a hearing at CAS on the issue.

"We are responding to WADA, WADA clearly indicates that the BOA is not compatible with the WADA code, but we believe we have been compatible and that our selection policy remains robust.

''The Board agreed it will vigorously defend the interests of clean athletes by seeking a hearing before the CAS to bring clarity and closure to this issue."

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

There aren't many winners in this game, The Hitch.

Millar's a definite winner in the game.

He's got to profit from cheating, he's got to return to the sport, he's got to make money as a pundit, he's got British Cycling to overturn the rules on ex-dopers competing for the UK at the Olympics for him, and he's got to sit on the UCI's anti-doping commission because he has more knowledge of doping than a clean cyclist would.

He's still profiting from his doping today. He is the Bono of cycling - all the good that he does is instantly erased by the disingenuous nature of its being done: to make sure you know David Millar is a good guy. Not one of those nasty dopers like Vino who don't say sorry. Not one of those bad dopers who attack other riders when they see themselves in them like Ras or Frei. A good guy.

Other dopers who've come clean, like Sella or Manzano, haven't got TV deals and a place of favour with the UCI. Millar's still winning.

I'm almost 100% certain this is wrong. I think Dwain Chambers challenged the BOA through WADA as the rule contravened WADA's by-laws. David Millar said he wouldn't fight it but would ride if the decision went against the BOA and he was selected. Happy to be proven wrong but pretty sure that's how it went down.

The decision to go to CAS follows a war of words in recent days between the BOA’s chairman, Colin Moynihan, and WADA president, John Fahey, and comes a month after an expert in sports law had described the BOA’s bylaw as being “on shaky ground” after a CAS ruling in a separate case involving Olympic 400 metres champion LaShawn Merritt of the United States.

In that case, CAS held that Rule 45 of the International Olympic Committee’s Charter, which bans athletes who have served a doping ban of six months or more from competing at the next Games after returning from their ban, was invalid.

The grounds for that decision were that the rule placed athletes in a position of double jeopardy, that is being punished twice for the same offence, and also because the World Anti-doping Code (WADC) is deemed to be an integral part of the Olympic Charter, meaning that the rule was in conflict with the Charter itself.

Following that ruling, both Millar and another athlete banned from representing his country at the Olympics, the sprinter Dwain Chambers, said that they did not plan to challenge the BOA’s bylaw. Shot putter Carl Myerscough is also subject to the ban.

http://road.cc/content/news/47834-wada-legal-challenge-boas-lifetime-ban-david-millar-eligible-london-2012-if-its

Wonder why it came up with WADA then? John Fahey tipped off? Chambers and Millar mention it in interviews and WADA have to look at it?

 

[TMJ]

If Froome was so absolutely terrible pre-2011 then why did SKY sign him?

They must have seen some natural ability there, I mean Sir David B is no dummy is he?

Someone on here was claiming Teklehaimanot destroyed Froome in an African championship race. Well, why didn't SKY sign him then?

The point I am making is that SKY would not sign any old hack entitled to a British passport with the expectation their methods would turn them into champion.

Froome MUST have had something about him to catch their interest and invest so much time, effort and money into project Chris.

There is some natural ability there. It's just that very, very few of us are convinced that the capabilities shown in 2008 and 2009 with Barloworld are consistent with the capabilities shown after he seemingly entered the Konami code and enabled God mode in late August 2011.

As I have said, now dozens of times on this forum, I believe that Chris Froome had bilharzia and that it is, in whole or in part, responsible for his stagnation and regression from mid-2009 to mid-2011. I also do not believe that the talent that he showed (which suggested to me he could be a usable mountain domestique along the lines of maybe Egoi Martínez; Chris Anker Sørensen is the name I've typically used as an upper ceiling on what I thought he could be) explains the talent that he has shown since his transformation, and that owing to the lack of results preceding it his ascent to the pinnacle of the sport is far more ridiculous than Mosquera (who had top 10ed the 2-week Volta a Portugal and most of the Spanish week-long stage races before hitting 5th in a very conservatively-raced Vuelta) or Kohl (who had podiumed the Dauphiné and the Österreichrundfahrt). He belonged in the file with Santiago Pérez. The passport helped him get a Sky contract over similar moderately talented young climbers, but we cannot forget that coming into the 2011 Vuelta - a race he only started because a teammate got sick - he did not have a contract for 2012, and though Garmin and Lampre have said they were looking at him, he'd have been looking at WT minimum wage domestique salaries there. Given that, at that point, Sky's schtick about a British Tour winner in 5 years seemed uncertain as Wiggins was still a one-hit wonder who'd failed miserably in one attempt and crashed out of another attempt to duplicate his Tour success (this was before the Vuelta podium remember), you would think that if they had a British rider on the books who had the potential to match Lance Armstrong's best times and to do it clean, they wouldn't be on the verge of letting him go to a comparatively low budget team like Lampre for peanuts.

He wasn't even the most talented African climber on Barloworld in 2008. John-Lee Augustyn was.

Wow. I was not expecting such a detailed and well-informed reply.

I think my original point must have been inspired by ITV's repeat of their Chris Froome profile post-Le Tour 2013, which included attempts to explain his rise by Sir David B, journalist David Walsh and some Namibian rider called Craven.

His Commonwealth Games time-trial, in which the programme said he sat in the leader's seat for an hour, was portrayed as remarkable feat given his equipment, support etc. Anyone disagree with this?

 

[King Boonen]

If Froome was so absolutely terrible pre-2011 then why did SKY sign him?

They must have seen some natural ability there, I mean Sir David B is no dummy is he?

Someone on here was claiming Teklehaimanot destroyed Froome in an African championship race. Well, why didn't SKY sign him then?

The point I am making is that SKY would not sign any old hack entitled to a British passport with the expectation their methods would turn them into champion.

Froome MUST have had something about him to catch their interest and invest so much time, effort and money into project Chris.

There is some natural ability there. It's just that very, very few of us are convinced that the capabilities shown in 2008 and 2009 with Barloworld are consistent with the capabilities shown after he seemingly entered the Konami code and enabled God mode in late August 2011.

As I have said, now dozens of times on this forum, I believe that Chris Froome had bilharzia and that it is, in whole or in part, responsible for his stagnation and regression from mid-2009 to mid-2011. I also do not believe that the talent that he showed (which suggested to me he could be a usable mountain domestique along the lines of maybe Egoi Martínez; Chris Anker Sørensen is the name I've typically used as an upper ceiling on what I thought he could be) explains the talent that he has shown since his transformation, and that owing to the lack of results preceding it his ascent to the pinnacle of the sport is far more ridiculous than Mosquera (who had top 10ed the 2-week Volta a Portugal and most of the Spanish week-long stage races before hitting 5th in a very conservatively-raced Vuelta) or Kohl (who had podiumed the Dauphiné and the Österreichrundfahrt). He belonged in the file with Santiago Pérez. The passport helped him get a Sky contract over similar moderately talented young climbers, but we cannot forget that coming into the 2011 Vuelta - a race he only started because a teammate got sick - he did not have a contract for 2012, and though Garmin and Lampre have said they were looking at him, he'd have been looking at WT minimum wage domestique salaries there. Given that, at that point, Sky's schtick about a British Tour winner in 5 years seemed uncertain as Wiggins was still a one-hit wonder who'd failed miserably in one attempt and crashed out of another attempt to duplicate his Tour success (this was before the Vuelta podium remember), you would think that if they had a British rider on the books who had the potential to match Lance Armstrong's best times and to do it clean, they wouldn't be on the verge of letting him go to a comparatively low budget team like Lampre for peanuts.

He wasn't even the most talented African climber on Barloworld in 2008. John-Lee Augustyn was.

Wow. I was not expecting such a detailed and well-informed reply.

I think my original point must have been inspired by ITV's repeat of their Chris Froome profile post-Le Tour 2013, which included attempts to explain his rise by Sir David B, journalist David Walsh and some Namibian rider called Craven.

His Commonwealth Games time-trial, in which the programme said he sat in the leader's seat for an hour, was portrayed as remarkable feat given his equipment, support etc. Anyone disagree with this?

In 2010 he rode the time-trial for England. I'm guessing he was pretty well supported. How long he sat on the seat is really dependent on when he started too.

Edit: Apparently he rode in 2006 too, which one are we talking about?

 

[wendybnt]

Re:

There aren't many winners in this game, The Hitch.

By this, I meant people who could come out of it with their integrity intact. I wasn't talking about financial gain, although I agree with the sentiments expressed here on Miller entirely.

He did write possibly the most well-written book by a pro cyclist I've come across, but then he is a cut above the rest in terms of intelligence.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29u-H3xM5rE

Didnt know that about Jalabert. But he ofc shines a bright light on the anti doping front ... which is actually worth nothing. It´s all personal, hypocritically, and distracting.

But hey, some guys here like to make borderline jokes about piss thrown into a rider, prolong that for a good amount of spamming pages, instead of contributing to a valuable discussion... What a disgrace this place has become.

 

[gooner]

Re:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29u-H3xM5rE

Didnt know that about Jalabert. But he ofc shines a bright light on the anti doping front ... which is actually worth nothing. It´s all personal, hypocritically, and distracting.

But hey, some guys here like to make borderline jokes about piss thrown into a rider, prolong that for a good amount of spamming pages, instead of contributing to a valuable discussion... What a disgrace this place has become.

You can include that idiot Vayer as well.

Bringing this back up since it got lost in the discussion.

https://drmarkburnley.wordpress.com/2015/07/19/data-transparency-in-cycling-necessary-utopian-and-a-complete-can-of-worms/

Interested in views by people more in the know.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

Bringing this back up since it got lost in the discussion.

https://drmarkburnley.wordpress.com/2015/07/19/data-transparency-in-cycling-necessary-utopian-and-a-complete-can-of-worms/

Interested in views by people more in the know.

Armstrong’s transformation post-cancer was mind-blowing, whereas Froome’s ascent has been more incremental.

When a commenter called him on this, he said that it took Froome two years to become a GC contender. I really don’t know where he’s getting that from. It took him about two weeks.

contrast Boardman’s Tour performances with those of Wiggins – riders with very similar initial backgrounds but very different training approaches to the road.

I wish he’d elaborated on that. Anyone here want to comment on that? He’s implying that Wiggins became a Tour winner because he used different training methods.

Obviously, for a 70 kg rider to sustain 6.1 W/kg without drawing on the W¢, CP would need to be at least 430 W. I don’t think that is unreasonable, given previously documented hour record performances and the power outputs produced during them (Bassett et al., 1999).

Does he really think those hour records were done clean?

To sustain 430 W would require an oxygen uptake of approximately 5.3 L/min (O2 cost of ~10 mL/min/W, plus ~1 L/min for the O2 cost of spinning the legs at 90-100 rpm), which, if capable of utilising ~90% of VO2max, would predict a VO2max of 5.8 L/min or 84 mL/kg/min. This is high, but certainly not unheard of. Sustaining 85% of these figures would require a VO2max of 89 mL/kg/min. That is still not impossible. And this is all assuming a normal mechanical efficiency.

This is the problem. Is 23%--the value required for those V02max and utilization percentages—really normal? Coggan and some other researchers say it is, Tucker and others say it isn’t.

To know what’s possible would require direct power-duration measurements from Froome immediately before the Tour, as well as calibrated power data during each and every stage. It is likely that Sky possess both data sets. They most likely have a variety of physiological measures that could corroborate the power-duration data (i.e., the VO2max, efficiency and LT data would likely fit in the same general picture).

Alex says teams don't use those data much any more.

Froome’s consent would be needed to release these data, and even if that consent was given, where would the data be stored and how would access be gained? If Froome releases his, every rider in the Peloton should be obliged to release theirs, lest there be any accusations of unfair treatment. The teams are highly unlikely to want to do this for competitive reasons.

None of this applies, though, to data prior to 2011, which they refuse to release.

 

[gooner]

MI, thanks for the response.

 

[franic]

Re:

Following the Guardian's coverage of the Tour and another July event, the latest nasty turns of the Eurozone crisis, there's a hilarious discrepancy. With regard to the latter, the Guardian constantly runs rather critical, even leftfield, articles on the Eurozone crisis by economists and political scientists whom the powers that be would most likely want to call bone idle pseudoscientists. Then they go on printing Sky press releases about Sky at the same time. So in one context, doubting the received opinion and giving serious thought to alternative viewpoints is endorsed. In another, not so, go team GB.

I don’t read very often the Guardian, but regarding Economics you’d be amazed to know what Economic theory actually suggests. A hint: it’s not what Schauble likes...

 

[franic]

Re: Re:

Quite a takedown of Jalabert on ITV4 today. Good viewing.

That wouldn't be David Millar who only after 48 hours in a prison admitted his doping and even then only told them about the 3 vials they found. Hypocrites!

Given Jalabert's past EPO use...

Explain me something: if I’m found guilty of some financial violation (e.g. I am Bernard Madoff), would my suggestion be useful for authorities to tackle another financial crime?
What is deplorable in Jalabert’s affair is that he didn’t confirm his words, but having been a past EPO user is actually something that adds credibility (and competence) to his words.

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

Quite a takedown of Jalabert on ITV4 today. Good viewing.

That wouldn't be David Millar who only after 48 hours in a prison admitted his doping and even then only told them about the 3 vials they found. Hypocrites!

Given Jalabert's past EPO use...

Explain me something: if I’m found guilty of some financial violation (e.g. I am Bernard Madoff), would my suggestion be useful for authorities to tackle another financial crime?
What is deplorable in Jalabert’s affair is that he didn’t confirm his words, but having been a past EPO user is actually something that adds credibility (and competence) to his words.

Of course it does, but that goes against the narrative that certain people want to hear.

It's like Froome advocating the terms upon which that same narrative needs to be reported; that is if its all accolades then ok, but when it's criticism no, that's "irresponsible journalism."

Then we read that on Pierre Saint Martin he road up with a power-weight ratio of 7.04. Not credible. But wait we can't interpret the numbers without having all the data, Sir Dave says, such as Chris's actual weight? So Sir Dave, how much does Chris weigh? I have no idea. Well, isn't that rich! Sky takes up more space in the hotel parking lots then the rest of the teams combined, is all about maniacally accounting for all the details, spinach milkshakes and marginal gains, spends more money on high tech gadgets like the personalized 5 star hotel on wheels, but Sir Dave doesn't know how much his star rider weighs?! Not credible.

I still can't fathom, therefore, how after two decades of ex-dopers and investigative journalism telling us what any amateur cyclist in Italy or Belgium knows, folks still rely on the "where's the evidence?" mantra all over again. Since this isn't a court, but the public forum the accusations don't bear the same burdon of proof, but this doesn't make their veracity any less compelling.

But then there is of course the timely Tweet letting us know that we have been taken by "ignorant fools." Thanks for that one, otherwise we might have taken them seriously.

 

[wendybnt]

What we have here is an omerta era doper, caught by a retrospective test, but refusing to answer any questions about his proven doping then making accusatory statements about Chris Froome. People are suggesting that he has credibility because he doped and therefore has an insight. However, he isn't coming at this from that perspective at all. He hasn't admitted what has been caught doing.

Added to which, if he has such an amazing insight, why did he then totally and shamelessly lie about what he said?

Nah. Sorry. We aren't even in the same universe as when Armstrong attacked the credibility of Landis and the other accusers. They came clean over their own deeds, and then stuck by their words. Jalabert is a lying slug trying to piggyback off the furore.

I'm much more interested in rasmussen and what he has to say.

 

[rhubroma]

Re:

What we have here is an omerta era doper, caught by a retrospective test, but refusing to answer any questions about his proven doping then making accusatory statements about Chris Froome. People are suggesting that he has credibility because he doped and therefore has an insight. However, he isn't coming at this from that perspective at all. He hasn't admitted what has been caught doing.

Added to which, if he has such an amazing insight, why did he then totally and shamelessly lie about what he said?

Nah. Sorry. We aren't even in the same universe as when Armstrong attacked the credibility of Landis and the other accusers. They came clean over their own deeds, and then stuck by their words. Jalabert is a lying slug trying to piggyback off the furore.

I'm much more open to the views of people like Rasmussen who haven't got so much skin in the game.

More nonesense. Jalabert, because of his past, knows exactly when a performance is so incredible as to in fact not be credible. There isn't more to read into it than this. And that goes for the others as well. Indeed Rasmussen, the same Rasmussen that says he has no regrets about his doping? So this makes his view more credible than Jalabert's, who has refused to disclose any details because of a conflict of interests?

We are witnessing a perfect continuation of the Armstrong era, only under the aegis of the Union Jack and the same impact of big corp that this presupposes.

 

[hrotha]

Re: Re:

Indeed Rasmussen, the same Rasmussen that says he has no regrets about his doping? So this makes his view more credible than Jalabert's, who has refused to disclose any details because of a conflict of interests?

Obviously, yes.

Same with Landis, or Jaksche, vs the likes of Jalabert, or Hincapie, or Zabel.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Of course it does, but that goes against the narrative that certain people want to hear.

It's like Froome advocating the terms upon which that same narrative needs to be reported; that is if its all accolades then ok, but when it's criticism no, that's "irresponsible journalism."

Then we read that on Pierre Saint Martin he road up with a power-weight ratio of 7.04. Not credible. But wait we can't interpret the numbers without having all the data, Sir Dave says, such as Chris's actual weight? So Sir Dave, how much does Chris weigh? I have no idea. Well, isn't that rich! Sky takes up more space in the hotel parking lots then the rest of the teams combined, is all about maniacally accounting for all the details, spinach milkshakes and marginal gains, spends more money on high tech gadgets like the personalized 5 star hotel on wheels, but Sir Dave doesn't know how much his star rider weighs?! Not credible.

I still can't fathom, therefore, how after two decades of ex-dopers and investigative journalism telling us what any amateur cyclist in Italy or Belgium knows, folks still rely on the "where's the evidence?" mantra all over again. Since this isn't a court, but the public forum the accusations don't bear the same burdon of proof, but this doesn't make their veracity any less compelling.

But then there is of course the timely Tweet letting us know that we have been taken by "ignorant fools." Thanks for that one, otherwise we might have taken them seriously.

but there is this unspoken dialogue that is going on, much of The Clinic knows how you win, the riders know how you win, the management know how you win, even Walsh knows how you win, Frankie knows how you win, but when Walsh asked Frankie about Walsh recently it was "I just dont know" by Frankie. Well, I supposed the definition of "know" could be at question, but everyone knows.

and the schizophrenic dialogue with the public uttering the public bromides and motherhood statements wrt to anti-doping. They can talk the anti-doping shtick. but that is all it is. a little like Obama's rhetoric.

rhetoric and emperor's clothes. the fable of professional cycling.

it is ironic, that Ricco is the most truthful of the lot. not Landis, not Diluca, not Jaksche, they only came after they were busted. Ricco never stepped by the peloton's drum nor the anti-doping rhetoric. He would not offer the platitudes.

and the truth is not found in the testing and the science, the truth is in the social science and understanding the internal politics and the motivation and drive of the individual actors.

when Clinic singles out individuals, this is a fallacy. It is not a single member. It is a bunch of individuals who make up a dirty dirty peloton. Deductive reasoning makes it pretty simple when one of Ferrari's comprehensive doping programs will over 20% raise in some of the individual performance metrics, and all Olympic timed sports will be decided in a fraction of !% difference. Riders dont become pros by surrendering such an advantage, on the personality motive, and then other expedient justification that you just cant compete with disadvantages in the order of ~10%.

 

[Miburo]

Kennaugh bullying rasmussen and now this vid piece on jalabert. They want to deviate from the topic with this strategy.

Is this 7 w/kg legit? That's insane

 

[blackcat]

also, I put some of the risibility(portmanteau[sic]) to Alex Gibney. I want to see the first documentary of Lance's comeback. That is the real documentary, the truthful documentary. The second one that got a cinema release was Gibney's attempt at retrieving a professional credibility, but the first is more truthful in the meta pov of its actual untruth. cycling is untruth, and the first documentary was manifest cognitive dissonance. the re-cut film was an admission of shame.

 

[wendybnt]

Re: Re:

What we have here is an omerta era doper, caught by a retrospective test, but refusing to answer any questions about his proven doping then making accusatory statements about Chris Froome. People are suggesting that he has credibility because he doped and therefore has an insight. However, he isn't coming at this from that perspective at all. He hasn't admitted what has been caught doing.

Added to which, if he has such an amazing insight, why did he then totally and shamelessly lie about what he said?

Nah. Sorry. We aren't even in the same universe as when Armstrong attacked the credibility of Landis and the other accusers. They came clean over their own deeds, and then stuck by their words. Jalabert is a lying slug trying to piggyback off the furore.

I'm much more open to the views of people like Rasmussen who haven't got so much skin in the game.

We are witnessing a perfect continuation of the Armstrong era, only under the aegis of the Union Jack and the same impact of big corp that this presupposes.

On this we agree, although I think the continuation isn't quite 'perfect'. There are differences, not least the effect that the Armstrong debacle has on the narrative.

More nonesense. Jalabert, because of his past, knows exactly when a performance is so incredible as to in fact not be credible. There isn't more to read into it than this. And that goes for the others as well. Indeed Rasmussen, the same Rasmussen that says he has no regrets about his doping? So this makes his view more credible than Jalabert's, who has refused to disclose any details because of a conflict of interests?

Actually yes. And here is why. We are all assessing the credibility of opinions proferred, but there is a degree of confirmation bias going on here. Why give credibility to Jalabert's comments, on the basis that he is a doper and therefore knows, but discount the views of other dopers who aren't condemning, or are dismissing the accusations?

Which is why I'm not interested in Jalabert. It isn't even that he isn't prepared to back up what he said, it is that he is outright lying about what he said. It isn't comparative to Landis, and Armstrong's attack on his credibility because landis's accusation came after he had told the truth about his own cheating. Jalabert is no better than Miller, possibly worse because he's milking the furore then pussying out when asked about it by a foreign journalist in a foreign country. jalabert is on home soil at his home race.

Rasmussen's expressions of suspicion of Team Sky are much more interesting, and his lack of regret over his own doping is evidence of sincerity not evidence of a lack of it.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

What we have here is an omerta era doper, caught by a retrospective test, but refusing to answer any questions about his proven doping then making accusatory statements about Chris Froome. People are suggesting that he has credibility because he doped and therefore has an insight. However, he isn't coming at this from that perspective at all. He hasn't admitted what has been caught doing.

Added to which, if he has such an amazing insight, why did he then totally and shamelessly lie about what he said?

Nah. Sorry. We aren't even in the same universe as when Armstrong attacked the credibility of Landis and the other accusers. They came clean over their own deeds, and then stuck by their words. Jalabert is a lying slug trying to piggyback off the furore.

I'm much more open to the views of people like Rasmussen who haven't got so much skin in the game.

More nonesense. Jalabert, because of his past, knows exactly when a performance is so incredible as to in fact not be credible. There isn't more to read into it than this. And that goes for the others as well. Indeed Rasmussen, the same Rasmussen that says he has no regrets about his doping? So this makes his view more credible than Jalabert's, who has refused to disclose any details because of a conflict of interests?

We are witnessing a perfect continuation of the Armstrong era, only under the aegis of the Union Jack and the same impact of big corp that this presupposes.

Not necessarily.

It's obvious and accepted in most other sports such tennis, rugby, football and basketball, etc, that the majority of athletes nowadays are so much more athletic than those even 10 years ago, due to advancement in strength & conditioning, training methods and nutrition.

So what is possible now, would of only been a dream back in the 90's