Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[elduggo]

Re: Re:

Nobody is clean. Period.

Sky's Vuelta team are so bad they're doing a decent job looking like they're clean.

If this year has shown anything its that Sky pay mere lip service to anyone who doesn't feature in July. Not that that's anything new. And it mirrors Lance's USPS setup with his 'inner-circle' and everyone else.

Sky are so good and meticulous in their training with their technology and their marginal gains that the one-time great white hope of British cycling, Petey Kennaugh, was flapping off the back of the lead group for ages til he popped, in yesterdays stage. Their whole team (bar CF) should have been ejected, along with many others, for missing a stage time cut by A LOT. They have been pathetic in this race. Whatever 'program' the July boys are on, the boys of September aren't seeing much of that.

I saw someone ask about Alex Peters on twitter this week. I had wondered the same. Bright young, emerging talent. Have they destroyed him too? What of Owain Doull next year, one wonders. They cut Roche loose, despite being in the form of his life. Despite his vast TdeF experience he was still overlooked, and it was eventually decided he was surplus to requirements. There's a back-story there that we don't know the half of.

But, this is all ok. Just like the excuses that get rolled out for the GB track team about how they need to peak every 4 years cos funding, etc, I'm sure Sky will claim its all about July. Just like US Postal did.

they dont "claim"

they say it, it is all about July for them, I thought you already understood that since 2012.

the best will go to the Tour. if they win the Tour they can afford to lose the Vuelta. I completely understand that. July is the goal

ok, except for the guys who don't ride in July, its not. Those guys do the same secret training (better and harder than how anyone else trains, because they are Sky. Marginal gains, etc ,etc), have the same access to the secret technology, yet are awful. And the disparity between the form of Froome and that of his teammates is enormous. Its almost like they stuck him on a team with a bunch of juniors.

Roche may have made a difference for Froome, sure, but on the other hand, he may not have been that bothered after how shabbily they treated him this year.

 

[bigcog]

Hi there

First post from a danish cycling fan. Great and interesting forum I must say.

I know much of what I am writing here has been covered in length already.

I don't mind doping as such, as long as it is a more or less level playing field. (The Tour of 07 with Rasmussen and Contador battling up each mountain was for me the most exciting race I can remember in recent years. Even though they most likely both were doped. Rasmussen was for sure anyway. The Schleck-Contador duels were also very good.)
In the best of all worlds, there weren't any doping, but this is unfortunately not realistic.

I dislike Froome as an athlete and will never accept or believe him and Team Sky in general in cycling. And all this newfound goodguy, applauding your opponents will not win me over, sorry.
I mean it is a good thing. Sportsmanship is always good to see. But it will not convince me.

-His major transformation pre/post Vuelta 2011. I haven't seen anything like that before. For me annoyingly suspicious.
-Looking like a skeleton or kz-prisoner Froome is able to outclimb the best climbers with relative ease while at the same time crushing the specialists in timetrials
-In this years Vuelta he can stay on pretty much the same level throughout the three weeks after having done the Tour and Olympics. And battle for the win. I find that very unlikely.
-The Mount Ventoux 2013 is to date the single most jaw-dropping ridiculous performance I have seen in cycling. Breaking in the corners... Please!
-Illness, Bilhazaria as an explanation to the sudden transformation
-I do not recall who said it or if it was even Sky. But it has been suggested, that the lack of multiple attacks/accelerations on mountain stages is a sign that cycling is cleaner yet Froome makes 5-6-7 savage accelerations when attacking up a mountain.
-He comes accross as tactically not very good. I would like to see him and Sky without the radios and Power-meters.
-'Sky and Froome have been tested more than most athletes' as a sign that they are clean. Lance was also tested much and Bjarne Riis never tested positive
-His style on a bicycle, sitting accelerations with legs going like drumsticks and elbows everywhere (not really relevant for the discussion, I know)
-They are riding just as fast as previously doped riders
-Wiggins' fantastic 2012 season followed by more or less nothing compared to that year.
-Team Sky's brutal dominance coinciding with the emergence of weight-loss drugs like AICAR and GW-1516 (and probably others). In that vein (haha) emaciated Horner wining the 2013 Vuelta at 41 of age.
-Their stated mission, to show, that you can compete with a clean team and their zero-tolerance politic compared to the staff they have had employed
-Their statement: 'We train better and pay more attention to detail than our competitors. And therefore receive marginal gains.' That is just arrogant and condescending towards the competitors in my opinion. As well as unlikely.
-Their continued insistance that 'we are oh so clean'
-First it was Wiggins, then Froome. Third Ritchie Porte, fourth Geraint Thomas. Next up Peter Kennaugh and Ian Boswell. Sky has an amazing ability to optimize performance of riders and turn classic riders into GC-competitors. With a very small rate of failure. They seem to follow a two-year scedule starting with a statement: 'I want to explore my GC-potential'.
-Their lieutenants and this year a large part of their Tour squad are stronger or just as strong as the other teams captains in the mountains. Completely kills any exciting racing.
-The complete lack of positive doping tests in recent years are for me very very suspicious.

I am looking forward to knowing what they are doing, that are making them so succesful. But it will probably be a while before we know.

Until then I will cheer for the likes of Contador, Quintana, Chaves, Nibali etc. who are probably also doping, but are not talking much about it, just riding their bike.
They are, at least for me, much more likable.

Best regards

Nice diatribe ... btw one of your heroes who is more likeable is a convicted doper but anyway ..

 

[thehog]

Hi there

First post from a danish cycling fan. Great and interesting forum I must say.

I know much of what I am writing here has been covered in length already.

I don't mind doping as such, as long as it is a more or less level playing field. (The Tour of 07 with Rasmussen and Contador battling up each mountain was for me the most exciting race I can remember in recent years. Even though they most likely both were doped. Rasmussen was for sure anyway. The Schleck-Contador duels were also very good.)
In the best of all worlds, there weren't any doping, but this is unfortunately not realistic.

I dislike Froome as an athlete and will never accept or believe him and Team Sky in general in cycling. And all this newfound goodguy, applauding your opponents will not win me over, sorry.
I mean it is a good thing. Sportsmanship is always good to see. But it will not convince me.

-His major transformation pre/post Vuelta 2011. I haven't seen anything like that before. For me annoyingly suspicious.
-Looking like a skeleton or kz-prisoner Froome is able to outclimb the best climbers with relative ease while at the same time crushing the specialists in timetrials
-In this years Vuelta he can stay on pretty much the same level throughout the three weeks after having done the Tour and Olympics. And battle for the win. I find that very unlikely.
-The Mount Ventoux 2013 is to date the single most jaw-dropping ridiculous performance I have seen in cycling. Breaking in the corners... Please!
-Illness, Bilhazaria as an explanation to the sudden transformation
-I do not recall who said it or if it was even Sky. But it has been suggested, that the lack of multiple attacks/accelerations on mountain stages is a sign that cycling is cleaner yet Froome makes 5-6-7 savage accelerations when attacking up a mountain.
-He comes accross as tactically not very good. I would like to see him and Sky without the radios and Power-meters.
-'Sky and Froome have been tested more than most athletes' as a sign that they are clean. Lance was also tested much and Bjarne Riis never tested positive
-His style on a bicycle, sitting accelerations with legs going like drumsticks and elbows everywhere (not really relevant for the discussion, I know)
-They are riding just as fast as previously doped riders
-Wiggins' fantastic 2012 season followed by more or less nothing compared to that year.
-Team Sky's brutal dominance coinciding with the emergence of weight-loss drugs like AICAR and GW-1516 (and probably others). In that vein (haha) emaciated Horner wining the 2013 Vuelta at 41 of age.
-Their stated mission, to show, that you can compete with a clean team and their zero-tolerance politic compared to the staff they have had employed
-Their statement: 'We train better and pay more attention to detail than our competitors. And therefore receive marginal gains.' That is just arrogant and condescending towards the competitors in my opinion. As well as unlikely.
-Their continued insistance that 'we are oh so clean'
-First it was Wiggins, then Froome. Third Ritchie Porte, fourth Geraint Thomas. Next up Peter Kennaugh and Ian Boswell. Sky has an amazing ability to optimize performance of riders and turn classic riders into GC-competitors. With a very small rate of failure. They seem to follow a two-year scedule starting with a statement: 'I want to explore my GC-potential'.
-Their lieutenants and this year a large part of their Tour squad are stronger or just as strong as the other teams captains in the mountains. Completely kills any exciting racing.
-The complete lack of positive doping tests in recent years are for me very very suspicious.

I am looking forward to knowing what they are doing, that are making them so succesful. But it will probably be a while before we know.

Until then I will cheer for the likes of Contador, Quintana, Chaves, Nibali etc. who are probably also doping, but are not talking much about it, just riding their bike.
They are, at least for me, much more likable.

Best regards

Nice diatribe ... btw one of your heroes who is more likeable is a convicted doper but anyway ..

That's actually not true. A "conviction" pertains to criminal guilt not one of a sporting sanction. That is mearly a suspension.

We've been here before where you've used words which are used in criminal proceedings and not sporting sanctions. It's like you're trying to overplay the context. Keep it simple, it is much better.

The post was a good summary of the events of Frome & Sky. Perhaps focus on the content and not using incorrect terminology in your replies.

 

[silvergrenade]

Re: Re:

Nobody is clean. Period.

Sky's Vuelta team are so bad they're doing a decent job looking like they're clean.

If this year has shown anything its that Sky pay mere lip service to anyone who doesn't feature in July. Not that that's anything new. And it mirrors Lance's USPS setup with his 'inner-circle' and everyone else.

Sky are so good and meticulous in their training with their technology and their marginal gains that the one-time great white hope of British cycling, Petey Kennaugh, was flapping off the back of the lead group for ages til he popped, in yesterdays stage. Their whole team (bar CF) should have been ejected, along with many others, for missing a stage time cut by A LOT. They have been pathetic in this race. Whatever 'program' the July boys are on, the boys of September aren't seeing much of that.

I saw someone ask about Alex Peters on twitter this week. I had wondered the same. Bright young, emerging talent. Have they destroyed him too? What of Owain Doull next year, one wonders. They cut Roche loose, despite being in the form of his life. Despite his vast TdeF experience he was still overlooked, and it was eventually decided he was surplus to requirements. There's a back-story there that we don't know the half of.

But, this is all ok. Just like the excuses that get rolled out for the GB track team about how they need to peak every 4 years cos funding, etc, I'm sure Sky will claim its all about July. Just like US Postal did.

This post is so wrong in a lot of different ways.
Check this out: Interview of Sean Yates. http://velonews.competitor.com/2016/07/tour-de-france/power-in-numbers-keeps-froome-in-yellow_415621

The Meat:
VN: Even you think it’s boring?
SY: It is boring compared to other races, like the Giro or Vuelta, where there is a lot less at stake. Teams don’t bring their A-team [to Giro or Vuelta], because the A-teams need to be at the Tour. That’s what really matters, is the Tour. So Sky brings the A-team to the Tour. What can you do?

For every team, every DS, every owner, its the Tour that matters.
For a guy like Froome to even do the Vuelta is something special. Froome will be back next year with an amazing team for both these Tours. If Sky have learned one thing from this Vuelta is that the "Double" is doable.

And the team not being good has several reasons. Benat Inxuasti, Nico Roche, Landa all being sick. Kwiato looked strong. At Sky, it is not just about the Tour. Sure, thats their no. 1 goal but they have other objectives as well. They won a monument, came second at another. Landa was strong at the Giro before he pulled out.

Sky is nowhere near what Lance's team was, and even if it was, who are we to question?

That tells us so much. So much.

I think I wrote it wrongly that last sentence. I meant, that if Sky wants to just win the TdF and not care about anything else, we shoudn't be anybody to question. If Chris Froome decides to ride ride just the Tour, win it, probably do some non WT races, its upto him. His program is his own.

Your arguments are welcome. :razz:

 

[pastronef]

Hi there

First post from a danish cycling fan. Great and interesting forum I must say.

I know much of what I am writing here has been covered in length already.

I don't mind doping as such, as long as it is a more or less level playing field. (The Tour of 07 with Rasmussen and Contador battling up each mountain was for me the most exciting race I can remember in recent years. Even though they most likely both were doped. Rasmussen was for sure anyway. The Schleck-Contador duels were also very good.)
In the best of all worlds, there weren't any doping, but this is unfortunately not realistic.

I dislike Froome as an athlete and will never accept or believe him and Team Sky in general in cycling. And all this newfound goodguy, applauding your opponents will not win me over, sorry.
I mean it is a good thing. Sportsmanship is always good to see. But it will not convince me.

-His major transformation pre/post Vuelta 2011. I haven't seen anything like that before. For me annoyingly suspicious.
-Looking like a skeleton or kz-prisoner Froome is able to outclimb the best climbers with relative ease while at the same time crushing the specialists in timetrials
-In this years Vuelta he can stay on pretty much the same level throughout the three weeks after having done the Tour and Olympics. And battle for the win. I find that very unlikely.
-The Mount Ventoux 2013 is to date the single most jaw-dropping ridiculous performance I have seen in cycling. Breaking in the corners... Please!
-Illness, Bilhazaria as an explanation to the sudden transformation
-I do not recall who said it or if it was even Sky. But it has been suggested, that the lack of multiple attacks/accelerations on mountain stages is a sign that cycling is cleaner yet Froome makes 5-6-7 savage accelerations when attacking up a mountain.
-He comes accross as tactically not very good. I would like to see him and Sky without the radios and Power-meters.
-'Sky and Froome have been tested more than most athletes' as a sign that they are clean. Lance was also tested much and Bjarne Riis never tested positive
-His style on a bicycle, sitting accelerations with legs going like drumsticks and elbows everywhere (not really relevant for the discussion, I know)
-They are riding just as fast as previously doped riders
-Wiggins' fantastic 2012 season followed by more or less nothing compared to that year.
-Team Sky's brutal dominance coinciding with the emergence of weight-loss drugs like AICAR and GW-1516 (and probably others). In that vein (haha) emaciated Horner wining the 2013 Vuelta at 41 of age.
-Their stated mission, to show, that you can compete with a clean team and their zero-tolerance politic compared to the staff they have had employed
-Their statement: 'We train better and pay more attention to detail than our competitors. And therefore receive marginal gains.' That is just arrogant and condescending towards the competitors in my opinion. As well as unlikely.
-Their continued insistance that 'we are oh so clean'
-First it was Wiggins, then Froome. Third Ritchie Porte, fourth Geraint Thomas. Next up Peter Kennaugh and Ian Boswell. Sky has an amazing ability to optimize performance of riders and turn classic riders into GC-competitors. With a very small rate of failure. They seem to follow a two-year scedule starting with a statement: 'I want to explore my GC-potential'.
-Their lieutenants and this year a large part of their Tour squad are stronger or just as strong as the other teams captains in the mountains. Completely kills any exciting racing.
-The complete lack of positive doping tests in recent years are for me very very suspicious.

I am looking forward to knowing what they are doing, that are making them so succesful. But it will probably be a while before we know.

Until then I will cheer for the likes of Contador, Quintana, Chaves, Nibali etc. who are probably also doping, but are not talking much about it, just riding their bike.
They are, at least for me, much more likable.

Best regards

Nice diatribe ... btw one of your heroes who is more likeable is a convicted doper but anyway ..

yes, and he says he does not mind doping, then says he doesnt believe Froome?

why does he have to believe?

they are, as he says, just riding their bikes.
so watch them riding, as I do, and notjing else.

 

[MmeDesgrange]

I see Froome will ride the 2017 Centenary Giro if the course takes his fancy = design a course I can win on please, RCS

Sir Dave will be doing his pieces - the Double is a poisoned chalice even his overweening ambition won't touch

 

[42x16ss]

Hi there

First post from a danish cycling fan. Great and interesting forum I must say.

I know much of what I am writing here has been covered in length already.

I don't mind doping as such, as long as it is a more or less level playing field. (The Tour of 07 with Rasmussen and Contador battling up each mountain was for me the most exciting race I can remember in recent years. Even though they most likely both were doped. Rasmussen was for sure anyway. The Schleck-Contador duels were also very good.)
In the best of all worlds, there weren't any doping, but this is unfortunately not realistic.

I dislike Froome as an athlete and will never accept or believe him and Team Sky in general in cycling. And all this newfound goodguy, applauding your opponents will not win me over, sorry.
I mean it is a good thing. Sportsmanship is always good to see. But it will not convince me.

-His major transformation pre/post Vuelta 2011. I haven't seen anything like that before. For me annoyingly suspicious.
-Looking like a skeleton or kz-prisoner Froome is able to outclimb the best climbers with relative ease while at the same time crushing the specialists in timetrials
-In this years Vuelta he can stay on pretty much the same level throughout the three weeks after having done the Tour and Olympics. And battle for the win. I find that very unlikely.
-The Mount Ventoux 2013 is to date the single most jaw-dropping ridiculous performance I have seen in cycling. Breaking in the corners... Please!
-Illness, Bilhazaria as an explanation to the sudden transformation
-I do not recall who said it or if it was even Sky. But it has been suggested, that the lack of multiple attacks/accelerations on mountain stages is a sign that cycling is cleaner yet Froome makes 5-6-7 savage accelerations when attacking up a mountain.
-He comes accross as tactically not very good. I would like to see him and Sky without the radios and Power-meters.
-'Sky and Froome have been tested more than most athletes' as a sign that they are clean. Lance was also tested much and Bjarne Riis never tested positive
-His style on a bicycle, sitting accelerations with legs going like drumsticks and elbows everywhere (not really relevant for the discussion, I know)
-They are riding just as fast as previously doped riders
-Wiggins' fantastic 2012 season followed by more or less nothing compared to that year.
-Team Sky's brutal dominance coinciding with the emergence of weight-loss drugs like AICAR and GW-1516 (and probably others). In that vein (haha) emaciated Horner wining the 2013 Vuelta at 41 of age.
-Their stated mission, to show, that you can compete with a clean team and their zero-tolerance politic compared to the staff they have had employed
-Their statement: 'We train better and pay more attention to detail than our competitors. And therefore receive marginal gains.' That is just arrogant and condescending towards the competitors in my opinion. As well as unlikely.
-Their continued insistance that 'we are oh so clean'
-First it was Wiggins, then Froome. Third Ritchie Porte, fourth Geraint Thomas. Next up Peter Kennaugh and Ian Boswell. Sky has an amazing ability to optimize performance of riders and turn classic riders into GC-competitors. With a very small rate of failure. They seem to follow a two-year scedule starting with a statement: 'I want to explore my GC-potential'.
-Their lieutenants and this year a large part of their Tour squad are stronger or just as strong as the other teams captains in the mountains. Completely kills any exciting racing.
-The complete lack of positive doping tests in recent years are for me very very suspicious.

I am looking forward to knowing what they are doing, that are making them so succesful. But it will probably be a while before we know.

Until then I will cheer for the likes of Contador, Quintana, Chaves, Nibali etc. who are probably also doping, but are not talking much about it, just riding their bike.
They are, at least for me, much more likable.

Best regards

Nice diatribe ... btw one of your heroes who is more likeable is a convicted doper but anyway ..

yes, and he says he does not mind doping, then says he doesnt believe Froome?

why does he have to believe?

they are, as he says, just riding their bikes.
so watch them riding, as I do, and notjing else.

Reread the post - he says he likes riders who get on with the job, don't insult anyone's intelligence and don't get all holier-than-thou.

 

[sniper]

...
-Their stated mission, to show, that you can compete with a clean team and their zero-tolerance politic compared to the staff they have had employed...
...

Hi there.
All true points.

As to the bolded: Recall that in 2008-ish Brailsford said "We know what it takes to win the Tour de France".
It's one of the truest things he's ever said.

 

[Amnes2015]

Re: Re:

back to the time trial - even Ned Boulting remarked that on taking his helmet off - Froomes hair was completely dry. How is that possible ? there is no way in that heat and after that TT your hair can be bone dry.

new marginal gain

air conditioning in helmet :surprised:

well you wouldnt sweat if you are riding a doped bike - not much effort needed.

in that case i'm very dissapointed that he didn't ride his moto bike next stage to, why so shy?

or maybe he used the moto bike but Quintana had a moto bike also ?

mysteries mysteries

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

back to the time trial - even Ned Boulting remarked that on taking his helmet off - Froomes hair was completely dry. How is that possible ? there is no way in that heat and after that TT your hair can be bone dry.

new marginal gain

air conditioning in helmet :surprised:

well you wouldnt sweat if you are riding a doped bike - not much effort needed.

in that case i'm very dissapointed that he didn't ride his moto bike next stage to, why so shy?

or maybe he used the moto bike but Quintana had a moto bike also ?

mysteries mysteries

same here
I wonder how did Kerrison mis-timed the battery charge for stage 15 and for the Aitana stage
or maybe they forgot to charge the 2nd motor and they were both low battery
big mistake from Sky
next time remember to charge it, or if you havent a 2nd one, bring it to the race!

 

[DanielSong39]

Alien Froome was only present for the time trial. In the mountains, I've been used to seeing him pull off those seated 1000+ watt accelerations while spinning at 120+ rpm, while the bike stayed perfectly still. But in this year's Vuelta, he was getting out of his saddle and rocking the bike back and forth, while only producing 600 watt accelerations and pedaling at only 100 rpm.

What happened?

 

[ahsoe]

...

Nice diatribe ... btw one of your heroes who is more likeable is a convicted doper but anyway ..

It was not meant that way. I realize, that some of my phrasings perhaps were a bit harsh. I apologise if it has offended you or anybody else. It certainly wasn't the intention.

As I wrote, I am not fond of Froome as an athlete. For the listed reasons in my previous post.
Considering the story/narrative, setup and result of Froome and Sky as well as looking at the history of cycling it just does not add up for me.

I realize Froome or Sky hasn't had any positive doping samples which incriminated them to a point where they could not and were not allowed to come up with a plausible explanation (Tiernan-Locke, Sergio Henao). But for me personally the reasons listed in my previous post, while keeping in mind US Postal and before that the nineties with vast EPO-abuse is enough to put me off. If something is too good to be true, it probably isn't.

I would probably be more forthcoming towards Sky, if it wasn't for the fact that they want us to believe, that their total domination of at least the Tour in recent years was done clean, while keeping in mind that they in the process beats riders such as Contador and Valverde who, as we know, have both served suspensions (They might of course be clean now, but I doubt it).
Riders like Contador and Valverde, Nibali or Quintana might dope, but at least they just get on with the cycling. Of course asked directly they will deny any accusations, but they do not come up with excuses like marginal gains, training better etc. (Edit: I realize the steak-excuse does not help my argumentation :razz: )

Moreover, for me, their total domination and lack of any competition in the Tour kills the excitement of the race. As I wrote, I don't mind doping as long as it a more or less level playing field, and currently with Froome and Sky it is far from that for the person looking in from the outside. And that ruins the experience for me.

I hope this clarifies my position.

Best regards

 

[ahsoe]

...

Nice diatribe ... btw one of your heroes who is more likeable is a convicted doper but anyway ..

yes, and he says he does not mind doping, then says he doesnt believe Froome?

why does he have to believe?

they are, as he says, just riding their bikes.
so watch them riding, as I do, and notjing else.

Well the thing is, their total domination and thereby lack of competition kills the excitement for me.
And the extremely high levels of performance from Froome and Sky coupled with their insistance on being clean just gets to me. It is, from my point of view not a level playing field.

And as anybody else, I don't like to be taking for more thick-headed, than I actually am.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Reread the post - he says he likes riders who get on with the job, don't insult anyone's intelligence and don't get all holier-than-thou.

Contador and his tainted jerseys displayed in his foundation as a symbol of his hard work says hello.....

It’s striking how emphatically he responds when asked if he still believes he has won nine Grand Tours rather than the adjusted figure of seven. “Si, si,” he exclaims. “Without doubt I’ve won nine. Look at the jersey of the Tour 2010 and the Giro 2011,” Contador says, pointing to the framed mementoes on the wall in his Foundation office. “I won both those races in a clean and honest way. Only with work and sacrifice. I put those up as an example.”

alberto contador
“With the system of anti-doping control we now have and the quantity of those tests for the top riders it is impossible to cheat. If you do it’s like a suicide. I’ve no doubt this is why it’s clean at the very highest level.”

Pretty solid evidence that Contador can be as strident and self-righteous about doping as any of the other dopers in the peloton.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/nov/16/alberto-contador-tour-de-france-olympics-end-interview?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

[thehog]

Considering the CIRC were critical of the method that Contador was found positive and that all riders weren't subject to the same lab, he hardly is a hardened doper.

Bear in mind he was found with 50 pictograms of clenbuterol, whereas Froome had his TUE for 40mg of Prednisone.

That's a massive performance enhancer for Froome and not much for Contador.

Notwithstanding the peculiarity of the case due to the very low level of clenbuterol found
in the rider’s body and the fact that Alberto Contador was the winner of the 2010 Tour,
the CIRC is of the opinion that the same rules and procedures should have applied to
Alberto Contador as to all riders irrespective of his ranking and status.

The CIRC again expresses concern over the different testing capacities of the laboratories,
as this results in unequal treatment. The Cologne laboratory was at that time, the only
laboratory capable of detecting the minuscule thresholds of clenbuterol in Alberto
Contador’s sample.

The Commission regrets again the violation of the duty of professional secrecy when the
positive test was leaked to the press. This is yet another example that has been brought
to the CIRC’s attention and such cases should be seriously investigated in order to respect
the athlete’s right to privacy as well as his/her rights for due process.

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/16/87/99/CIRCReport2015_Neutral.pdf

 

[silvergrenade]

Reread the post - he says he likes riders who get on with the job, don't insult anyone's intelligence and don't get all holier-than-thou.

Contador and his tainted jerseys displayed in his foundation as a symbol of his hard work says hello.....

It’s striking how emphatically he responds when asked if he still believes he has won nine Grand Tours rather than the adjusted figure of seven. “Si, si,” he exclaims. “Without doubt I’ve won nine. Look at the jersey of the Tour 2010 and the Giro 2011,” Contador says, pointing to the framed mementoes on the wall in his Foundation office. “I won both those races in a clean and honest way. Only with work and sacrifice. I put those up as an example.”

alberto contador
“With the system of anti-doping control we now have and the quantity of those tests for the top riders it is impossible to cheat. If you do it’s like a suicide. I’ve no doubt this is why it’s clean at the very highest level.”

Pretty solid evidence that Contador can be as strident and self-righteous about doping as any of the other dopers in the peloton.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/nov/16/alberto-contador-tour-de-france-olympics-end-interview?CMP=share_btn_tw

Nice post this.
And not just Contador, but Valverde also openly claims that whatever he has achieved he's achieved clean.

 

[silvergrenade]

Considering the CIRC were critical of the method that Contador was found positive and that all riders weren't subject to the same lab, he hardly is a hardened doper.

Bear in mind he was found with 50 pictograms of clenbuterol, whereas Froome had his TUE for 40mg of Prednisone.

That's a massive performance enhancer for Froome and not much for Contador.

Notwithstanding the peculiarity of the case due to the very low level of clenbuterol found
in the rider’s body and the fact that Alberto Contador was the winner of the 2010 Tour,
the CIRC is of the opinion that the same rules and procedures should have applied to
Alberto Contador as to all riders irrespective of his ranking and status.

The CIRC again expresses concern over the different testing capacities of the laboratories,
as this results in unequal treatment. The Cologne laboratory was at that time, the only
laboratory capable of detecting the minuscule thresholds of clenbuterol in Alberto
Contador’s sample.

The Commission regrets again the violation of the duty of professional secrecy when the
positive test was leaked to the press. This is yet another example that has been brought
to the CIRC’s attention and such cases should be seriously investigated in order to respect
the athlete’s right to privacy as well as his/her rights for due process.

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/16/87/99/CIRCReport2015_Neutral.pdf

Cheating is cheating. Theres no measure to it.
Also, these numbers tell us nothing. Maybe Contador consumed 200 mg of clenbuterol and Froome just used 1 mg of Prednisone.
Do we have a public list of what riders have asked for a TUE, during or outside of competition?
I'd like to know the TUEs Contador has applied for during his career. And not just Contador, every rider.

Edit: Interesting to see that in the Contador Era i.e 2009 TUEs given out were 239; in 2010 there we 97 and in 2015 just 15. Go figure...

 

[thehog]

Considering the CIRC were critical of the method that Contador was found positive and that all riders weren't subject to the same lab, he hardly is a hardened doper.

Bear in mind he was found with 50 pictograms of clenbuterol, whereas Froome had his TUE for 40mg of Prednisone.

That's a massive performance enhancer for Froome and not much for Contador.

Notwithstanding the peculiarity of the case due to the very low level of clenbuterol found
in the rider’s body and the fact that Alberto Contador was the winner of the 2010 Tour,
the CIRC is of the opinion that the same rules and procedures should have applied to
Alberto Contador as to all riders irrespective of his ranking and status.

The CIRC again expresses concern over the different testing capacities of the laboratories,
as this results in unequal treatment. The Cologne laboratory was at that time, the only
laboratory capable of detecting the minuscule thresholds of clenbuterol in Alberto
Contador’s sample.

The Commission regrets again the violation of the duty of professional secrecy when the
positive test was leaked to the press. This is yet another example that has been brought
to the CIRC’s attention and such cases should be seriously investigated in order to respect
the athlete’s right to privacy as well as his/her rights for due process.

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/16/87/99/CIRCReport2015_Neutral.pdf

Cheating is cheating. Theres no measure to it.
Also, these numbers tell us nothing. Maybe Contador consumed 200 mg of clenbuterol and Froome just used 1 mg of Prednisone.
Do we have a public list of what riders have asked for a TUE, during or outside of competition?
I'd like to know the TUEs Contador has applied for during his career. And not just Contador, every rider.

Edit: Interesting to see that in the Contador Era i.e 2009 TUEs given out were 239; in 2010 there we 97 and in 2015 just 15. Go figure...

True, maybe Froome took more than 40mg but because he knew he had a TUE took more as he wouldn't test positive. Maybe Contador did ingest it through a steak and should not have been suspended.

As to the number of TUEs given in our in the "Contador era", it should be noted he was suspended for 2 of those years and it transects with the "Sky era", perhaps this is a Sky lead increase in TUEs?

Food for thought, yes?

 

[DanielSong39]

I also think the apparent moto-doping is another reason why there is such a backlash against Sky and Froome. It's one thing to see doped-up cyclists drop each other with insane attacks; it's another to see a dude use a motorbike to cruise through the course. Fans seem to enjoy the former but not so much the latter.

Trust me, Cancellara received more than his share of criticism when he used a motorbike to ride through Paris-Roubaix and Tour of Flanders in 2010.

 

[jilbiker]

"In this years Vuelta he can stay on pretty much the same level throughout the three weeks after having done the Tour and Olympics. And battle for the win. I find that very unlikely."

How can anyone say that this is naturally possible??? UCI and WADA should really be embarrassed. Do you know how exhausting TDF is? and then Froome was riding strong on the last MTF of Vuelta, there was no decrease in strength from the first day of Vuelta. I have said we should scrap all this testing thing its irrelevant.We need a Reasoned Decision. Biological Passport is a joke. The basic human physiological mathematics does not add up. No decrease in performance at all. And he got away with it?? Thats is why he is talking about doing all 3 Tours next year. I think we have stepped back worse than the Armstrong era. We now have the Froome era and until we move past it, its sad. I am not sure if its something new, it does not seems like micro-d, either full BB or something very new. Coupled with a powerhouse team, its almost unbeatable. At least Armstrong left Giro and Vuelta to the gruppo. Perhaps greed will be the undoing that will trigger a Landis.

 

[jilbiker]

Hi there

First post from a danish cycling fan. Great and interesting forum I must say.

I know much of what I am writing here has been covered in length already.

I don't mind doping as such, as long as it is a more or less level playing field. (The Tour of 07 with Rasmussen and Contador battling up each mountain was for me the most exciting race I can remember in recent years. Even though they most likely both were doped. Rasmussen was for sure anyway. The Schleck-Contador duels were also very good.)
In the best of all worlds, there weren't any doping, but this is unfortunately not realistic.

I dislike Froome as an athlete and will never accept or believe him and Team Sky in general in cycling. And all this newfound goodguy, applauding your opponents will not win me over, sorry.
I mean it is a good thing. Sportsmanship is always good to see. But it will not convince me.

-His major transformation pre/post Vuelta 2011. I haven't seen anything like that before. For me annoyingly suspicious.
-Looking like a skeleton or kz-prisoner Froome is able to outclimb the best climbers with relative ease while at the same time crushing the specialists in timetrials
-In this years Vuelta he can stay on pretty much the same level throughout the three weeks after having done the Tour and Olympics. And battle for the win. I find that very unlikely.
-The Mount Ventoux 2013 is to date the single most jaw-dropping ridiculous performance I have seen in cycling. Breaking in the corners... Please!
-Illness, Bilhazaria as an explanation to the sudden transformation
-I do not recall who said it or if it was even Sky. But it has been suggested, that the lack of multiple attacks/accelerations on mountain stages is a sign that cycling is cleaner yet Froome makes 5-6-7 savage accelerations when attacking up a mountain.
-He comes accross as tactically not very good. I would like to see him and Sky without the radios and Power-meters.
-'Sky and Froome have been tested more than most athletes' as a sign that they are clean. Lance was also tested much and Bjarne Riis never tested positive
-His style on a bicycle, sitting accelerations with legs going like drumsticks and elbows everywhere (not really relevant for the discussion, I know)
-They are riding just as fast as previously doped riders
-Wiggins' fantastic 2012 season followed by more or less nothing compared to that year.
-Team Sky's brutal dominance coinciding with the emergence of weight-loss drugs like AICAR and GW-1516 (and probably others). In that vein (haha) emaciated Horner wining the 2013 Vuelta at 41 of age.
-Their stated mission, to show, that you can compete with a clean team and their zero-tolerance politic compared to the staff they have had employed
-Their statement: 'We train better and pay more attention to detail than our competitors. And therefore receive marginal gains.' That is just arrogant and condescending towards the competitors in my opinion. As well as unlikely.
-Their continued insistance that 'we are oh so clean'
-First it was Wiggins, then Froome. Third Ritchie Porte, fourth Geraint Thomas. Next up Peter Kennaugh and Ian Boswell. Sky has an amazing ability to optimize performance of riders and turn classic riders into GC-competitors. With a very small rate of failure. They seem to follow a two-year scedule starting with a statement: 'I want to explore my GC-potential'.
-Their lieutenants and this year a large part of their Tour squad are stronger or just as strong as the other teams captains in the mountains. Completely kills any exciting racing.
-The complete lack of positive doping tests in recent years are for me very very suspicious.

I am looking forward to knowing what they are doing, that are making them so succesful. But it will probably be a while before we know.

Until then I will cheer for the likes of Contador, Quintana, Chaves, Nibali etc. who are probably also doping, but are not talking much about it, just riding their bike.
They are, at least for me, much more likable.

Best regards

This post should be used to create a Reasoned Decision wrt Froome and Sky. Interesting we had similar sort of indicators during the Armstrong era but the phrase "there is no failed positive" kept coming up as the reason to dismiss. Have we learnt nothing?

 

[PremierAndrew]

Has anyone here ever tried osymmetric chain rings? I really don't think it's possible to use a motor these days without being caught, unless you have a 100% efficient motor that gives off no heat. But who the hell accelerates without getting out of the saddle? It's very odd.

Would osymmetric chain rings possibly explain why Froome just ups his cadence sitting down instead of standing up for a quick burst and sitting back down again?

 

[DanielSong39]

Re:

Has anyone here ever tried osymmetric chain rings? I really don't think it's possible to use a motor these days without being caught, unless you have a 100% efficient motor that gives off no heat. But who the hell accelerates without getting out of the saddle? It's very odd.

Would osymmetric chain rings possibly explain why Froome just ups his cadence sitting down instead of standing up for a quick burst and sitting back down again?

Did he bring osymmetric rings to the Vuelta? Because his bursts looked much more "normal" compared to what we've seen in the past.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

Has anyone here ever tried osymmetric chain rings? I really don't think it's possible to use a motor these days without being caught, unless you have a 100% efficient motor that gives off no heat. But who the hell accelerates without getting out of the saddle? It's very odd.

Would osymmetric chain rings possibly explain why Froome just ups his cadence sitting down instead of standing up for a quick burst and sitting back down again?

Did he bring osymmetric rings to the Vuelta? Because his bursts looked much more "normal" compared to what we've seen in the past.

Yeah

 

[Amnes2015]

Hi there

First post from a danish cycling fan. Great and interesting forum I must say.

I know much of what I am writing here has been covered in length already.

I don't mind doping as such, as long as it is a more or less level playing field. (The Tour of 07 with Rasmussen and Contador battling up each mountain was for me the most exciting race I can remember in recent years. Even though they most likely both were doped. Rasmussen was for sure anyway. The Schleck-Contador duels were also very good.)
In the best of all worlds, there weren't any doping, but this is unfortunately not realistic.

I dislike Froome as an athlete and will never accept or believe him and Team Sky in general in cycling. And all this newfound goodguy, applauding your opponents will not win me over, sorry.
I mean it is a good thing. Sportsmanship is always good to see. But it will not convince me.

-His major transformation pre/post Vuelta 2011. I haven't seen anything like that before. For me annoyingly suspicious.
-Looking like a skeleton or kz-prisoner Froome is able to outclimb the best climbers with relative ease while at the same time crushing the specialists in timetrials
-In this years Vuelta he can stay on pretty much the same level throughout the three weeks after having done the Tour and Olympics. And battle for the win. I find that very unlikely.
-The Mount Ventoux 2013 is to date the single most jaw-dropping ridiculous performance I have seen in cycling. Breaking in the corners... Please!
-Illness, Bilhazaria as an explanation to the sudden transformation
-I do not recall who said it or if it was even Sky. But it has been suggested, that the lack of multiple attacks/accelerations on mountain stages is a sign that cycling is cleaner yet Froome makes 5-6-7 savage accelerations when attacking up a mountain.
-He comes accross as tactically not very good. I would like to see him and Sky without the radios and Power-meters.
-'Sky and Froome have been tested more than most athletes' as a sign that they are clean. Lance was also tested much and Bjarne Riis never tested positive
-His style on a bicycle, sitting accelerations with legs going like drumsticks and elbows everywhere (not really relevant for the discussion, I know)
-They are riding just as fast as previously doped riders
-Wiggins' fantastic 2012 season followed by more or less nothing compared to that year.
-Team Sky's brutal dominance coinciding with the emergence of weight-loss drugs like AICAR and GW-1516 (and probably others). In that vein (haha) emaciated Horner wining the 2013 Vuelta at 41 of age.
-Their stated mission, to show, that you can compete with a clean team and their zero-tolerance politic compared to the staff they have had employed
-Their statement: 'We train better and pay more attention to detail than our competitors. And therefore receive marginal gains.' That is just arrogant and condescending towards the competitors in my opinion. As well as unlikely.
-Their continued insistance that 'we are oh so clean'
-First it was Wiggins, then Froome. Third Ritchie Porte, fourth Geraint Thomas. Next up Peter Kennaugh and Ian Boswell. Sky has an amazing ability to optimize performance of riders and turn classic riders into GC-competitors. With a very small rate of failure. They seem to follow a two-year scedule starting with a statement: 'I want to explore my GC-potential'.
-Their lieutenants and this year a large part of their Tour squad are stronger or just as strong as the other teams captains in the mountains. Completely kills any exciting racing.
-The complete lack of positive doping tests in recent years are for me very very suspicious.

I am looking forward to knowing what they are doing, that are making them so succesful. But it will probably be a while before we know.

Until then I will cheer for the likes of Contador, Quintana, Chaves, Nibali etc. who are probably also doping, but are not talking much about it, just riding their bike.
They are, at least for me, much more likable.

Best regards

This post should be used to create a Reasoned Decision wrt Froome and Sky. Interesting we had similar sort of indicators during the Armstrong era but the phrase "there is no failed positive" kept coming up as the reason to dismiss. Have we learnt nothing?

do you even know what the reasoned decision on Armstrong contains?

not even 1 bullet on this list will make it on to any reasoned decision.

ofc this if we are not talking about the internet court of law