Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[roundabout]

Why, did she do the doggie paddle?

No, I mean swimmers doping at 14 is far different to cyclists doping at 14. At 16-17 they can already win medals in major championships. So it's like an U23 rider doping, which is sadly quite common.

 

[roundabout]

Was Poland wt? Thought it was a bit smaller back then.


And I wish the everyone would make peace and the oceans would stop rising and the world would begin to heal.

In the real world things are a bit more complicated.

Poland was 2.2 or 2.3 back then. Probably 2.2.

 

[martinvickers]

Steady career progression vs magical overnight progression are 2 entirely different career paths. The fact that 1 of them is useless for determining whether someone dopes does not mean the other one is. People who are good from youth may very well be doping. That does not mean someone who turns into superman in mid- late 20s isnt more suspicious.

Well, I can live with that analysis; I just draw the line at thinking it's probative, as opposed to suggestive. You will get the odd genuine late bloomer. you will get the odd freak who dopes barely out of the cradle.

But if you were to say, test the F*** out of froome because it's hella suspicious, I won't argue.

But, on principal, Berti's a proven doing cheat. Froome isn't, yet. I can't understand favouring the 'cheat' because he's got 'panache' or a great junior 'palmares'. He's a cheat. End of. And if and when Froome pops, he'll be exactly the same.

 

[martinvickers]

No, I mean swimmers doping at 14 is far different to cyclists doping at 14. At 16-17 they can already win medals in major championships. So it's like an U23 rider doping, which is sadly quite common.

Nope.

14 is 14 is 14.

It's not about what relative part of your career you're at, it's how young you are in real terms and still willing to dope.

And doping is doping is doping.

 

[The Hitch]

Agreed. I don't.

What a rider won or when is largely an irrelevance when it comes to determining guilt of doping, or even suspicion of. Plenty of athletes have shone at an early age, beating all before them, then faded with their youth. Equally so plenty of them have started slowly, then bloomed late on. I don't believe there's any rhyme or reason to it, and certainly not something to draw solid conclusions from. They were good at 18 does not automatically mean they'll be good at 30, and visa versa.

No not vice versa. You have proven that someone who is good young can become worse as their career progresses.

You have NOT proven that the reverse is true. The fact that losing form midcareer is natural does not mean that gaining it midcareer is natural.

Not all rules work in reverse e.g.. if someone does alpe d huez in 35.minutes that means they are doping. But if they do it in 45 minutes that doesn't mean they are clean.

 

[roundabout]

Nope.

14 is 14 is 14.

It's not about what relative part of your career you're at, it's how young you are in real terms and still willing to dope.

And doping is doping is doping.

That doesn't make your example any less flawed.

But no point in arguing that further.

 

[The Hitch]

Nope.

14 is 14 is 14.

It's not about what relative part of your career you're at, it's how young you are in real terms and still willing to dope.

And doping is doping is doping.

Money fame and victory at the big competitions are primary motivators for doping. At the age of 14 they are absent in cycling but present in swimming.

 

[JimmyFingers]

No not vice versa. You have proven that someone who is good young can become worse as their career progresses.

You have NOT proven that the reverse is true. The fact that losing form midcareer is natural does not mean that gaining it midcareer is natural.

Not all rules work in reverse e.g.. if someone does alpe d huez in 35.minutes that means they are doping. But if they do it in 45 minutes that doesn't mean they are clean.

TBH I don't think I've proven either, just posited an opinion. What I don't believe is that you can chart an athlete's career progression and arrive at a constant that can be held up as a 'clean' progression, and that deviation from it is indicative of nefarious practice.

Undoubtedly spikes in performance are massively suspicious and rightly worthy of investigation, but it not conclusive in isolation.

I think is an element of luddism at times when the desire is to take the argument to the simplest form. Rider A is clean, he rode climb X in 45 minutes. Rider B rode climb X at 43 minutes, ergo he is dirty.

In neutral, controlled conditions that would be an acceptable test. In a bike race it isn't: there are huge varaiables, from the epoc it was road in, the bike used, the gearing, the road temperature, the humidity, the air density, the surface quality, the tyre pressure, precipitation, wind speed, wind direction, what the rider had for breakfast.

But yes, there are abnormal results, unacceptable figures. But isn't 6kw/g the new 50%? Where are the abnormal performances we can hang our hat on and say for certain that's dirty? People aren't riding climb X at 35 minutes.

And as far as form goes, it can easily come and go, and so reasons why too. Definitely less markedly in an endurance sport not a skill one, but there's a big thing called the mind, and if that goes wrong the numbers are immaterial. Nibali's win in the Giro was as much of a test of mental fortitude as physical strength. Wiggins failure ditto. On paper one rider should be superior to another, but no matter how strong the legs are if the head isn't with them then it won't count for much

 

[peloton]

I was surprised to learn Froome was DQ'd for hanging onto a motorbike at the -10 Giro. (thanks for the link whoever it was).
That is called cheating too.
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/471148/froome-disqualified-from-giro-d-italia.html

 

[SundayRider]

Froome (and Wiggins) will be hoping like hell Nibali isn't popped.

 

[martinvickers]

Money fame and victory at the big competitions are primary motivators for doping. At the age of 14 they are absent in cycling but present in swimming.

How many 14 year old swimmers have won senior medals recently?

Ledecky and Ye won at 15 in London, I can't think of any younger. Adlington got double gold at 19.

Laura Trott was European Senior Team Pursuit champion at 16. Marianne Vos was a multiple national senior champ at 14, world champ at 18. Nicole cook was national senior champ at 16, La Fleche Feminine at 19.

nope, not buying any great difference.

 

[martinvickers]

Froome (and Wiggins) will be hoping like hell Nibali isn't popped.

I doubt froome gives a toss. Wiggins will probabliy feel a certain grim amusement. Nibs popping at the giro ain't gonna scare them. Backdated Tour 12 pop, perhaps.

 

[SundayRider]

I doubt froome gives a toss. Wiggins will probabliy feel a certain grim amusement. Nibs popping at the giro ain't gonna scare them. Backdated Tour 12 pop, perhaps.

I disagree, it may not mean much to the general public, but to real cycling fans a Nibali positive would (even the most ardent Sky fans would admit this) pretty much confirm BW/CF had not been clean.l

 

[martinvickers]

I disagree, it may not mean much to the general public, but to real cycling fans a Nibali positive would (even the most ardent Sky fans would admit this) pretty much confirm BW/CF had not been clean.l

Afraid I disagree. A backdate Tour positive, quite possibly. But, frankly, his TT improvement is such that it's entirely possible to suggest any doping was a 'reaction' to TdF12. It may not be true, but it's not demonstrably false.

And 'real' cycling fans, by which I assume you mean yourself and your like, are already convinced about their guilt, so it doesn't change anything...

 

[roundabout]

How many 14 year old swimmers have won senior medals recently?

Ledecky and Ye won at 15 in London, I can't think of any younger. Adlington got double gold at 19.

Laura Trott was European Senior Team Pursuit champion at 16. Marianne Vos was a multiple national senior champ at 14, world champ at 18. Nicole cook was national senior champ at 16, La Fleche Feminine at 19.

nope, not buying any great difference.

Missy Franklin, Efimova (ok, she didn't win any Olympic medals, but got a world record at 17 and titles at European level at 15), that Lithuanian girl who trains in the UK. They were all 17 or less.

There are plenty more examples going back in time.

 

[SundayRider]

Afraid I disagree. A backdate Tour positive, quite possibly. But, frankly, his TT improvement is such that it's entirely possible to suggest any doping was a 'reaction' to TdF12.

And 'real' cycling fans, by which I assume you mean yourself and your like, are already convinced about their guilt, so it doesn't change anything...

The 2nd point, yes your right I suppose. Point I was trying to make is its a bit like when Armstrong's rivals and team mate or ex team mates were testing positive. Nibali - positive = big damage to credibility of all teams/riders who are at or near the top at the minute.

 

[martinvickers]

Missy Franklin, Efimova (ok, she didn't win any Olympic medals, but got a world record at 17 and titles at European level at 15), that Lithuanian girl who trains in the UK. They were all 17 or less.

My point isn't that Swimmers don't do it young, it's that cyclists can too.

And remember, too, that basically all swimming bar open water is, one way or another, time trialling. So comparisons with cycling palmares, where teams and tactics have a far larger baring, even at youth level is rather difficult. In the less tactical velodrome set up, young superstars are rather more common.

Let's put it another way.

Do you reckon the various football academies wait till their charges are 18, or 21, before interfering?

 

[martinvickers]

The 2nd point, yes your right I suppose. Point I was trying to make is its a bit like when Armstrong's rivals and team mate or ex team mates were testing positive. Nibali - positive = big damage to credibility of all teams/riders who are at or near the top at the minute.

I can go that far, yes. It would be a significant blow to the sport generally.

 

[Netserk]

Was Poland wt? Thought it was a bit smaller back then.

Back then there was no World Tour

It was World Tour in 2005 (when the WT started), but you are right that it was smaller back then (in '03).

 

[roundabout]

My point isn't that Swimmers don't do it young, it's that cyclists can too.

And remember, too, that basically all swimming bar open water is, one way or another, time trialling. So comparisons with cycling palmares, where teams and tactics have a far larger baring, even at youth level is rather difficult. In the less tactical velodrome set up, young superstars are rather more common.

Let's put it another way.

Do you reckon the various football academies wait till their charges are 18, or 21, before interfering?

My point that swimmers are a lot further along their career paths and there is more incentive to dope.

But that would be repeating what I've already wrote.

And to keep on topic as this is a cycling forum, cyclists often get introduced to doping at U23 level.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Jonathan Vaughters ‏@Vaughters 4m
@Hrotha I have some test results from very early in his career.

 

[thehog]

Jonathan Vaughters ‏@Vaughters 4m
@Hrotha I have some test results from very early in his career.

Show me the numbers!

JV the numbers!

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Show me the numbers!

JV the numbers!

Sky and Garmin, the Siamese twins.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

JV should publish the test results.long shot i know.

 

[Telmisartan new]

Sky and Garmin, the Siamese twins.

More like the Kray twins...