Dave I understand you got a little upset yesterday because almost immediately after the stage people were casting doubt about Chris's performance on Mont Ventoux. Can you provide me with your most compelling reason why we should believe not just Chris but every single member of your team?
DB I'm not sure I got angry, I don't know. I was quite emotional. When you watch something like that, and from our point of view, regardless of the media, the work we do with the team, the energy and effort we put into the team, we planned that performance for quite some time. Chris has been out to Ventoux to recce the climb, thought very carefully about how to ride it, how to ride as a team. And when you see that performance unfolding in front of you exactly as had been planned for some time, and Chris rode so fantastically at the end to win the stage, it was quite an emotional thing to watch. And the first thing that crosses my mind, having jumped in the air and punched the air, is not: right, that's my five minutes of joy gone, let's get on to the doping questions. Which happens every day.
I'm not saying it's not a legitimate question, but if there was a tinge of frustration I think that's probably it.
You're asking me, how can I prove to you that we are not doping? You're all asking the same questions. We rack our brains every day. We see each other in the morning in front of the bus and we see each other at night after the stage and every day we get asked the same question. I can assure you we are thinking very hard about the optimal way of proving to you guys that we're not doping.
So, the latest craze is power data. Let's all generate data and compare data and see if we can interpret anything from that to make it significantly, or obvious beyond reasonable doubt, that we're doping. One thing people ask is to release that data. Which people seem to think that would make a difference to the analysis. But I'm not sure that releasing it per se is the right thing to do. But we've been thinking about the biological passport and how that works with an appointed panel of experts who get all the information, all the blood data from everybody, and analyse that.
Of course the biological passport isn't just a blood value; theoretically, the biological passport should be blood value, weight, power, it should be a whole picture of that individual, not just blood values. And if you extrapolate that thinking forward I think we'd be quite happy, we'd actually encourage, maybe Wada [World Anti-Doping Agency] to appoint an expert and they could have everything that we've got. They could come and live with us, they could have all of our information, see all of our data, have access to every single training file we've got; they could have access to everything. We could then compare the training files to the blood data, to weight. All of that type of information they could capture on a consistent basis. And it seems to me Wada are a good body to sit and analyse all that data. And they then could tell the world, and you, whether they think this is credible or not. To me that would be my best answer and my best shot.
Q Chris, you've won on Ax-3-Domaines and Mont Ventoux, is it feasible you could do the grand slam and win on Alpe d'Huez and Semnoz as well?
CF I think those days we're going to have to see how the race unfolds. I'm not going to say I'm going to target those days and try to win them. There are a lot of very eager riders in the peloton left, with a lot to prove. For us it's about keeping the yellow jersey and riding in a way to best defend the yellow jersey. I don't think we're on a mission to win every mountain-top finish. The yellow jersey has to come first.
DB Hold on, I haven't finished my earlier answer. Rather than asking us all the time to come up with some creative way to prove that we're innocent, why couldn't you collectively – because you all ask the same question, so if I get asked the same question by 100 people, why don't you collectively get yourselves together, have a meeting, get organised, and you tell me, what would prove it for you, what could we do? Because you're asking me to come up with a novel idea that's going to satisfy you. Well, don't ask me, get your heads together and come to me and say, well this is what we think we would like in order to prove to you beyond reasonable doubt that we are not doping.
I know what we do. But I haven't got a magic wand to come and convince all you guys. So help me out, you know?
Q That would mean going back 20 years in a time machine.
DB I'm not saying I've got the answer. But have a discussion among yourselves. Why do I have to answer the same individual question a hundred times? With a bit of effort, today, this afternoon, we're all facing the same thing: come up with a solution.
Q To be fair, the context has changed with yesterday, more information comes out yesterday with Chris's win on Ventoux. So it's not just a case of asking the question then going away. We have to be able to evaluate new information then ask questions in the light of that.
DB I totally agree. I'm not disputing that for one second. But instead of saying, 'Dave, how are you going to prove you're not doping?', which isn't the greatest question to ask, why not think collectively: what would be the best methodology possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that we and Chris aren't doping. I'm not sure I've got the answer to that. But if we think collectively maybe we could come up with an answer that said, actually, this would be a fantastic way of doing it. If we could contribute to that, we'd be quite happy to do it.
Bottom line is, it's a rest day, it's 10 o'clock in the morning and I'm trying to defend somebody who's doing nothing wrong. I'm quite happy to do it, and I'm more than happy to try to convince you guys that we're not doing anything wrong, but I need a little bit of help. I think, in coming up with a way about how the hell we do it. So our idea is, we give all our information to Wada and they can have everything that we've got. They've got all our bloods anyway. They can have power data, weight, where we're training, what we're doing. Somebody sits there and pieces it all together and says yes or no. Quite happy to do that. But what I would like is that the data they're given is treated the same way as the bloods; so they get to see all the bloods but they don't release it to the press, but we trust their opinion. Something along those lines might be a fruitful avenue.
Given the situation, given what's happened with Armstrong, given what's happened with athletics, just applying old ways of thinking to this situation in which we find ourselves isn't going to find a solution. What we need to do is scratch our heads a bit and come at it from a different angle, think of a novel way of coming at it that maybe hasn't been thought of yet, that might move this whole debate forward. We would like to be sitting here and say, here it is.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram