Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Benotti69]

Exactly. It's going to be someone who goes to a lesser team that wants to be a leader. Then gets popped and exposes everything. Might not happen, but if it does that's how I see it going down.

I think our best bet is an alcoholic Wiggins.

Yes, i see a serious substance abuser in Wiggins future affecting his performance.

 

[DFA123]

Exactly. It's going to be someone who goes to a lesser team that wants to be a leader. Then gets popped and exposes everything. Might not happen, but if it does that's how I see it going down.

I think our best bet is an alcoholic Wiggins.

I think Cound is the best bet. Dawg better stay faithful...

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

No, because what is the point? I can point to his lack of a doping record and you'd say Lance didn't fail anything (even though that's not true). I could say that it'd be hard to maintain such a systemic doping regimen under the eyes of a suspicious media, and you'd say that Murdoch and the UCI are covering up (even though Murdoch owns 39% of sky, and many other broadcasters would love to take both sky and him down through association with doping).

I could point to the fact no whistleblower has emerged in 6 years, and you'd say that there was too much financial incentive for them to stay silent (even though the same was true for USP and there were many prepared to do so throughout the early 00's). I could say that Brailsford has a pedigree and no history of doping, and you'd say that he just hasn't been caught yet and scoff at the idea of marginal gains (despite quite clearly having a pattern of success with that philosophy throughout his career and having far more to lose (financially and legally) by doping now than anyone else).

In the end, you want another Lance. That's fine, but I was a heavy Lance skeptic. He had a doping doctor, an obnoxious personality (Bassons), and in an era of mass doping was a cut above.

Froome is what he is. I don't think he's 'normal' physiologically, but he isn't Lance. People here are clutching at straws, like the 'scratching' thing as if that proves he's a bad, arrogant guy like Lance and is flaunting his arrogance. Come on, he's a weird, colonial guy who is a bit socially inept, but scratching yourself doth not an egotistical maniac make.

Also it's naive to think that him beating 'known dopers' you refer to like Contador and Valverde is a big flashing red light. They're obviously both well past their peak. If Quintana, Yates and Martin were all doping, and he'd beaten them, it'd be comparable. Beating people who doped years ago and are way into the twilight of their careers (Valverde is 36 ) is not evidence.

I think that condemning Froome entirely, and refusing to acknowledge that there is a big fat fundamental lack of serious evidence, either eyewitness or testing to him having doped, is undermining the case against him. There's not an open mind about him on here, and people try to shut down the 'fanbois' without considering that sky have money doped this race to a point where it is a farce. Being able to field Henao, Nieve, Poels and the like and waste them as domestiques is what is destroying this race. All of them should be working towards team leadership and GC placing, but instead they're burying themselves for money.

I'd do it too, but it's massively ruined the sport as a spectacle. That's the thing I agree with most, but I just want the firm evidence that Froome is doping before I condemn him. Not 'he's beating 36yr old Alejandro Valverde, who doped a few years ago'.

Froome/Sky notes:

Bilharzia which uncharacteristically went undiagnosed and then not properly treated for considerable amount of time, making Froome an outlier in this area and not aligning with a team driven by marginal gains, rigorous sports science and close monitoring of their athletes

Froome’s inability to show much results-wise prior to August 2011, despite having supposed exceptional physiology

Being a considerable late bloomer with respect to most riders that go on to compete well in GC, making Froome an outlier in yet another area

Surprisingly low heart rate from data during intense mountain stages w/attacks, another outlier

Consistent message of marginal gains philosophy and ‘first to market’ suggestion about those activities, despite examples of not being pioneers in adopting some of those activities

Suggestions of laziness and lack of scientific approach by other teams, which is not true across the board

Financial details at odds with their main objectives of winning races with intense marginal gains focus, given the smaller proportion given to sports science etc vs marketing/PR and legal

At times matching/exceeding or very closely meeting climbing times from the clearly established ‘doped to the gills’ era of the late 90s/early 2000s

Message of desire to be transparent and open, with several examples of behavior to the contrary

Inability for Froome to remember his test data at all from 2007, despite likely being a very important test with regards to potential opportunities and doors it might open - I remember my V02max test from 2001 despite not having a career that might be impacted by its results

Initial inability to find 2007 test data

BMI mistake on the crude faxed 2007 test data

Use of a fast-tracked TUE to compete in a race, which Froome goes on to win, despite a significant illness. TUE fast-tracked by Mario Zorzoli – a UCI man with some questionable behavior over the years

Mario Zorzoli involved in the 2007 test data

Power data release that showed Froome with lower power output than competitor finishing behind him

Ignoring illegal feed rules on more than one occasion, showing examples of an organization not afraid to break the rules to help their cause…marginal gains on the wrong side of the rules

Hiring of Leinders despite ZTP and rather unbelievable position that organization was unaware of his doping past

Froome is a rider who manages to excel at mountains and time trails, such that he can challenge & often beat specialists recovering for and targeting those areas well into a grand tour

Rather surprising body fat percentage for a professional cyclist in 2007, making him an outlier in yet another area

Suggestion that he carries the fat internally, making Froome an outlier in yet another area

Ambiguity on Sky study of Henao and why it has never been published

Team that prides itself on marginal gains as previously mentioned, but has no idea what Froome’s weight is day-to-day, later interview with a Sky rider months after contradicts by revealing they are weighed regularly
Team that prides itself on marginal gains waits until 2013 before they bother getting Froome into a wind tunnel, a rather lazy approach for such a scientific team

Ability to completely transform riders from a track pedigree and/or those not previously showing much with respect to GC or climbing ability, into GC riders and/or super domestiques in the mountains

Ability to get consistency out of formerly inconsistent riders

Convincingly wins exceptionally hard athletic endeavors with a very clearly documented history of massive performance enhancing drug use to win them, in a sport that even today continues to have positive drug tests by even lowly back-markers/pack fodder

This list is of course not exhaustive, but rather a quick brainstorm of things I’ve heard/read/observed over the last while. Are any of these clear evidence of doping when taken one by one? No. Without a confession or positive test, we are of course left with debates in the Clinic that are really more about probabilities than certainties. So the question to me is “In light of the information we have available, what is the probability that Chris Froome and/or Sky are clean or doping?”

In my mind, to believe that Chris Froome and/or Sky are not doping requires a very large leap of faith. Another non-exhaustive list captures some of that leap:

It requires believing that this team and this rider are exceptional, not just in a few ways, but in a surprisingly large number of ways relative to even their exceptional competition.

It requires turning a blind eye to their difficulties in adhering to and/or willfully breaking some of their own policies and other sporting rules.

It requires a belief that the team truly executes on a significantly different level than other teams around it, with respect to attention to detail/marginal gains, while clearly demonstrating some significant behaviours to the contrary.

It requires a belief that anti-doping is effective and non-corrupt.

It requires believing that somehow, in the world of professional sports – clearly demonstrated to be riddled with doping regardless of the sport - that cycling is somehow different and can have its highest level competitions won clean.

It requires believing that a suggested stricter adherence to sports science will somehow prevail against sports science combined with pharmaceutical enhancement. I encourage you to look at Jan Ulrich’s doping schedule for the first week of the Tour De France in 2006, as revealed in the Puerto case. Imagine a clean rider with the same training program racing against a rider with that kind of pharmaceutical advantage – what’s the likelihood that clean rider could compete with the doped rider? What do you think the benefit of that type of doping program is in percent vs clean, all other things being equal? 2%? 5%? 10%....what about 15%? Now imagine a training program for the clean rider that pays attention to small details like pineapple juice, pillows, personal washing machines, cooling down post races, not bothering to take riders of significant potential into the wind tunnel. What do you think the percentage gain is from that approach?

Finally, it requires believing despite cycling’s sordid history with performance enhancement, that someone can win convincingly its biggest race (among others) – multiple times, without using some type of doping.

I believe it is the magnitude of this leap of faith that makes it difficult to find many in the Clinic willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

Well done.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

No, because what is the point? I can point to his lack of a doping record and you'd say Lance didn't fail anything (even though that's not true). I could say that it'd be hard to maintain such a systemic doping regimen under the eyes of a suspicious media, and you'd say that Murdoch and the UCI are covering up (even though Murdoch owns 39% of sky, and many other broadcasters would love to take both sky and him down through association with doping).

I could point to the fact no whistleblower has emerged in 6 years, and you'd say that there was too much financial incentive for them to stay silent (even though the same was true for USP and there were many prepared to do so throughout the early 00's). I could say that Brailsford has a pedigree and no history of doping, and you'd say that he just hasn't been caught yet and scoff at the idea of marginal gains (despite quite clearly having a pattern of success with that philosophy throughout his career and having far more to lose (financially and legally) by doping now than anyone else).

In the end, you want another Lance. That's fine, but I was a heavy Lance skeptic. He had a doping doctor, an obnoxious personality (Bassons), and in an era of mass doping was a cut above.

Froome is what he is. I don't think he's 'normal' physiologically, but he isn't Lance. People here are clutching at straws, like the 'scratching' thing as if that proves he's a bad, arrogant guy like Lance and is flaunting his arrogance. Come on, he's a weird, colonial guy who is a bit socially inept, but scratching yourself doth not an egotistical maniac make.

Also it's naive to think that him beating 'known dopers' you refer to like Contador and Valverde is a big flashing red light. They're obviously both well past their peak. If Quintana, Yates and Martin were all doping, and he'd beaten them, it'd be comparable. Beating people who doped years ago and are way into the twilight of their careers (Valverde is 36 ) is not evidence.

I think that condemning Froome entirely, and refusing to acknowledge that there is a big fat fundamental lack of serious evidence, either eyewitness or testing to him having doped, is undermining the case against him. There's not an open mind about him on here, and people try to shut down the 'fanbois' without considering that sky have money doped this race to a point where it is a farce. Being able to field Henao, Nieve, Poels and the like and waste them as domestiques is what is destroying this race. All of them should be working towards team leadership and GC placing, but instead they're burying themselves for money.

I'd do it too, but it's massively ruined the sport as a spectacle. That's the thing I agree with most, but I just want the firm evidence that Froome is doping before I condemn him. Not 'he's beating 36yr old Alejandro Valverde, who doped a few years ago'.

Froome/Sky notes:

Bilharzia which uncharacteristically went undiagnosed and then not properly treated for considerable amount of time, making Froome an outlier in this area and not aligning with a team driven by marginal gains, rigorous sports science and close monitoring of their athletes

Froome’s inability to show much results-wise prior to August 2011, despite having supposed exceptional physiology

Being a considerable late bloomer with respect to most riders that go on to compete well in GC, making Froome an outlier in yet another area

Surprisingly low heart rate from data during intense mountain stages w/attacks, another outlier

Consistent message of marginal gains philosophy and ‘first to market’ suggestion about those activities, despite examples of not being pioneers in adopting some of those activities

Suggestions of laziness and lack of scientific approach by other teams, which is not true across the board

Financial details at odds with their main objectives of winning races with intense marginal gains focus, given the smaller proportion given to sports science etc vs marketing/PR and legal

At times matching/exceeding or very closely meeting climbing times from the clearly established ‘doped to the gills’ era of the late 90s/early 2000s

Message of desire to be transparent and open, with several examples of behavior to the contrary

Inability for Froome to remember his test data at all from 2007, despite likely being a very important test with regards to potential opportunities and doors it might open - I remember my V02max test from 2001 despite not having a career that might be impacted by its results

Initial inability to find 2007 test data

BMI mistake on the crude faxed 2007 test data

Use of a fast-tracked TUE to compete in a race, which Froome goes on to win, despite a significant illness. TUE fast-tracked by Mario Zorzoli – a UCI man with some questionable behavior over the years

Mario Zorzoli involved in the 2007 test data

Power data release that showed Froome with lower power output than competitor finishing behind him

Ignoring illegal feed rules on more than one occasion, showing examples of an organization not afraid to break the rules to help their cause…marginal gains on the wrong side of the rules

Hiring of Leinders despite ZTP and rather unbelievable position that organization was unaware of his doping past

Froome is a rider who manages to excel at mountains and time trails, such that he can challenge & often beat specialists recovering for and targeting those areas well into a grand tour

Rather surprising body fat percentage for a professional cyclist in 2007, making him an outlier in yet another area

Suggestion that he carries the fat internally, making Froome an outlier in yet another area

Ambiguity on Sky study of Henao and why it has never been published

Team that prides itself on marginal gains as previously mentioned, but has no idea what Froome’s weight is day-to-day, later interview with a Sky rider months after contradicts by revealing they are weighed regularly
Team that prides itself on marginal gains waits until 2013 before they bother getting Froome into a wind tunnel, a rather lazy approach for such a scientific team

Ability to completely transform riders from a track pedigree and/or those not previously showing much with respect to GC or climbing ability, into GC riders and/or super domestiques in the mountains

Ability to get consistency out of formerly inconsistent riders

Convincingly wins exceptionally hard athletic endeavors with a very clearly documented history of massive performance enhancing drug use to win them, in a sport that even today continues to have positive drug tests by even lowly back-markers/pack fodder

This list is of course not exhaustive, but rather a quick brainstorm of things I’ve heard/read/observed over the last while. Are any of these clear evidence of doping when taken one by one? No. Without a confession or positive test, we are of course left with debates in the Clinic that are really more about probabilities than certainties. So the question to me is “In light of the information we have available, what is the probability that Chris Froome and/or Sky are clean or doping?”

In my mind, to believe that Chris Froome and/or Sky are not doping requires a very large leap of faith. Another non-exhaustive list captures some of that leap:

It requires believing that this team and this rider are exceptional, not just in a few ways, but in a surprisingly large number of ways relative to even their exceptional competition.

It requires turning a blind eye to their difficulties in adhering to and/or willfully breaking some of their own policies and other sporting rules.

It requires a belief that the team truly executes on a significantly different level than other teams around it, with respect to attention to detail/marginal gains, while clearly demonstrating some significant behaviours to the contrary.

It requires a belief that anti-doping is effective and non-corrupt.

It requires believing that somehow, in the world of professional sports – clearly demonstrated to be riddled with doping regardless of the sport - that cycling is somehow different and can have its highest level competitions won clean.

It requires believing that a suggested stricter adherence to sports science will somehow prevail against sports science combined with pharmaceutical enhancement. I encourage you to look at Jan Ulrich’s doping schedule for the first week of the Tour De France in 2006, as revealed in the Puerto case. Imagine a clean rider with the same training program racing against a rider with that kind of pharmaceutical advantage – what’s the likelihood that clean rider could compete with the doped rider? What do you think the benefit of that type of doping program is in percent vs clean, all other things being equal? 2%? 5%? 10%....what about 15%? Now imagine a training program for the clean rider that pays attention to small details like pineapple juice, pillows, personal washing machines, cooling down post races, not bothering to take riders of significant potential into the wind tunnel. What do you think the percentage gain is from that approach?

Finally, it requires believing despite cycling’s sordid history with performance enhancement, that someone can win convincingly its biggest race (among others) – multiple times, without using some type of doping.

I believe it is the magnitude of this leap of faith that makes it difficult to find many in the Clinic willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

Well done.

 

[Ironhead Slim]

Re: Re:

Sure there's no surprise here, he's been doing it since 2011. Add to that that he is in the middle of his peaking period during the third week and it's totally plausible.

Nobody peaks during the third week of consecutive race days. You're well into decline by then. It's just a physiological fact and has nothing to do with training, schedules, or wanting it to happen. From the famous pineapple juice study, the effects after only 6 days of racing include increased myoglobin, creatine kinease, and lactate dehydrogenase - all of which are released when muscle tissue is damaged. Testosterone decreased suggesting increased cortisol which is a sign of general tissue damage.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25604346

If Froome has chosen to peak in week three, then he has also chosen to take recovery products. There is no other possibility.

John Swanson

Science is indeed, cool.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

Sure there's no surprise here, he's been doing it since 2011. Add to that that he is in the middle of his peaking period during the third week and it's totally plausible.

Nobody peaks during the third week of consecutive race days. You're well into decline by then. It's just a physiological fact and has nothing to do with training, schedules, or wanting it to happen. From the famous pineapple juice study, the effects after only 6 days of racing include increased myoglobin, creatine kinease, and lactate dehydrogenase - all of which are released when muscle tissue is damaged. Testosterone decreased suggesting increased cortisol which is a sign of general tissue damage.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25604346

If Froome has chosen to peak in week three, then he has also chosen to take recovery products. There is no other possibility.

John Swanson

Peaks are always relative. If a rider peaks in week 3, it almost always means he's at his worst, but others are struggling even more than that rider by this point. Froome hasn't really shown his top level yet in this Tour. We may have seen a thermonuclear Froome on Ventoux with a stage win up for grabs but that never happened

 

[Ironhead Slim]

Exactly. It's going to be someone who goes to a lesser team that wants to be a leader. Then gets popped and exposes everything. Might not happen, but if it does that's how I see it going down.

I think our best bet is an alcoholic Wiggins.

Amen! Deep alcoholic depression should commence sometime after these Olympics.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Well Froome did say he was planning to peak in the third week so that he could take that form to the Olympics. The road race is exactly two weeks after the Tour. The alarm bells are ringing. He shouldn't even be recovered from the Tour let alone peaking. Notice how other Olympic contenders have quit the Tour so that they could begin their recovery?

John Swanson

 

[Ironhead Slim]

Re: Re:

When this guy gets popped it's gonna be hilarious. What a disgusting sportsman. Him and Cound are perfect for each other

I find it ironic how you bash Froome for doping yet love Contador Nibali and co

Stop being so blind, Strawman! It's Sky's attitude and ridiculous performances that are being commented on.

Pretty sure the poster in question called Froome disgusting among other things. It's defo about the rider.

There is not a necessary relationship between believing Froome is ridiculous and loving Contador & Nibali.

 

[PremierAndrew]

But to bash Froome as if he's the only doper and his rivals are clean is just ridiculous

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

Sure there's no surprise here, he's been doing it since 2011. Add to that that he is in the middle of his peaking period during the third week and it's totally plausible.

Nobody peaks during the third week of consecutive race days. You're well into decline by then. It's just a physiological fact and has nothing to do with training, schedules, or wanting it to happen. From the famous pineapple juice study, the effects after only 6 days of racing include increased myoglobin, creatine kinease, and lactate dehydrogenase - all of which are released when muscle tissue is damaged. Testosterone decreased suggesting increased cortisol which is a sign of general tissue damage.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25604346

If Froome has chosen to peak in week three, then he has also chosen to take recovery products. There is no other possibility.

John Swanson

Peaks are always relative. If a rider peaks in week 3, it almost always means he's at his worst, but others are struggling even more than that rider by this point. Froome hasn't really shown his top level yet in this Tour. We may have seen a thermonuclear Froome on Ventoux with a stage win up for grabs but that never happened

That is not exactly what we are seeing here at the tour. But nice way to stay on script with the marginal gains Vhhroooms.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

Well Froome did say he was planning to peak in the third week so that he could take that form to the Olympics. The road race is exactly two weeks after the Tour. The alarm bells are ringing. He shouldn't even be recovered from the Tour let alone peaking. Notice how other Olympic contenders have quit the Tour so that they could begin their recovery?

John Swanson

What a wild concept. Cyclist tired after GT does not happen anymore with the super science going on at the SKY marginal gain club. Probably the pillows is what will allow him to recover for the Olympics. :lol:

 

[roundabout]

Re:

Notice how other Olympic contenders have quit the Tour so that they could begin their recovery?

John Swanson

Who? Apart from Cancellara who is aiming for the TT, none of the riders who I would consider capable of contending in Rio have abandoned simply because they need recovery time.


DENNIS (BMC) ARCHBOLD (BOA) BRESCHEL, LANGEVELD (CDT) BOŽIČ (COF) CAVENDISH, RENSHAW (DDD) TULIK (DEN) LADAGNOUS, PINEAU, PINOT (FDJ) FRANK (IAM) MØRKØV, VAN DEN BROECK (KAT) DEBUSSCHERE (LTS) HERRADA, G. IZAGIRRE (MOV) GERRANS (OBE) CONTADOR (TNK) CANCELLARA, THEUNS (TFS)

 

[El Pistolero]

Re:

But to bash Froome as if he's the only doper and his rivals are clean is just ridiculous

To turn a nobody into the most dominant GT rider since Armstrong is certainly a whole new level of doping. Just because everyone dopes (and I don't think this is the case btw) that doesn't mean they're fighting with equal weapons.

My main reason for disliking Froome, besides his obnoxious personality, is the fact that he showed absolutely nothing during his first four years as a pro. Never before have I seen something like this. Have you?

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

No, because what is the point? I can point to his lack of a doping record and you'd say Lance didn't fail anything (even though that's not true). I could say that it'd be hard to maintain such a systemic doping regimen under the eyes of a suspicious media, and you'd say that Murdoch and the UCI are covering up (even though Murdoch owns 39% of sky, and many other broadcasters would love to take both sky and him down through association with doping).

I could point to the fact no whistleblower has emerged in 6 years, and you'd say that there was too much financial incentive for them to stay silent (even though the same was true for USP and there were many prepared to do so throughout the early 00's). I could say that Brailsford has a pedigree and no history of doping, and you'd say that he just hasn't been caught yet and scoff at the idea of marginal gains (despite quite clearly having a pattern of success with that philosophy throughout his career and having far more to lose (financially and legally) by doping now than anyone else).

In the end, you want another Lance. That's fine, but I was a heavy Lance skeptic. He had a doping doctor, an obnoxious personality (Bassons), and in an era of mass doping was a cut above.

Froome is what he is. I don't think he's 'normal' physiologically, but he isn't Lance. People here are clutching at straws, like the 'scratching' thing as if that proves he's a bad, arrogant guy like Lance and is flaunting his arrogance. Come on, he's a weird, colonial guy who is a bit socially inept, but scratching yourself doth not an egotistical maniac make.

Also it's naive to think that him beating 'known dopers' you refer to like Contador and Valverde is a big flashing red light. They're obviously both well past their peak. If Quintana, Yates and Martin were all doping, and he'd beaten them, it'd be comparable. Beating people who doped years ago and are way into the twilight of their careers (Valverde is 36 ) is not evidence.

I think that condemning Froome entirely, and refusing to acknowledge that there is a big fat fundamental lack of serious evidence, either eyewitness or testing to him having doped, is undermining the case against him. There's not an open mind about him on here, and people try to shut down the 'fanbois' without considering that sky have money doped this race to a point where it is a farce. Being able to field Henao, Nieve, Poels and the like and waste them as domestiques is what is destroying this race. All of them should be working towards team leadership and GC placing, but instead they're burying themselves for money.

I'd do it too, but it's massively ruined the sport as a spectacle. That's the thing I agree with most, but I just want the firm evidence that Froome is doping before I condemn him. Not 'he's beating 36yr old Alejandro Valverde, who doped a few years ago'.

Froome/Sky notes:

Bilharzia which uncharacteristically went undiagnosed and then not properly treated for considerable amount of time, making Froome an outlier in this area and not aligning with a team driven by marginal gains, rigorous sports science and close monitoring of their athletes

Froome’s inability to show much results-wise prior to August 2011, despite having supposed exceptional physiology

Being a considerable late bloomer with respect to most riders that go on to compete well in GC, making Froome an outlier in yet another area

Surprisingly low heart rate from data during intense mountain stages w/attacks, another outlier

Consistent message of marginal gains philosophy and ‘first to market’ suggestion about those activities, despite examples of not being pioneers in adopting some of those activities

Suggestions of laziness and lack of scientific approach by other teams, which is not true across the board

Financial details at odds with their main objectives of winning races with intense marginal gains focus, given the smaller proportion given to sports science etc vs marketing/PR and legal

At times matching/exceeding or very closely meeting climbing times from the clearly established ‘doped to the gills’ era of the late 90s/early 2000s

Message of desire to be transparent and open, with several examples of behavior to the contrary

Inability for Froome to remember his test data at all from 2007, despite likely being a very important test with regards to potential opportunities and doors it might open - I remember my V02max test from 2001 despite not having a career that might be impacted by its results

Initial inability to find 2007 test data

BMI mistake on the crude faxed 2007 test data

Use of a fast-tracked TUE to compete in a race, which Froome goes on to win, despite a significant illness. TUE fast-tracked by Mario Zorzoli – a UCI man with some questionable behavior over the years

Mario Zorzoli involved in the 2007 test data

Power data release that showed Froome with lower power output than competitor finishing behind him

Ignoring illegal feed rules on more than one occasion, showing examples of an organization not afraid to break the rules to help their cause…marginal gains on the wrong side of the rules

Hiring of Leinders despite ZTP and rather unbelievable position that organization was unaware of his doping past

Froome is a rider who manages to excel at mountains and time trails, such that he can challenge & often beat specialists recovering for and targeting those areas well into a grand tour

Rather surprising body fat percentage for a professional cyclist in 2007, making him an outlier in yet another area

Suggestion that he carries the fat internally, making Froome an outlier in yet another area

Ambiguity on Sky study of Henao and why it has never been published

Team that prides itself on marginal gains as previously mentioned, but has no idea what Froome’s weight is day-to-day, later interview with a Sky rider months after contradicts by revealing they are weighed regularly
Team that prides itself on marginal gains waits until 2013 before they bother getting Froome into a wind tunnel, a rather lazy approach for such a scientific team

Ability to completely transform riders from a track pedigree and/or those not previously showing much with respect to GC or climbing ability, into GC riders and/or super domestiques in the mountains

Ability to get consistency out of formerly inconsistent riders

Convincingly wins exceptionally hard athletic endeavors with a very clearly documented history of massive performance enhancing drug use to win them, in a sport that even today continues to have positive drug tests by even lowly back-markers/pack fodder

This list is of course not exhaustive, but rather a quick brainstorm of things I’ve heard/read/observed over the last while. Are any of these clear evidence of doping when taken one by one? No. Without a confession or positive test, we are of course left with debates in the Clinic that are really more about probabilities than certainties. So the question to me is “In light of the information we have available, what is the probability that Chris Froome and/or Sky are clean or doping?”

In my mind, to believe that Chris Froome and/or Sky are not doping requires a very large leap of faith. Another non-exhaustive list captures some of that leap:

It requires believing that this team and this rider are exceptional, not just in a few ways, but in a surprisingly large number of ways relative to even their exceptional competition.

It requires turning a blind eye to their difficulties in adhering to and/or willfully breaking some of their own policies and other sporting rules.

It requires a belief that the team truly executes on a significantly different level than other teams around it, with respect to attention to detail/marginal gains, while clearly demonstrating some significant behaviours to the contrary.

It requires a belief that anti-doping is effective and non-corrupt.

It requires believing that somehow, in the world of professional sports – clearly demonstrated to be riddled with doping regardless of the sport - that cycling is somehow different and can have its highest level competitions won clean.

It requires believing that a suggested stricter adherence to sports science will somehow prevail against sports science combined with pharmaceutical enhancement. I encourage you to look at Jan Ulrich’s doping schedule for the first week of the Tour De France in 2006, as revealed in the Puerto case. Imagine a clean rider with the same training program racing against a rider with that kind of pharmaceutical advantage – what’s the likelihood that clean rider could compete with the doped rider? What do you think the benefit of that type of doping program is in percent vs clean, all other things being equal? 2%? 5%? 10%....what about 15%? Now imagine a training program for the clean rider that pays attention to small details like pineapple juice, pillows, personal washing machines, cooling down post races, not bothering to take riders of significant potential into the wind tunnel. What do you think the percentage gain is from that approach?

Finally, it requires believing despite cycling’s sordid history with performance enhancement, that someone can win convincingly its biggest race (among others) – multiple times, without using some type of doping.

I believe it is the magnitude of this leap of faith that makes it difficult to find many in the Clinic willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

Best post in these forums in the last 5 years. Thank you.

 

[BigMac]

Re: Re:

When this guy gets popped it's gonna be hilarious. What a disgusting sportsman. Him and Cound are perfect for each other

I find it ironic how you bash Froome for doping yet love Contador Nibali and co

Stop being so blind, Strawman! It's Sky's attitude and ridiculous performances that are being commented on.

Pretty sure the poster in question called Froome disgusting among other things. It's defo about the rider.

There is not a necessary relationship between believing Froome is ridiculous and loving Contador & Nibali.

Admit it's at least odd to constantly call Froome disgusting [for his doping] while supporting Pantani and many other dopers. Reeks hypocrisy. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones else they come across rather silly.

 

[JackRabbitSlims]

Re: Re:

No, because what is the point? I can point to his lack of a doping record and you'd say Lance didn't fail anything (even though that's not true). I could say that it'd be hard to maintain such a systemic doping regimen under the eyes of a suspicious media, and you'd say that Murdoch and the UCI are covering up (even though Murdoch owns 39% of sky, and many other broadcasters would love to take both sky and him down through association with doping).

I could point to the fact no whistleblower has emerged in 6 years, and you'd say that there was too much financial incentive for them to stay silent (even though the same was true for USP and there were many prepared to do so throughout the early 00's). I could say that Brailsford has a pedigree and no history of doping, and you'd say that he just hasn't been caught yet and scoff at the idea of marginal gains (despite quite clearly having a pattern of success with that philosophy throughout his career and having far more to lose (financially and legally) by doping now than anyone else).

In the end, you want another Lance. That's fine, but I was a heavy Lance skeptic. He had a doping doctor, an obnoxious personality (Bassons), and in an era of mass doping was a cut above.

Froome is what he is. I don't think he's 'normal' physiologically, but he isn't Lance. People here are clutching at straws, like the 'scratching' thing as if that proves he's a bad, arrogant guy like Lance and is flaunting his arrogance. Come on, he's a weird, colonial guy who is a bit socially inept, but scratching yourself doth not an egotistical maniac make.

Also it's naive to think that him beating 'known dopers' you refer to like Contador and Valverde is a big flashing red light. They're obviously both well past their peak. If Quintana, Yates and Martin were all doping, and he'd beaten them, it'd be comparable. Beating people who doped years ago and are way into the twilight of their careers (Valverde is 36 ) is not evidence.

I think that condemning Froome entirely, and refusing to acknowledge that there is a big fat fundamental lack of serious evidence, either eyewitness or testing to him having doped, is undermining the case against him. There's not an open mind about him on here, and people try to shut down the 'fanbois' without considering that sky have money doped this race to a point where it is a farce. Being able to field Henao, Nieve, Poels and the like and waste them as domestiques is what is destroying this race. All of them should be working towards team leadership and GC placing, but instead they're burying themselves for money.

I'd do it too, but it's massively ruined the sport as a spectacle. That's the thing I agree with most, but I just want the firm evidence that Froome is doping before I condemn him. Not 'he's beating 36yr old Alejandro Valverde, who doped a few years ago'.

Froome/Sky notes:

Bilharzia which uncharacteristically went undiagnosed and then not properly treated for considerable amount of time, making Froome an outlier in this area and not aligning with a team driven by marginal gains, rigorous sports science and close monitoring of their athletes

Froome’s inability to show much results-wise prior to August 2011, despite having supposed exceptional physiology

Being a considerable late bloomer with respect to most riders that go on to compete well in GC, making Froome an outlier in yet another area

Surprisingly low heart rate from data during intense mountain stages w/attacks, another outlier

Consistent message of marginal gains philosophy and ‘first to market’ suggestion about those activities, despite examples of not being pioneers in adopting some of those activities

Suggestions of laziness and lack of scientific approach by other teams, which is not true across the board

Financial details at odds with their main objectives of winning races with intense marginal gains focus, given the smaller proportion given to sports science etc vs marketing/PR and legal

At times matching/exceeding or very closely meeting climbing times from the clearly established ‘doped to the gills’ era of the late 90s/early 2000s

Message of desire to be transparent and open, with several examples of behavior to the contrary

Inability for Froome to remember his test data at all from 2007, despite likely being a very important test with regards to potential opportunities and doors it might open - I remember my V02max test from 2001 despite not having a career that might be impacted by its results

Initial inability to find 2007 test data

BMI mistake on the crude faxed 2007 test data

Use of a fast-tracked TUE to compete in a race, which Froome goes on to win, despite a significant illness. TUE fast-tracked by Mario Zorzoli – a UCI man with some questionable behavior over the years

Mario Zorzoli involved in the 2007 test data

Power data release that showed Froome with lower power output than competitor finishing behind him

Ignoring illegal feed rules on more than one occasion, showing examples of an organization not afraid to break the rules to help their cause…marginal gains on the wrong side of the rules

Hiring of Leinders despite ZTP and rather unbelievable position that organization was unaware of his doping past

Froome is a rider who manages to excel at mountains and time trails, such that he can challenge & often beat specialists recovering for and targeting those areas well into a grand tour

Rather surprising body fat percentage for a professional cyclist in 2007, making him an outlier in yet another area

Suggestion that he carries the fat internally, making Froome an outlier in yet another area

Ambiguity on Sky study of Henao and why it has never been published

Team that prides itself on marginal gains as previously mentioned, but has no idea what Froome’s weight is day-to-day, later interview with a Sky rider months after contradicts by revealing they are weighed regularly
Team that prides itself on marginal gains waits until 2013 before they bother getting Froome into a wind tunnel, a rather lazy approach for such a scientific team

Ability to completely transform riders from a track pedigree and/or those not previously showing much with respect to GC or climbing ability, into GC riders and/or super domestiques in the mountains

Ability to get consistency out of formerly inconsistent riders

Convincingly wins exceptionally hard athletic endeavors with a very clearly documented history of massive performance enhancing drug use to win them, in a sport that even today continues to have positive drug tests by even lowly back-markers/pack fodder

This list is of course not exhaustive, but rather a quick brainstorm of things I’ve heard/read/observed over the last while. Are any of these clear evidence of doping when taken one by one? No. Without a confession or positive test, we are of course left with debates in the Clinic that are really more about probabilities than certainties. So the question to me is “In light of the information we have available, what is the probability that Chris Froome and/or Sky are clean or doping?”

In my mind, to believe that Chris Froome and/or Sky are not doping requires a very large leap of faith. Another non-exhaustive list captures some of that leap:

It requires believing that this team and this rider are exceptional, not just in a few ways, but in a surprisingly large number of ways relative to even their exceptional competition.

It requires turning a blind eye to their difficulties in adhering to and/or willfully breaking some of their own policies and other sporting rules.

It requires a belief that the team truly executes on a significantly different level than other teams around it, with respect to attention to detail/marginal gains, while clearly demonstrating some significant behaviours to the contrary.

It requires a belief that anti-doping is effective and non-corrupt.

It requires believing that somehow, in the world of professional sports – clearly demonstrated to be riddled with doping regardless of the sport - that cycling is somehow different and can have its highest level competitions won clean.

It requires believing that a suggested stricter adherence to sports science will somehow prevail against sports science combined with pharmaceutical enhancement. I encourage you to look at Jan Ulrich’s doping schedule for the first week of the Tour De France in 2006, as revealed in the Puerto case. Imagine a clean rider with the same training program racing against a rider with that kind of pharmaceutical advantage – what’s the likelihood that clean rider could compete with the doped rider? What do you think the benefit of that type of doping program is in percent vs clean, all other things being equal? 2%? 5%? 10%....what about 15%? Now imagine a training program for the clean rider that pays attention to small details like pineapple juice, pillows, personal washing machines, cooling down post races, not bothering to take riders of significant potential into the wind tunnel. What do you think the percentage gain is from that approach?

Finally, it requires believing despite cycling’s sordid history with performance enhancement, that someone can win convincingly its biggest race (among others) – multiple times, without using some type of doping.

I believe it is the magnitude of this leap of faith that makes it difficult to find many in the Clinic willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

Excellent Work!!

Thanks for taking the time to write that up.......next time I hear / read some of that "Froome Fan-Boy" dribble, I'm just going to copy & paste this.
Very good summary.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

Notice how other Olympic contenders have quit the Tour so that they could begin their recovery?

John Swanson

Who? Apart from Cancellara who is aiming for the TT, none of the riders who I would consider capable of contending in Rio have abandoned simply because they need recovery time.


DENNIS (BMC) ARCHBOLD (BOA) BRESCHEL, LANGEVELD (CDT) BOŽIČ (COF) CAVENDISH, RENSHAW (DDD) TULIK (DEN) LADAGNOUS, PINEAU, PINOT (FDJ) FRANK (IAM) MØRKØV, VAN DEN BROECK (KAT) DEBUSSCHERE (LTS) HERRADA, G. IZAGIRRE (MOV) GERRANS (OBE) CONTADOR (TNK) CANCELLARA, THEUNS (TFS)

Cav abandoned for the track Olympics. But the likes of Nibali and GVA aren't competing this Tour for the win, Froome is. Nibali should normally be a lot more fresh than Froome. Yet Froome will somehow be able to peak for the Tour, Olympics AND the Vuelta?

 

[Microchip]

Plus his comment about how he's not riding away and dropping anyone.

I must say I laughed at that comment. By far the strongest rider in the race and he reckons he would be looking to get in the break. The tone of his interviews is one of continually trying to downplay his dominance. Does he actually think people are stupid.

 

[dacooley]

Re: Re:

But to bash Froome as if he's the only doper and his rivals are clean is just ridiculous

To turn a nobody into the most dominant GT rider since Armstrong is certainly a whole new level of doping. Just because everyone dopes (and I don't think this is the case btw) that doesn't mean they're fighting with equal weapons.

My main reason for disliking Froome, besides his obnoxious personality, is the fact that he showed absolutely nothing during his first four years as a pro. Never before have I seen something like this. Have you?

It's always down to irrational love and irrational hate. I doubt the thought of equal/unequal weapons bothered you way too much, when Contador was winning his grand tours since 2007 until 2011. Personal entertaiment was on high, fans' souls were singing when seeing the favorite dancing on the pedals. It's totally different with Froome, isn't it?

 

[Ironhead Slim]

Re: Re:

Admit it's at least odd to constantly call Froome disgusting [for his doping] while supporting Pantani and many other dopers. Reeks hypocrisy. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones else they come across rather silly.

Okay, I agree about silly name calling. (Nevertheless, I appreciate intelligent name calling)

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Re:

But to bash Froome as if he's the only doper and his rivals are clean is just ridiculous

To turn a nobody into the most dominant GT rider since Armstrong is certainly a whole new level of doping. Just because everyone dopes (and I don't think this is the case btw) that doesn't mean they're fighting with equal weapons.

My main reason for disliking Froome, besides his obnoxious personality, is the fact that he showed absolutely nothing during his first four years as a pro. Never before have I seen something like this. Have you?

It's always down to irrational love and irrational hate. I doubt the thought of equal/unequal weapons bothered you way too much, when Contador was winning his grand tours since 2007 until 2011. Personal entertaiment was on high, fans' souls were singing when seeing the favorite dancing on the pedals. It's totally different with Froome, isn't it?

Pretty sure that El P isn't a Contador fan.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

But to bash Froome as if he's the only doper and his rivals are clean is just ridiculous

To turn a nobody into the most dominant GT rider since Armstrong is certainly a whole new level of doping. Just because everyone dopes (and I don't think this is the case btw) that doesn't mean they're fighting with equal weapons.

My main reason for disliking Froome, besides his obnoxious personality, is the fact that he showed absolutely nothing during his first four years as a pro. Never before have I seen something like this. Have you?

It's always down to irrational love and irrational hate. I doubt the thought of equal/unequal weapons bothered you way too much, when Contador was winning his grand tours since 2007 until 2011. Personal entertaiment was on high, fans' souls were singing when seeing the favorite dancing on the pedals. It's totally different with Froome, isn't it?

Read my post or don't comment. I don't care that you feel hurt that everyone is pointing fingers at your beloved Froome. I've always hated riders that came from nowhere, Froome or no Froome. Maybe you should explain your irrational love for Froome.

 

[Microchip]

Re:

1. No. We're facing reality.
2. No.
3. It is.

Are we all just jaded and cynical because of the past?

Could this Froome/Sky era really be what clean racing looks like?

I can't make any sense out of any of it. Feels like Armstrong all over again.

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

But to bash Froome as if he's the only doper and his rivals are clean is just ridiculous

To turn a nobody into the most dominant GT rider since Armstrong is certainly a whole new level of doping. Just because everyone dopes (and I don't think this is the case btw) that doesn't mean they're fighting with equal weapons.

My main reason for disliking Froome, besides his obnoxious personality, is the fact that he showed absolutely nothing during his first four years as a pro. Never before have I seen something like this. Have you?

It's always down to irrational love and irrational hate. I doubt the thought of equal/unequal weapons bothered you way too much, when Contador was winning his grand tours since 2007 until 2011. Personal entertaiment was on high, fans' souls were singing when seeing the favorite dancing on the pedals. It's totally different with Froome, isn't it?

Pretty sure that El P isn't a Contador fan.

Pretty sure he is.