-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Robert5091 said:MikeS369 said:
Wait 'til the pave stage in the TdF
It's quite possible we will see him morph into Tom Boonen right before our very eyes.
After yesterday and today, there is no doubt he is on harder stuff than just "allergy" medication. No way that's normal. I truly never thought ANYONE could make me actually respect Lance at all, however after this GIro Froome has actually done that. Lance was never as brazen as Froome was with his performance on these two stages. Froome also has no PR skills which Lance at least had and still has. GRRRRR..... Truthfully I'm not sure which I'm more upset about Froome's brazenness or the fact that he's made me give Lance some credit for much of anything.
I generally agree with you, there's too much money at stake, too much greed, just like the rest of the world. I would almost 100% agree with you, that this may have entirely vanished, had this not leaked. Since it's been leaked, and most of the public are already sick of the doping scandals, or just find cycling laughable, there's pressure to at least put some stamp of authority on it.Benotti69 said:
How ironic that he took both the maglia rosa and maglia verdi in the same way that one Marco Pantani did, 20 years ago. My how little things have changed. Except the methods are way more refined now.
Ross Tucker's numbers on Twitter from yesterday are compelling. Either something is going on, or Froome somehow turned into a genetic super human; the greatest endurance athlete in the history of sports.
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport
rick james
BANNED
Re:
Ross Tucker applies some solid logic, which in general, completely hammers the pro-Froome ridiculous explanations.
Alpe d'Huez said:
Ross Tucker applies some solid logic, which in general, completely hammers the pro-Froome ridiculous explanations.
Re:
Ross is great.
I think in sport (like in most things) money talks and people ignore the truth for a wedge.
Froome's rise was stratospheric and if not for Wiggins being pencilled in for Sky's 1st TdF, Froome would have had 5 TdFs.
The sport has ignored the effing obvious doping/cheating since its inception, that is not going to change.
I truly would be surprised to see Froome stripped of anything, he may get a 6 month ban after the TdF ends and gets to keep all GT wins if agrees to retire......Menchov style.
Alpe d'Huez said:
Ross is great.
I think in sport (like in most things) money talks and people ignore the truth for a wedge.
Froome's rise was stratospheric and if not for Wiggins being pencilled in for Sky's 1st TdF, Froome would have had 5 TdFs.
The sport has ignored the effing obvious doping/cheating since its inception, that is not going to change.
I truly would be surprised to see Froome stripped of anything, he may get a 6 month ban after the TdF ends and gets to keep all GT wins if agrees to retire......Menchov style.
thehog
BANNED
Re: Re:
I don't know, I think I'm a fan of the sport, and I didn't enjoy Stage 19. But you may have got me there with "The only people who seem to have not enjoyed it are those who are massive fanboys of other riders . . ." And I will admit that in my case this is probably accurate. For any race in which Froome is participating, I am indeed a massive fanboy of many, many other riders in the race -- even some with whom I am currently unfamiliar . . . as long as it isn't Froome.
DFA123 said:
I don't know, I think I'm a fan of the sport, and I didn't enjoy Stage 19. But you may have got me there with "The only people who seem to have not enjoyed it are those who are massive fanboys of other riders . . ." And I will admit that in my case this is probably accurate. For any race in which Froome is participating, I am indeed a massive fanboy of many, many other riders in the race -- even some with whom I am currently unfamiliar . . . as long as it isn't Froome.
Re: Re:
I think this would be a lot of people who are aren't fans of Froome.
As for keeping it mainstream, must be in countries that aren't the US as it's not mainstream here and even yesterday's stage doesn't get mentioned anywhere that isn't a cycling specific publication.
JosephK said:DFA123 said:
I don't know, I think I'm a fan of the sport, and I didn't enjoy Stage 19. But you may have got me there with "The only people who seem to have not enjoyed it are those who are massive fanboys of other riders . . ." And I will admit that in my case this is probably accurate. For any race in which Froome is participating, I am indeed a massive fanboy of many, many other riders in the race -- even some with whom I am currently unfamiliar . . . as long as it isn't Froome.
I think this would be a lot of people who are aren't fans of Froome.
As for keeping it mainstream, must be in countries that aren't the US as it's not mainstream here and even yesterday's stage doesn't get mentioned anywhere that isn't a cycling specific publication.
Where are these numbers of Tucker? I don't see them on his twitter feed. Not at Alpe's link, nor at sportsscientists.com
In any case, I see a lot of "I'm so depressed, I give up, he's not going to be banned." I'm not buying that. Froome can do many seemingly impossible things, but he can't reinvent the science of salbutamol. You can drop tired, physically inferior riders, you can't drop scientific facts. Nothing that has been made public so far indicates that he will avoid a ban--including a lot of empirical data. If Froome is exonerated, and the details aren't published, there will be very justifiable accusations that the system is rigged. If he does publish the details, he will be inviting rebuttals from many scientists, including this one.
The only sop I see Froome getting is that a ban will be proactive, allowing him to keep the Giro. That can easily be rationalized by the rules, and I don't think Haas wants to nullify the Giro unless there is a compelling reason why a ban has to be back-dated. Then the main question is whether the decision will come before the Tour. If it doesn't, again, there will be very justifiable complaints that the system is rigged. Nine months is enough time.
Let's not forget that the purpose of a doping ban is not just to nullify results obtained when the rider tested positive. It's also intended to prevent him from getting other results later, even when he hasn't tested positive. Without this penalty, a rider would have little to lose by doping, if he thought he couldn't win a particular race without doing so. A message is supposed to be sent that you have a lot more to lose than just the race you doped in. By delaying the decision to after the Giro, that message has already been compromised to some extent, and if it's delayed till after the Tour, it will be compromised further.
If Froome had admitted to inhaling too much, and could perhaps provide some evidence of that, I think just stripping him of the Vuelta, without further penalty, might be justifiable, though it would be a more lenient sentence than what others have received. But he's insisted he didn't inhale too much, which puts him in a situation where lack of an explanation has to result in a serious ban. It was his choice to make this full exoneration vs. a very stiff penalty. I think allowing him to ride the Giro and maybe the Tour has seriously undercut that. He's basically been allowed to gamble with house money.
In any case, I see a lot of "I'm so depressed, I give up, he's not going to be banned." I'm not buying that. Froome can do many seemingly impossible things, but he can't reinvent the science of salbutamol. You can drop tired, physically inferior riders, you can't drop scientific facts. Nothing that has been made public so far indicates that he will avoid a ban--including a lot of empirical data. If Froome is exonerated, and the details aren't published, there will be very justifiable accusations that the system is rigged. If he does publish the details, he will be inviting rebuttals from many scientists, including this one.
The only sop I see Froome getting is that a ban will be proactive, allowing him to keep the Giro. That can easily be rationalized by the rules, and I don't think Haas wants to nullify the Giro unless there is a compelling reason why a ban has to be back-dated. Then the main question is whether the decision will come before the Tour. If it doesn't, again, there will be very justifiable complaints that the system is rigged. Nine months is enough time.
Let's not forget that the purpose of a doping ban is not just to nullify results obtained when the rider tested positive. It's also intended to prevent him from getting other results later, even when he hasn't tested positive. Without this penalty, a rider would have little to lose by doping, if he thought he couldn't win a particular race without doing so. A message is supposed to be sent that you have a lot more to lose than just the race you doped in. By delaying the decision to after the Giro, that message has already been compromised to some extent, and if it's delayed till after the Tour, it will be compromised further.
If Froome had admitted to inhaling too much, and could perhaps provide some evidence of that, I think just stripping him of the Vuelta, without further penalty, might be justifiable, though it would be a more lenient sentence than what others have received. But he's insisted he didn't inhale too much, which puts him in a situation where lack of an explanation has to result in a serious ban. It was his choice to make this full exoneration vs. a very stiff penalty. I think allowing him to ride the Giro and maybe the Tour has seriously undercut that. He's basically been allowed to gamble with house money.
Re:
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1000408199080521728
At this point if the Vuelta title isn't stripped that will be the biggest disservice regardless of anything else. Also if he keeps the Giro title, a back dated ban will be seen as the system being rigged. That this point IMO it has to be a stripped Vuelta title (and possibly the Worlds results) and then a ban going forward and I think it has to be a 12 month ban as anything else (esp if it's after the Tour) won't actually be meaningful. Truthfully if it's delayed until after the Tour if they don't give a 2 year ban from the date it may still be an issue.
Merckx index said:
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1000408199080521728
At this point if the Vuelta title isn't stripped that will be the biggest disservice regardless of anything else. Also if he keeps the Giro title, a back dated ban will be seen as the system being rigged. That this point IMO it has to be a stripped Vuelta title (and possibly the Worlds results) and then a ban going forward and I think it has to be a 12 month ban as anything else (esp if it's after the Tour) won't actually be meaningful. Truthfully if it's delayed until after the Tour if they don't give a 2 year ban from the date it may still be an issue.
Re: Re:
...and of course one's opinion on the action and results of one stage is based solely on that stage and not on the events of the race that led up to it.
DFA123 said:
...and of course one's opinion on the action and results of one stage is based solely on that stage and not on the events of the race that led up to it.
Re: Re:
Oh, I saw that. That's all you got? Come on. I thought he did something more, that would follow up on my point that Froome did the two big climbs at 5.40 W/kg., and was climbing for a total of I think more than two hours. That is considerably more than Pinot can do for two hours, according to his published data.
Couldn't keep the Giro with a backdated ban unless it were less than eight months, which is pretty unlikely, and yes, of course would stink of rigging.
I'll admit I'm not a fan of Froome, and was hoping he wouldn't win the Giro. But the main reason I wasn't over the moon watching the attack was nailed by Flor. When Contador or anyone else tried something like this, one never knew what would happen. The odds were against it, and it's uncertainty that drives drama in sports. Performances are only epic when they aren't foreordained, when failure is a strong, maybe the overwhelmingly likely, possibility. As soon as Froome had put a decent gap on Dumo, I felt he would probably end the stage in pink. When he added to the lead on the following descent, it was pretty obvious. He was adding to his lead every kilometer. How many kilometers do you have to see before you realize he's going to keep adding, till he's in pink?
If you want to compare it to Yates's 20 km solo, I didn't find that tremendously exciting, either, for the same reason. Once he put in a decent gap, it was pretty obvious he wasn't going to get caught. I find stages more exciting when there's legitimate reason to doubt. I thought Froome's Zoncolan was exciting, first, because after what he had done in the Giro to that point, it was quite unexpected, and second, because he had to hold off Yates, who for a while looked as though he would catch him. There was far more drama in that stage than in Froome's escape, even if the latter did determine the Giro.
Koronin said:
Oh, I saw that. That's all you got? Come on. I thought he did something more, that would follow up on my point that Froome did the two big climbs at 5.40 W/kg., and was climbing for a total of I think more than two hours. That is considerably more than Pinot can do for two hours, according to his published data.
Couldn't keep the Giro with a backdated ban unless it were less than eight months, which is pretty unlikely, and yes, of course would stink of rigging.
I'll admit I'm not a fan of Froome, and was hoping he wouldn't win the Giro. But the main reason I wasn't over the moon watching the attack was nailed by Flor. When Contador or anyone else tried something like this, one never knew what would happen. The odds were against it, and it's uncertainty that drives drama in sports. Performances are only epic when they aren't foreordained, when failure is a strong, maybe the overwhelmingly likely, possibility. As soon as Froome had put a decent gap on Dumo, I felt he would probably end the stage in pink. When he added to the lead on the following descent, it was pretty obvious. He was adding to his lead every kilometer. How many kilometers do you have to see before you realize he's going to keep adding, till he's in pink?
If you want to compare it to Yates's 20 km solo, I didn't find that tremendously exciting, either, for the same reason. Once he put in a decent gap, it was pretty obvious he wasn't going to get caught. I find stages more exciting when there's legitimate reason to doubt. I thought Froome's Zoncolan was exciting, first, because after what he had done in the Giro to that point, it was quite unexpected, and second, because he had to hold off Yates, who for a while looked as though he would catch him. There was far more drama in that stage than in Froome's escape, even if the latter did determine the Giro.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
Amstel is Gold, Jerry, Gold! Men's Classic One-Day Race, April 14, 2024- Started by red_flanders
- Replies: 708
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram