Sky/Froome Talk Only (No Way Sky Are Cleans?)

[JimmyFingers]

Some people will swallow any old carp. Any old carp is therefore literally plausible.



Can a pro bike racer though?

Fair play, but that is just your opinion, not everyone agrees.

And I have no idea, it was a genuine question of Bennotti. We may be on different sides of the debate, but not everything I say is an attack.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Can a pro bike racer [lose weight and increase power] though?

Now that is a very good question. Certainly, even well trained "Weekend Warriors" can. I present myself as Exhibit A, albeit in a rowing context.

All my PBs on a rowing machine came in the two or three weeks immediately after I'd competed as a lightweight and was regaining weight. A rowing machine is a painful power-meter, and to make it register a higher speed, you simply have to apply more absolute power. There's no adjustment for power to weight.

My normal weight then was 79kg, and I got down to 74kg to row. A week or so later, I embarked on the PB-fest to end them all, weighing 75/76kg. To this day, I still don't believe how fast I went during that time. Sadly, it ended with a traditional cold over Christmas, and I was back to mundane performance levels.

Anecdotally, amateur runners observed the same thing. Re pro cyclists, one would imagine that whatever physiological process brought about my run of form, a coach somewhere would have isolated the factors and introduced it to pro training programmes, so I'd guess it would be harder for a pro cyclist to lose weight and increase power, as they'd be at the max power for their weight as a matter of course.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Losing weight without losing power and in some cases increasing power is performance enhanced doping.

And is exactly what Aicar and GWwhatsit are purported to do together. WADA has "made noise about it" because they have caught athletes using it almost as soon as the test was ready for use. It may be just coincidence that all the new Sky stars are exhibiting the ability to not only time trial better than the competition but to climb better as well.
It may be, but as we have seen in the past when it comes to pro sport and doping there are no coincidences.

 

[SundayRider]

Some people will swallow any old carp. Any old carp is therefore literally plausible.



Can a pro bike racer though?

Yeah what BF% is there to lose after training 35hrs a week for all them years to become a pro in the first place. Remember it was proven that LA never actually lost weight!

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Yeah what BF% is there to lose after training 35hrs a week for all them years to become a pro in the first place. Remember it was proven that LA never actually lost weight!

Ferrari proved he didnt need to dope to win, so it is possible the skyborgs can do it clean. Or, wait...

Losing weight, remaining/increasing power: Big Mig style. Isnt he also a hero for sir Brad?

And, do remember, never get sick during the season, except for Relapse Chris of course.

 

[Pentacycle]

Ferrari proved he didnt need to dope to win, so it is possible the skyborgs can do it clean. Or, wait...

Losing weight, remaining/increasing power: Big Mig style. Isnt he also a hero for sir Brad?

And, do remember, never get sick during the season, except for Relapse Chris of course.

Why was Wiggins on antibiotics in Trentino then?

 

[Bag of Guts]

Jimmy, you're absolutely right. Nobody has any real idea of what Sky are (or aren't) doing (nefarious or otherwise) to achieve their success. That, in itself, perhaps largely accounts for much the scepticism their narrative has met with.

Leaving aside the story of the team for now, I find that the did-it-clean narrative of Froome's ascent to the top of the sport requires rests upon more tenuous assumptions and cognitive contortions than the alternative.

Please correct me if I'm not straight on this, but the main arc of the did-it-clean narrative are as follows...

• The peloton's doping has diminished to the point of obsolescence through measures such as the UCI's biological passport and out of competition tests.

• He has a recurring blood disease that has harmed his performance. Since that cleared up he has been able to fulfil his true potential (are there any unanimously agreed dates for the contraction, diagnosis and clearing up of this disease? The accounts I've read up until now have been incredibly vague and speculative).

I can't really think of anything else. What else constitutes the clean narrative?

The reason I'm probing in this way is that I remember you expressed doubts at one point when Leinders role was explored and everyone congratulated you on 'seeing the light' etc.

I'm interested to know what, if anything, causes the fanbois' to doubt.

For me, a huge source of my own scepticism stems from the fact that SKY's two marquee riders have undergone physical and performance-based transformations that seem to directly correspond to the reported effects of this new wave of performance enhancement (AICAR, GW50 etc.).

I feel this debate has gradually descended into an issue of Skybots vs haterz and opinions are being dismissed out of hand which is a shame because, as W&G well explained, those defending Froome are obviously not indoctrinated simpletons arguing on blind faith, which is how they are sometimes treated. More often they're just unwilling to entertain the more outlandish allegations.

I often question my instinct that something isn't right at Sky because, really, all I want is to be able to enjoy watching races knowing the winner deserved it.

It's just getting harder to do that with all the question marks hanging over our current champions and the leaps of faith required to believe the plausibility of their career trajectories.

 

[BYOP88]

Why was Wiggins on antibiotics in Trentino then?

Because Sky sacked Dr Leinders and no one else can treat saddle sores.

 

[armchairclimber]

Losing weight without losing power and in some cases increasing power is performance enhanced doping.

Utter codswallop. I suspect that you know it to be codswallop too.
Losing weight and increasing power is a common training objective and is achievable through training. You probably know this too.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Utter codswallop. I suspect that you know it to be codswallop too.
Losing weight and increasing power is a common training objective and is achievable through training. You probably know this too.

Clearly that is absolutely the case for a slightly overweight cat.5 amateur, but the question here is whether it is possible for a fit pro to go from 5% body fat to 3% body fat and gain power without the aid of doping products. Specifically Aicar and/or GWwhatsit.

 

[webbie146]

Is this canon? You can't reduce your fat percentage without compromising power?

Sure you can reduce body fat and maintain your output, up till a certain point.

If a guy is 20% body fat he can easily reduce it to 10% while maintaining power output.

It's highly unlikely though for a rider like Froome to reduce his body fat percentage to 2/3% while maintaining the power he had when his body was like 8%.

When you're body fat decreases, you are obviously burning more calories that you are taking in. This will slowly get his weight to the calculated point. Problem is that not only fat burns of, muscle will too. Afcours a perfect specialized diet is essential. A big protein intake is essential to prevent as much muscle loss as possible.

Just look at bodybuilders. When they 'cut' they burn of fat, lowering there fat percentage, and therefore looking more 'ripped'. The thing is when the guy is 12% he will lift 90 pounds for example. After the cut his fat percentage is 8% but he will only lift 70 pounds. You are never stronger after a cut. The same would apply to a cyclist.


In the end when Froome go's from let's say 8/9% in the winter, to 2/3% during the tour his power output will decrease. If it's done naturally afcours. PEDS like Aod-9604 and GW501516 will help you do this. They decrease fat % and increase muscle strenght.

when done naturally you can't maintain you're power output if you drop your fat % that low. With PEDS it's certainly possible, just look at Froome & Co haha

 

[thehog]

Jimmy, you're absolutely right. Nobody has any real idea of what Sky are (or aren't) doing (nefarious or otherwise) to achieve their success.

People do know.

Ashenden knows.

 

[SundayRider]

Sure you can reduce body fat and maintain your output, up till a certain point.

If a guy is 20% body fat he can easily reduce it to 10% while maintaining power output.

It's highly unlikely though for a rider like Froome to reduce his body fat percentage to 2/3% while maintaining the power he had when his body was like 8%.

When you're body fat decreases, you are obviously burning more calories that you are taking in. This will slowly get his weight to the calculated point. Problem is that not only fat burns of, muscle will too. Afcours a perfect specialized diet is essential. A big protein intake is essential to prevent as much muscle loss as possible.

Just look at bodybuilders. When they 'cut' they burn of fat, lowering there fat percentage, and therefore looking more 'ripped'. The thing is when the guy is 12% he will lift 90 pounds for example. After the cut his fat percentage is 8% but he will only lift 70 pounds. You are never stronger after a cut. The same would apply to a cyclist.


In the end when Froome go's from let's say 8/9% in the winter, to 2/3% during the tour his power output will decrease. If it's done naturally afcours. PEDS like Aod-9604 and GW501516 will help you do this. They decrease fat % and increase muscle strenght.

when done naturally you can't maintain you're power output if you drop your fat % that low. With PEDS it's certainly possible, just look at Froome & Co haha

Good post.

 

[xcleigh]

People do know.

Ashenden knows.

Accusing Ashenden of holding up the Omerta then Hoggie? If he knows, he's keeping silent.

 

[xcleigh]

Sure you can reduce body fat and maintain your output, up till a certain point.

If a guy is 20% body fat he can easily reduce it to 10% while maintaining power output.

It's highly unlikely though for a rider like Froome to reduce his body fat percentage to 2/3% while maintaining the power he had when his body was like 8%.

When you're body fat decreases, you are obviously burning more calories that you are taking in. This will slowly get his weight to the calculated point. Problem is that not only fat burns of, muscle will too. Afcours a perfect specialized diet is essential. A big protein intake is essential to prevent as much muscle loss as possible.

Just look at bodybuilders. When they 'cut' they burn of fat, lowering there fat percentage, and therefore looking more 'ripped'. The thing is when the guy is 12% he will lift 90 pounds for example. After the cut his fat percentage is 8% but he will only lift 70 pounds. You are never stronger after a cut. The same would apply to a cyclist.


In the end when Froome go's from let's say 8/9% in the winter, to 2/3% during the tour his power output will decrease. If it's done naturally afcours. PEDS like Aod-9604 and GW501516 will help you do this. They decrease fat % and increase muscle strenght.

when done naturally you can't maintain you're power output if you drop your fat % that low. With PEDS it's certainly possible, just look at Froome & Co haha

what was Froome's %body fat 1- 2years ago and how much is it now? Just so I know.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Totally agree that Bilharzia could've been a cover-up for blood doping, but not in the past year or so. If he was blood doping for the 2011 Vuelta, then he surely must be doing it now as well. What do you for example think of riders like Scarponi or Hesjedal preparing for the Giro? Scarponi podiumed Catalunya at first, and then mysteriously weakened some time before Trentino, after which he was suddenly one of the best again in LBL. Same goes for Hesjedal; he was a big force in LBL, but he hasn't performed at all before, and now after that race in Romandie. Big chance they've both been collecting BB's over the past few weeks, and injecting some of the blood of them already. Froome however hasn't had any sudden, unexpected decrease in performance.

And it's also a fact that in East-Africa doping is widespread among long-distance runners. However,I disagree he's definitely been doping in his early years. Did he deliver such great performances around that time? He was actually very equal to some others riders from '85-'86-'87 like, Fuglsang, Frank, Mollema, Zeits, Morkov, Gautier, Bole. Nothing suspicious there, he had a good first pro year in 2008, and a decent 2009, he picks up that parasite. After that clears up, he continues his progression as if he hadn't been ill. Nothing suggests in 2007 he couldn't reach the level he has now, just like for example Mollema and Fuglsang were big talents in that time. Or were they doping as well?

If it stands to reason that if he was doping in August-September 2011 he is likely doping now, why is that even a query? If the bilharzia could mask blood doping back then, he has now a new, post-2011 baseline, whether based on clean or dirty figures. The old baseline must be chucked out because it's irrelevant. As has been mentioned before, the biopassport is more effective as a method of moderating doping than preventing it. Froome isn't an untalented guy. But what he showed in 2008-9 does not make what happened in 2011 any less ridiculous.

He beat them exactly like the best climber in the world should beat 1 time GT top-10 finishers. It was in no way a sensation. If Froome hadn't beaten them, one should have been really surprised.

The thing that's suspicious is that Chris Froome is now the best climber in the world, and one of the best time triallists. That in itself sets alarm bells ringing. Because no matter how much re-appraisal we give to the pre-bilharzia performances, he showed the talent to be a pretty decent top tier rider. That's not the same as showing the talent to be a GT winner and one of the top 5 riders in the world. Rigoberto Urán, a couple of months later, finished on the podium of Lombardia, and was more active in the final week in the 2009 Tour than Froome was in 2008. He's a guy that people had been raving about the potential of since he arrived at Unibet in 2007 and some even earlier than that. Froome was a guy with potential, but that's all. The 2011 transformation did not constitute 'normal progression' unless you completely reinvent what happened between May 2009 and August 2011, and draw an exponential curve.

I kind of want to know what the racial overtones that got pulled from your post were now, but at the same time I quite like you and don't want to have to jeopardise that.

As I said, there is a plausible narrative that Froome's development is clean.

As for weight loss drugs, its pure conjecture really: WADA make some noises about certain drugs and we go 'ooh, I wonder if that is what Sky are on' with only the vaguest understanding of the drug and its affects. It underlines how little is actually known. 6 months ago Sky were definitely on EPO and bags, then it was AICAR, then AICAR and GWwhatsit, now people are mentioning genedoping.

I don't have a clue, I don't have any answers as to what the riders might be doing if they are doping, but I do think there are feasible narratives that they are doing it clean. At the end of the day you don't need a drug to lose weight.

There is a plausible narrative that Froome's development is clean, but there's a plausible narrative that Mosquera's was too (and I fell for it, more because like many of the Sky fans - not necessarily including yourself - I was more willing to believe the justifications for Mosquera because he was a rider I liked, always animating races and always coming up just short because he was too limited to pull off the win). Riders and teams are always tweaking things, trying small changes to see what works. I have plenty of time for you and you've indicated in the past that the same goes for you, so let's cut to the chase: this thread - and the accompanying Sky megathread - is always going to be a mess. I don't think we can pay much attention to the arguments that are made out of silliness, pedantry or just for the sake of an argument - and to prove this I would like to show you David Moncoutié with a raised single fist and Pierrick Fedrigo with the full Froome celebration. And let's also say, that while there are a lot of downright crazy conspiratorial arguments being made in favour of Sky doping here (which I see as unnecessary given the presence of much stronger arguments) there are equally some bizarre justifications for Sky performances (arguments that could equally be used to say that Contador or Valverde are clean, which is what was the point of my Valverde post yesterday that airstream appears to have muddled, and as we know would be patently ridiculous since Contador and Valverde are known dopers). But even trimmed of all that fat, there are a lot of reasons that Sky's performances are suspicious. Let's do ourselves the favour of not contributing another hundred posts on these threads going through the interpretation of 2008-9 Froome and the effects of bilharzia again. Yes, there's a plausible out for it, but it requires a few leaps of faith while the opposite argument requires just one. And a few times I have admitted that the various things about Froome's history make me feel a bit less concerned about him... but the problem is there are also a lot of facts that I find hard to ignore:
- his improvement came during the contract negotiation phase. Even if we accept he would have got a WT gig elsewhere, he certainly earnt a bunch more money on his 2012-date contract as a result of it
- he then struggled with the disease again for a number of months, but it was gone again before he could prepare for the Tour, enabling him to be at peak form at the biggest race of the year
- Sky have been predicated on a British Tour winner within 5 years and, in 2010, we could not be sure that Wiggins could or would become that. Froome was way down the list of candidates, and suddenly vaulted to the top. What's more, British Cycling had been carefully grooming riders, meaning there are more British talents at this point than at almost any other point in living memory. Certainly in my lifetime. With British interest, sponsor money and media coverage heading towards an all time high, Chris Froome - who has nothing to do with British Cycling and was hired because of his passport - has just coincidentally happened to turn up at the right time to make maximum profit.

Again, none of these are evidence of doping, but when put together they provide a motive, which has to be at the root of all good mysteries. The other thing that I simply can't unsee is that Froome's transformation has come at the heart of a number of other transformations, mighty improvements and domination in a style hitherto only seen in the dirtiest of dirty teams - Banesto, Gewiss, Mapei and US Postal (with apologies to Saunier Duval). As per usual, each tree may be explicable (though Froome's tree is a freaking Giant Sequoia), but the forest that has emerged around Sky's activities means that the number of leaps of faith required to believe the "all plausible and clean" argument in all cases continues to ever increase, while the opposite still requires just one: starting from the assumption "there is doping".

And as any insurance professional can tell you, there's only so much risk you can accept before you have to decline. How many leaps of faith are we all willing to take?

 

[webbie146]

what was Froome's %body fat 1- 2years ago and how much is it now? Just so I know.

when Froome was riding the tdf in 2012 it would be around 3%, that's what sky will be aiming for this year too. I don't have the exact numbers what Froome's fat percentage used to be.

I did see some pictures being posted from Froome back in 2009 in this topic. Maybe someone has them? Anyways he looked thin (like all cyclist really) but naturally. Nothing to wild ore anyting that would suggest ped's...
Compare his build from 2009 to 2012 tdf and it is pretty shocking haha...

 

[thehog]

Accusing Ashenden of holding up the Omerta then Hoggie? If he knows, he's keeping silent.

Can't be helped if Sky riders can't go to the UCI.

Ashenden has a private and confidential consultancy for this very reason.

He's very supportive of riders placed in this type of situation.

Ascenden is not an employee or the UCI.

Are you suggesting we should trust the UCI?

 

[martinvickers]

Because Sky sacked Dr Leinders and no one else can treat saddle sores.

Would you consider it improbable, simply as a hypothetical, that Leinders was both a high class 'doping doctor' AND really good, after years of experience, at dealing with the 'wear and tear' injuries of cyclists, including said sores...

 

[webbie146]

what was Froome's %body fat 1- 2years ago and how much is it now? Just so I know.

Like I said I don't have the excact fat % from Froome in 2009 but just look at the difference, pretty shocking. You can see in 2009 he was thin, but naturally looking. In 2012.. well haha





after....





and: http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy305/webbie146/4_zpsdf07690e.jpg

Well, make you're own conclusion haha

 

[IndianCyclist]

Is this canon? You can't reduce your fat percentage without compromising power?

When you are reducing fat, you need to be in calorie deficit. In such a case, the body reacts negatively such that your power is reduced by a few percentage points. At least it is not possible to reduce weight and increase power simultaneously. They need to be done in 2 separate phases. This has been my personal experience as well. But i am not an expert in medical matters.

 

[Pentacycle]

His skinniness is an argument for a doping program? There's a lot of anorexic riders out there, and Froome isn't one of the worst. And in the past he was usually not having the pressure to perform, but as a team leader he's undoubtedly following some very strict diets.

 

[the sceptic]

His skinniness is an argument for a doping program? There's a lot of anorexic riders out there, and Froome isn't one of the worst. And in the past he was usually not having the pressure to perform, but as a team leader he's undoubtedly following some very strict diets.

Yes, the pressure got to him, so he became anorectic. LOL Maybe the worst argument ive ever heard.

Of course it indicates a doping program. There is no way someone that skinny should be able to be better than Cancellara in the ITT.

 

[BYOP88]

Would you consider it improbable, simply as a hypothetical, that Leinders was both a high class 'doping doctor' AND really good, after years of experience, at dealing with the 'wear and tear' injuries of cyclists, including said sores...

I could, but this is Sky. Dave Brailsford has been in charge of British cycling for what 10+ years. In that time the track team never had a saddle sore? Given that Sky have the biggest budget they could hire all the best and clean medical staff(probably an oxymoron in the cycling world) that are out there.

 

[webbie146]

Yes, the pressure got to him, so he became anorectic. LOL Maybe the worst argument ive ever heard.

Of course it indicates a doping program. There is no way someone that skinny should be able to be better than Cancellara in the ITT.

+1 That was indeed what I was trying to point out.