Froome on twitter yesterday. Well, at least we know now that he didn't get the result through mechanical doping.
-
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!
Froome on twitter yesterday. Well, at least we know now that he didn't get the result through mechanical doping.
I'm assuming this post was made in response to recent performances, so here is my take.
Sky did an extremely aggressive attack at the end of yesterdays stage, were flat out, working together and, by my reckoning, that last 8 kms was still around 2 minutes slower than Heras in 2002 despite it being a team time trial (approximately 23.5 minutes compared to 21.5 minutes (if what I read in another thread was accurate)).
Today Wiggins gained less time than anticipated on many of his rivals, including Nibali, and faded badly towards the end in a mini-collapse that has probably cost him a shot at this title. Not entirely Armstrong-esque.
Froome only just turned 26, has a history of climbing well, was tipped to Time Trial decently and wasn't up against any great Time Trialists out of the GC contenders (apart from his teammate and Menchov who didn't do well). Who were you anticipating Froome to lose out to exactly? Plus and I'm not sure about the Kenyan & South African culture of systematic doping programmes that might have corrupted him at a young age. Plus Fuglsang would likely have been the red jersey if he hadn't had a chain malfunction.
Other riders like Cobo, Kessiakoff and Rodriguez the slipstream king were more worthy of a closer look today. I'm not suggesting that they are up to anything (apart from Rodriguez, heck, is getting two stage finishes tailor made for you not enough home court advantage?) but I think Sky have been far from the most 'unbelievable' performers of the last couple of days.
I detest everything about the company Sky, but I'm not overly suspicious of their cycling team doping.
Sky did an extremely aggressive attack at the end of yesterdays stage, were flat out, working together and, by my reckoning, that last 8 kms was still around 2 minutes slower than Heras in 2002 despite it being a team time trial (approximately 23.5 minutes compared to 21.5 minutes (if what I read in another thread was accurate)).
Today Wiggins gained less time than anticipated on many of his rivals, including Nibali, and faded badly towards the end in a mini-collapse that has probably cost him a shot at this title. Not entirely Armstrong-esque.
Froome only just turned 26, has a history of climbing well, was tipped to Time Trial decently and wasn't up against any great Time Trialists out of the GC contenders (apart from his teammate and Menchov who didn't do well). Who were you anticipating Froome to lose out to exactly? Plus and I'm not sure about the Kenyan & South African culture of systematic doping programmes that might have corrupted him at a young age. Plus Fuglsang would likely have been the red jersey if he hadn't had a chain malfunction.
Other riders like Cobo, Kessiakoff and Rodriguez the slipstream king were more worthy of a closer look today. I'm not suggesting that they are up to anything (apart from Rodriguez, heck, is getting two stage finishes tailor made for you not enough home court advantage?) but I think Sky have been far from the most 'unbelievable' performers of the last couple of days.
I detest everything about the company Sky, but I'm not overly suspicious of their cycling team doping.
I'd imagine that Froome will be dealing with the hot conditions a lot better than others given that he grew up in Africa.
This forum really is a giggle!
I just love the way that every "unexplainable" result ends up here. It's wonderfully ironic that an attempt by a sport to counter doping should result in a myriad of speculation about.....doping. Far better to sweep it under the carpet
There was a time when the essence of sport was the fact that it was so unpredictable. But what I fail to understand is why you should give any more credence to a series of 'great endeavours' rather than just one or two.
It's the former that would raise my eyebrows.
Still. Carry on speculating - it's hilarious.....
I just love the way that every "unexplainable" result ends up here. It's wonderfully ironic that an attempt by a sport to counter doping should result in a myriad of speculation about.....doping. Far better to sweep it under the carpet
There was a time when the essence of sport was the fact that it was so unpredictable. But what I fail to understand is why you should give any more credence to a series of 'great endeavours' rather than just one or two.
It's the former that would raise my eyebrows.
Still. Carry on speculating - it's hilarious.....
Larry Finnegan said:
cycladianpirate said:This forum really is a giggle!
I just love the way that every "unexplainable" result ends up here. It's wonderfully ironic that an attempt by a sport to counter doping should result in a myriad of speculation about.....doping. Far better to sweep it under the carpet
There was a time when the essence of sport was the fact that it was so unpredictable. But what I fail to understand is why you should give any more credence to a series of 'great endeavours' rather than just one or two.
It's the former that would raise my eyebrows.
Still. Carry on speculating - it's hilarious.....
The history of the sport makes most of it the same old same old. Just because there are no positive tests doesn't mean the sport has changed unless you know better.
cycladianpirate said:This forum really is a giggle!
I just love the way that every "unexplainable" result ends up here. It's wonderfully ironic that an attempt by a sport to counter doping should result in a myriad of speculation about.....doping. Far better to sweep it under the carpet
There was a time when the essence of sport was the fact that it was so unpredictable. But what I fail to understand is why you should give any more credence to a series of 'great endeavours' rather than just one or two.
It's the former that would raise my eyebrows.
Still. Carry on speculating - it's hilarious.....
I know what you mean. I'm adding this one on top of the Gilbert, Evans, and Zabriskie one. I'm sure there are more "There is no way ________ is clean" threads. Just can't seem to recall.
Was Wiggins' TT ride "unbelievable"? Were he and Froome unbelievable when they were losing time to just about every GC rider on the previous uphill finishes?
They were both great on La Covatilla, but even so they came to the finish with the likes of Martin, Mollema, and Cobo, and seconds ahead of riders like Taaramae, Poels, Kessiakoff, Zubeldia, and Seeldraeyers. More questions should be asked about the non-performances of Rodriguez, Anton, Scarponi.
They were both great on La Covatilla, but even so they came to the finish with the likes of Martin, Mollema, and Cobo, and seconds ahead of riders like Taaramae, Poels, Kessiakoff, Zubeldia, and Seeldraeyers. More questions should be asked about the non-performances of Rodriguez, Anton, Scarponi.
Benotti69 said:
I know about as much as you i'd guess. I prefer to presume innocence until proven guilty. This doesn't mean I have my head buried in the sand on the issue. The history of the sport is well documented, but it is history, you can't judge modern performances as corrupt because previous riders were juiced to the gills! I prefer to look at wattage outputs stage times, weather conditions on the day etc. and compare the results with the acknowledged era of serious drug abuse then make a call on it. Nature can't be fooled! Lemond has written extensively about this and imo is the only way to rid a great sport of cheats.
Eric8-A said:
Precisely! I'd say if you throw your leg over a bike your assumed to be guilty on here.
Its clear what happened
Purito and Moreno were 1th and 2nd in GC, but before covatilla stage... Sky stole his doping products and they are using it, and katusha is riding clean now
Purito and Moreno were 1th and 2nd in GC, but before covatilla stage... Sky stole his doping products and they are using it, and katusha is riding clean now
I do love that some people fancy themselves as the forum thought police. I'm sorry ACF are we only allowed to post threads that you and others approve of? I'll remember next time your control freak tendencies kick in to PM you with my thoughts just to make sure that you approve of them.
So tell me, under what conditions are we 'allowed' to post a discussion asking if a team is dirty or not?
I'm loathed to explain the thread but seeing as it has gone over the heads of several of you it obviously needs to be done. i) The thread is posed as a question/discussion, not a statement that Sky are dirty. See that thing on the end of the title - it's called a question mark, you put them at the end of sentences when you are asking a question to which you don't know the answer. ii) In the opening post I stated both sides of the argument - that the performances are unbelievable and alternative view that it's really down to Wiggins losing weight etc.
Anyway, you guys keep on complaining about the thread and keep on moving it up to the top
Back to the topic in hand - Sky have moved away from their hardline no doping position? - their handling of Possoni being implicated and hiring Sean Yates doesn't inspire much confidence.
Or in the words of Zhou Enlai is it 'too early to tell' and if Wiggins and Froome start crossing the line together like Vino and Kash in 2006 or Horner and Bottle in TOC then we need to start worrying but not just yet.
So tell me, under what conditions are we 'allowed' to post a discussion asking if a team is dirty or not?
I'm loathed to explain the thread but seeing as it has gone over the heads of several of you it obviously needs to be done. i) The thread is posed as a question/discussion, not a statement that Sky are dirty. See that thing on the end of the title - it's called a question mark, you put them at the end of sentences when you are asking a question to which you don't know the answer. ii) In the opening post I stated both sides of the argument - that the performances are unbelievable and alternative view that it's really down to Wiggins losing weight etc.
Anyway, you guys keep on complaining about the thread and keep on moving it up to the top
Back to the topic in hand - Sky have moved away from their hardline no doping position? - their handling of Possoni being implicated and hiring Sean Yates doesn't inspire much confidence.
Or in the words of Zhou Enlai is it 'too early to tell' and if Wiggins and Froome start crossing the line together like Vino and Kash in 2006 or Horner and Bottle in TOC then we need to start worrying but not just yet.
Mrs John Murphy said:I do love that some people fancy themselves as the forum thought police. I'm sorry ACF are we only allowed to post threads that you and others approve of. I'll remember next time your control freak tendencies kick in to PM you with my thoughts just to make sure that you approve of them.
So tell me, under what conditions are we 'allowed' to post a discussion asking if a team is dirty or not?
I'm loathed to explain the thread but seeing as it has gone over the heads of several of you it obviously needs to be done. i) The thread is posed as a question/discussion not a statement that Sky are dirty. See that thing on the end of the title - it's called a question mark, you put them at the end of sentences when you are asking a question to which you don't know the answer. ii) In the opening post I stated both sides of the argument - that the performances are unbelievable and alternative view that it's really down to Wiggins losing weight etc.
Anyway, you guys keep on complaining about the thread and keep on moving it up to the top
Back to the topic in hand - Sky have moved away from their hardline no doping position - their handling of Possoni being implicated and hiring Sean Yates doesn't inspire much confidence.
Or in the words of Zhou Enlai is it 'too early to tell' and if Wiggins and Froome start crossing the line together like Vino and Kash in 2006 or Horner and Bottle in TOC then we need to start worrying but not just yet.
I think I agree with the latter paragraph. Ok Froome is having a break-out performance and that is definitely suspicious (the 90s/00s mean any unexpected great performance is suspicious). Counter points however, no one did this thread whilst Froome was climbing with the best before the TT, Wiggins isn't significantly better than at the dauphine.
For me the the fact that the long climbs so far have not split it up much (Angliru will be different since no slip stream at those speeds) and climbers TTing like climbers (not like pantani or sastre 08) suggests a much cleaner peloton. I honestly think if Froome was a no talent who had heavily doped to give the performances he is doing now he would get found out. However, it is reasonable to think some doping is still going on, adjusting parameters within the margins allowed by the bio-passport, and if that's the case it's logical to think Froome is doing the same as everyone else.
Larry Finnegan said:
In the absence of other factors, one is more likely to be correct assuming a given pro-cyclist is dirty than assuming he's clean.
Cycling history has shown this and it can easily be presented as a regular statistical pattern, so if you claim otherwise (i.e. if you presume innocence and criticize those who don't), the burden of the proof is yours.
Bumeington said:
I tend to agree that it is too early to tell. And I certainly don't think McQuaid is correct to talk about a sea-change in the attitude of the peloton towards doping.
I find the climbers TTing like climbers bit interesting, the other side is TTers outclimbing the specialist climbers, and not losing anything in their ITT.
sniper said:
What if your assumption is wrong? 'More likely' isn't good enough. Definitive proof is the excepted norm. Statistics also produce outliers, something, someone that is outside the norm. I think its fair to say that Greg Lemond, who I happen to believe had a clean career (can't prove it), would fall into this category. I'd bet my last cent that Lemond would be lambasted on this site as a doper had it existed in '89. The presumption being he couldn't have a year like that and be clean. He did struggle desperately in the Giro, except for a glimmer of form in the last TT, then goes on to win the Tour and Worlds.
I can't prove any rider, Lemond included, was/is clean.
Dan Martin did not put as good TT anyway. So the comparison is not aplicable here.Larry Finnegan said:
Remember that climbers usually suck at TT to then kill everybody in the mountain. Some energy saving taking place here. Not the case for Froome.
BTW, I am not suspicious yet.
It is the third week when I become suspicious of riders. It is hard to tell now IMHO.
Fergoose said:
How can this be true? What does coming from Kenya has to do with someone cheating in a race?? just because there is no culture of doping in a country then its athletes can be considered clean as a whistle? what kind of logic is that? The culture of doping in cycling is what is going to corrupt him anyway. Look what the Mennonite background did for Landis. Nothing.
This assessment is questionable. It is actually predictable from the natural stand point of view. This is one of the biggest criteria methods used for the doping crusaders as Lemond and other scientists: Natural talent shows at an early age. So results should show early in their life unless everybody stated doping early in their life. But usually the very talented show results early in their life, if not for a 3 week GT, at least for 1 week races where a clean rider has a better shot at winning.cycladianpirate said:This forum really is a giggle!
I just love the way that every "unexplainable" result ends up here. It's wonderfully ironic that an attempt by a sport to counter doping should result in a myriad of speculation about.....doping. Far better to sweep it under the carpet
There was a time when the essence of sport was the fact that it was so unpredictable. But what I fail to understand is why you should give any more credence to a series of 'great endeavours' rather than just one or two.
It's the former that would raise my eyebrows.
Still. Carry on speculating - it's hilarious.....
The unpredictability aspect of the sport started to show up in the early 90's.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Tour of the Alps 2024 (April 15 - 19)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 359
-
-
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
Latest posts
-
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Latest: RedheadDane
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram