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

[Libertine Seguros]

So this "super doping" Cobo, who is probably doping admittedly, is so clearly doping because he finished 48 seconds ahead of Chris freaking Froome, who is apparently clean, on one of the 2 hardest climbs in cycling?

Is Cobo doping? Well, if he can only pull out 48 seconds on a guy who has shown close to zero in his career, then either he's doing it very badly, or both of them are doing it. I know which one I believe. Wiggins may win the Vuelta yet.

If it's all to do with cycling getting cleaner, then why hasn't the improvement of apparently clean riders been uniform? Why has Froome's improvement been so much more marked than anybody else's?

Maybe it's because if the sport gets cleaner, then the advantages picked up by doping are that much more obvious.

Don't forget that Froome was 8th on the MTF in Romandie this year, just 1 spot behind TDF winner Cadel Evans! So clearly, given that performance, dominance in Vuelta was to be expected (ok, not really, but goes to show that he has shown glimpses of similar form earlier).

That's one of 3 mountain stage top 10s in Froome's career prior to this Vuelta. 3rd on Mont Faron in 2009, and 9th in the Brixia Tour to Poffe in 2010 are the other two.

Neither are exactly indicative of a super talent.

 

[Fergoose]

And you fail to consider the possibility that both are doping but one slightly more, or both are doping equally but Cobo's just a better cyclist than Froome.

True. But if you consider Froome's performance as more outrageous than Cobo's, then I am forced to conclude that you consider Cobo is doping less than Froome!

 

[brollebol]

True. But if you consider Froome's performance as more outrageous than Cobo's, then I am forced to conclude that you consider Cobo is doping less than Froome!

Or maybe he considers Cobo to simply be a better cyclist which, looking at their past performances, isn't completely unthinkable...

There is not a doubt in my mind that something fishy is going on with both riders but Froome's performance is definitely a bigger surprise than Cobo's.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

True. But if you consider Froome's performance as more outrageous than Cobo's, then I am forced to conclude that you consider Cobo is doping less than Froome!

They're more ridiculous. It's not exactly surprising to see Cobo performing as if on dope, now, is it?

Besides, back in the day he was flattening a pretty decent Tour field by more than he beat Wout Poels and Chris freaking Froome by on a much tougher mountain on Sunday.

If this was a minor .1 race, Cobo beating Froome by 48 seconds would raise no eyebrows whatsoever, other than the shock of Froome being 2nd in the GC, even in the Vuelta a Asturias or whatever. In the Vuelta, both of them turn into a finely tuned comedy double act.

 

[Mambo95]

If this was a minor .1 race, Cobo beating Froome by 48 seconds would raise no eyebrows whatsoever, other than the shock of Froome being 2nd in the GC, even in the Vuelta a Asturias or whatever. In the Vuelta, both of them turn into a finely tuned comedy double act.

But are they doing anything particularly extraordinary? They're not the only ones surprisingly high up on GC. There's also Monfort and Fuglsang up there - solid riders, but also not really big GC contenders.

Doping by Cobo or Froome or whoever can't explain the failure of the favourites.
Why are Nibali (7th), Rodriguez (13th), Anton (40th) and Scarponi (DNF) not in the mix? It's not because somebody else doped.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

True. But if you consider Froome's performance as more outrageous than Cobo's, then I am forced to conclude that you consider Cobo is doping less than Froome!

So 'clean' Froome finishes less than a minute behind 'dirty' Cobo?
Well how much would Froome have put in to Cobo if he went on Cobo's program?
I have no opinion on either rider - but your theory does not hold up.

But are they doing anything particularly extraordinary? They're not the only ones surprisingly high up on GC. There's also Monfort and Fuglsang up there - solid riders, but also not really big GC contenders.

Doping by Cobo or Froome or whoever can't explain the failure of the favourites.
Why are Nibali (7th), Rodriguez (13th), Anton (40th) and Scarponi (DNF) not in the mix? It's not because somebody else doped.

Doping enhances performance - it is not a magic wand that means you are set up to finish in a particular order.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

But are they doing anything particularly extraordinary? They're not the only ones surprisingly high up on GC. There's also Monfort and Fuglsang up there - solid riders, but also not really big GC contenders.

Doping by Cobo or Froome or whoever can't explain the failure of the favourites.
Why are Nibali (7th), Rodriguez (13th), Anton (40th) and Scarponi (DNF) not in the mix? It's not because somebody else doped.

No, but Monfort and Fuglsang are both less surprising than Froome. Cobo, well we know what he CAN do, but what he CAN do and what he WILL do is very different; he's very flaky. Both Monfort and Fuglsang have shown much more in the past than Froome and so yes, their performance is surprising, but they're the kind of guys that I WOULD expect to be up there if the main favourites failed. Froome is not.

 

[Fergoose]

Why are Nibali (7th), Rodriguez (13th), Anton (40th) and Scarponi (DNF) not in the mix? It's not because somebody else doped.

Because of the curse of course!

One thing is for sure, the collapse or underperformance of pretty much all the favourites is just about unprecedented and is making gauging riders' performances blooming difficult. I think the power data estimates thread is becoming increasingly valuable.

 

[Mambo95]

Doping enhances performance - it is not a magic wand that means you are set up to finish in a particular order.

No amount of doping makes other riders worse though. There are unusual riders at the top of GC because the established names have all underperformed, not because those unusual riders (from several different teams) have all simultaneously started doping.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Because of the curse of course!

One thing is for sure, the collapse or underperformance of pretty much all the favourites is just about unprecedented and is making gauging riders' performances blooming difficult. I think the power data estimates thread is becoming increasingly valuable.

And yet your case is that Cobo is dirty but Froome is not.

Given their respective palmarès, I consider that if Cobo were doped up, he'd beat Froome by more than 48 seconds, assuming Froome is clean. You'd want to make the win pretty secure, right? Froome has shown nothing in his career to say this was even plausible. Yes, plenty of others have disappointed, and yes others have performed strikingly well. But none of them, not a single one, have come from nowhere like Froome. All of them have better palmarès and more recent achievements to point to. And he's beating them all.

Except for one guy. The guy you are certain is doping. The guy who most people are certain is doping, but who has a much, much, much better palmarès than Froome, and who is beating him by the gargantuan sum of 20 seconds. And who would actually be behind him if it weren't for bonus seconds (20 at Anglirú, 12 at Farrapona and 8 at La Covatilla).

So Froome's actually outdoing the obvious doper who has achieved much more than him, in real time.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

No amount of doping makes other riders worse though. There are unusual riders at the top of GC because the established names have all underperformed, not because those unusual riders (from several different teams) have all simultaneously started doping.

And each one of those unusual riders being up there is less surprising than Froome, and less of a fairytale. For riders like Mollema and Fuglsang it's a fairly logical progression. For riders like Monfort it's not surprising given a free hand. For Wiggins it's not that surprising given that he has top 5ed the Tour and won the Dauphiné. I have been impressed by his form and didn't expect him to be as strong as he has been, but I'm much more willing to buy it as legitimate than Froome. For Froome it would be a logical progression only if you invent a 2009 and 2010 that built on his 2008 showings in place of the lacklustre real ones, and only if you consider it wouldn't be surprising if, say, Fabio Taborre or Stefan Denifl started crushing everybody in the GTs.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No amount of doping makes other riders worse though.

What does that actually mean? That really makes no sense.

There are unusual riders at the top of GC because the established names have all underperformed, not because those unusual riders (from several different teams) have all simultaneously started doping.

Are you sure on that?

Your point appears to be that riders with a history are under-performing and these new riders who are at the top are clean - I am not giving any opinion on any of these riders, but history does not support that view.

 

[Mambo95]

And each one of those unusual riders being up there is less surprising than Froome, and less of a fairytale. For riders like Mollema and Fuglsang it's a fairly logical progression. For riders like Monfort it's not surprising given a free hand. For Wiggins it's not that surprising given that he has top 5ed the Tour and won the Dauphiné. I have been impressed by his form and didn't expect him to be as strong as he has been, but I'm much more willing to buy it as legitimate than Froome. For Froome it would be a logical progression only if you invent a 2009 and 2010 that built on his 2008 showings in place of the lacklustre real ones, and only if you consider it wouldn't be surprising if, say, Fabio Taborre or Stefan Denifl started crushing everybody in the GTs.

OK, seeing as you want to ignore the fact that he's had injuries and illness, I'll move on and ask this question?

If Sky had put him on some sort of doping programme, why start now? Why not at the beginning of the year, or last year? Is it because they really want to pay him three or four times what he's currently earning on his next contract?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

OK, seeing as you want to ignore the fact that he's had injuries and illness, I'll move on and ask this question?

If Sky had put him on some sort of doping programme, why start now? Why not at the beginning of the year, or last year? Is it because they really want to pay him three or four times what he's currently earning on his next contract?

I don't think Sky are on some kind of doping programme.

I think Chris Froome is on some kind of doping programme.

Big difference. I'm actually quite willing to buy Wiggins' performances given his record, his improved climbing this year and the other GT contenders' underperformance.

 

[Fergoose]

And yet your case is that Cobo is dirty but Froome is not.

No, my case is a large amount of evidence strongly points to Cobo being a serial doper and that there is insufficient indication/evidence (yet) against Froome that he is using PEDs. However, this can be reviewed on Wednesday & Thursday where we’ll see if Froome finally does a mountain climb at more than 6.0 w/kgs which would obviously further raise suspicions.

If Froome & Cobo head off into the clouds together next week and:
- time bonuses are available on the line that might jeopardise Cobo’s lead
AND
- Cobo can’t shake Froome (or heaven forfend, is dropped by Froome and loses red)

then I’ll be extremelysuspicious of Froome, despite him not having a 2008 TdF moment like Cobo. We just need to be patient about what the next week will bring.

As for 48 seconds, I’m not entirely sure when that became a tiny meaningless gap in cycling. It’s a long, long time in post 2007 cycling, particularly in a Vuelta where until recently the top 5 were within 36 seconds. Cobo has shown no signs of being anywhere near his limit and is simply doing enough to win the Vuelta. Why would he do any more when he knew with a 20 second bonus he’d be solidly in red?

As I have said repeatedly, Cobo didn't really push on on the Angliru for some minutes after his initial attack, but for the last 6kms he was 8 seconds faster than Contador (clenbuterol positive) in (I believe) 2008. I fully believe he could have attacked earlier and harder, certainly given by how fresh he appeared at the end.

Froome on the other hand was let free by Sky, went flat out and failed to even pip Poels & Menchov for vital bonus seconds that meant little to the other riders.

I'll repeat no more until after Wednesdays stage, as this is getting a touch boring. If you want to know what my position is on something, just ask and that way we can avoid opinions being misrepresented.

 

[Mambo95]

What does that actually mean? That really makes no sense.

Are you sure on that?

Your point appears to be that riders with a history are under-performing and these new riders who are at the top are clean - I am not giving any opinion on any of these riders, but history does not support that view.

The first bit makes sense. The pre-race favourite is 40th, the runner-up in the Giro has abandoned, the third place admits he is under raced. Those riders underperforming is not due to others doping.

And yes, I am sure that Cobo, Froome, Monfort and Fuglsang (and others all haven't started doping at the same time). Why would Leopard put the latter two on dope now and not at the Tour when their team needed them most and they would be tested less. Why would Sky start doping a rider they were discussing a new contract with? Neither team needs the ranking points.

 

[Mambo95]

I don't think Sky are on some kind of doping programme.

I think Chris Froome is on some kind of doping programme.

And how is he managing to sneak that past Sky then, while still intending to pass all the controls and blood passport and presumably having a better programme than anyone else, despite not earning that much money. It all seems a little far fetched.

Does a rider who Barloworld described as a future GT contender when they picked him up from MTB putting two years of problems behind him while favourites fail seem that much more unlikely.

 

[Fergoose]

So 'clean' Froome finishes less than a minute behind 'dirty' Cobo?
Well how much would Froome have put in to Cobo if he went on Cobo's program?
I have no opinion on either rider - but your theory does not hold up.

My apologies and you may have come into this in the middle which would make it confusing. I wasn't giving a theory, I was using elementary mathmatics.

IF Cobo is an "extremely talented" rider and that Froome is not
IF Cobo and Froome are both doping (and can be doping at different levels)
IF Cobo and Froome are separated by the width of a baw hair on the GC timings (on either side depending on whether you include time bonuses)

THEN you can only conclude that Froome is doping more heavily or effectively than Cobo to compensate for the time he is losing by not being an "extremely talented" rider.

 

[Ferminal]

What the hell? Leysin is nothing like Angliru or any MTF in this Vuelta.

An uphill finish rather than a mountain.

I'd say his better performance was to Crans-Montana.

 

[daveinzambia]

They're more ridiculous. It's not exactly surprising to see Cobo performing as if on dope, now, is it?

Besides, back in the day he was flattening a pretty decent Tour field by more than he beat Wout Poels and Chris freaking Froome by on a much tougher mountain on Sunday.

If this was a minor .1 race, Cobo beating Froome by 48 seconds would raise no eyebrows whatsoever, other than the shock of Froome being 2nd in the GC, even in the Vuelta a Asturias or whatever. In the Vuelta, both of them turn into a finely tuned comedy double act.

to be honest the main issue was how easy he made it look. you are right may mean nothing but when a rider looks SO much better than everyone else on the mountain doubts set in.

Gone off topic slightly here as well. getting my threads confused and am blaming Libertine for dragging me sideways.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The first bit makes sense. The pre-race favourite is 40th, the runner-up in the Giro has abandoned, the third place admits he is under raced. Those riders underperforming is not due to others doping.

Sorry, but it does not make sense.
You think these riders who under performed used (or didn't use) earlier in the year and not now? Of course not - doing PEDs is not a guarantee - it enhances performance, if your tired then PEDs make you less tired, if your struggling with injury then PEDs will mean you will struggle less.

And yes, I am sure that Cobo, Froome, Monfort and Fuglsang (and others all haven't started doping at the same time). Why would Leopard put the latter two on dope now and not at the Tour when their team needed them most and they would be tested less. Why would Sky start doping a rider they were discussing a new contract with? Neither team needs the ranking points.

And going by that logic, why does anyone need to dope ever - why did Scarponi and Nibali not think about this?
You seem to think that taking PEDs means you magically arrive at a pre determined level that you will always attain when on those PEDs.

 

[Fergoose]

Taking a quote from the Cobo thread.

have to say that given the general dislike there seems to be for them [Sky] on here outside of UK people, they are doing something really wrong with their image. Sorry gone way off topic

Nae probs with the off topic, its hard keeping things in the right thread if people wish to exclusively tie the Cobo doping issue in with Froome somehow.

There will be just as much hostility within the UK towards Sky (as a company and to a lesser extent as a team). I don't like to say things infront of TeamSkyFans and others who support the team and are thoroughly decent spuds, but lets just say the guy that owns Sky is a major bogeyman in the UK and some of us (myself included) would like everything he touches to turn to rust! Infuriatingly, the team appear to have recruited some personable and/or exciting atheletes (Wiggins, Swift, Thomas, EBH, Cavendish?) that make disliking the team more difficult!

I fear I probably won't be able to watch professional cycling in years to come if Sky television snap up the rights to it. If Froome is found to be doping the Sky involvement in cycling will take a massive blow and I might be able to continue to watch it on the telly! So believe me, I have no axe to grind in favour of Sky or their cycling team and Froome being found to dope could be the best thing to happen for me if I was to take a ridiculously petty minded and self absorbed view of things.

 

[Mambo95]

Sorry, but it does not make sense.
You think these riders who under performed used (or didn't use) earlier in the year and not now? Of course not - doing PEDs is not a guarantee - it enhances performance, if your tired then PEDs make you less tired, if your struggling with injury then PEDs will mean you will struggle less.


And going by that logic, why does anyone need to dope ever - why did Scarponi and Nibali not think about this?
You seem to think that taking PEDs means you magically arrive at a pre determined level that you will always attain when on those PEDs.

No, what I think is that not everything is explained by PEDs. I think the favourites have failed because they are just off form (and a bit overrated in some cases).

I think the level of doping nowadays is pretty marginal and doesn't make a great deal of difference. People aren't robots. Their performance differs, sometimes very erratically. You can see this in lots of sports, throughout their history. You can see it in plenty of other areas of life too.

Many on this forum see PEDs as the automatic (and in some cases, only possible) explanation for almost. I don't.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, what I think is that not everything is explained by PEDs. I think the favourites have failed because they are just off form (and a bit overrated in some cases).

I think the level of doping nowadays is pretty marginal and doesn't make a great deal of difference. People aren't robots. Their performance differs, sometimes very erratically. You can see this in lots of sports, throughout their history. You can see it in plenty of other areas of life too.

Many on this forum see PEDs as the automatic (and in some cases, only possible) explanation for almost. I don't.

Nor do I.
In particular for explaining inconsistencies or under performing.

However when riders make large advancements or come up with unbelievable performances then it is an obvious (if not always correct) conclusion.

 

[JRanton]

Dispatches: The Truth About Drugs In Football

Dispatches investigates the use of both recreational and performance-enhancing substances in our national game.

Reporter Antony Barnett examines football's drug-testing regime, raises questions about how the sport deals with its drug cheats and also looks at the use of some bizarre but legal treatments players undergo.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-100/episode-1

Airs on Channel 4 (UK) next Monday at 8.00pm GMT.

Might be an interesting watch.