Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[JRanton]

This is a very good question.

Doping has shifted.

Prior to 08. It was train and hide then race big, once, twice and that's it. With no or very little OOC much easier to dope and train than dope and race. Reduced risk.

Anglo riders could afford to do this. The Tour was really what was reported outside of Europe.

Teams with European sponsors required wins season long.

So you got a lot of Euro getting banged up for doping.

Now with the passport, ADAMS and OOC, consistency is the name of the game.

You need to appear your top form doping form is normal - your faux baseline.

Mix in altitude and sickness around the schedule to fluctuate irregularities and you're good.

So, yes, now I see those whom are doping are doing so 60% of the year and keeping performances high.

Sky, Horner, Fabian to name a few. 60% at the right time.

Interestingly enough Horner had blood injected into his knee to help it heal better. I don't really see that flagging up on his passport.

Back to your original point. Consistency pre-EPo was the rom for a good rider. Now it appears the template or a doper.

Does this answer the question?

Yes, except that Horner and Fabian weren't performing consistently well for 60% of 2013. And if you're doping 60% of the year and not in the other 40% then what happens to your ''faux baseline'' and passport values when you're tested in the period when you're not doping?

 

[thehog]

Yes, except that Horner and Fabian weren't performing consistently well for 60% of 2013. And if you're doping 60% of the year and not in the other 40% then what happens to your ''faux baseline'' and passport values when you're tested in the period when you're not doping?

What do you think happens?

Naturally they rise when when you're not competing (less stress) and that's why you also go to altitude in between - ie Colordo.

The passport has allowance for these two attributes.

 

[JRanton]

What do you think happens?

Naturally they rise when when you're not competing (less stress) and that's why you also go to altitude in between - ie Colordo.

The passport has allowance for these two attributes.

And what about when you are competing in the period when you're not doping? What happens to your values then?

 

[The Hitch]

On the basis of the above you can pretty much keep on saying that Froome could win classics if he really wanted to no matter how much evidence stacks up to suggest otherwise.

There is no evidence against anymore than passing a drugs test is evidence of being clean. It's not something that can be disproved by absence of proof. As is the nature of the question since it's not possible for someone who has won a classic to be a bad classics rider but it is possible for someone who has never won one to be a good one. Just like it's not possible for someone who fails a drugs test to be clean but it is possible for someone who passed them all to be doped.

valverde for example passed every test he's ever had. By your definition that would be a lot of evidence in his favour. But it's been disproved by an outside factor.

What we are debating here isn't evidence it's, like in the doping discussions probability. Reaching a conclusion through arguments rather than scientific proof since scientific proof(which can only point in one direction) does not exist, yet.

so, the absence of a good performance from froome is not evidence, it is an argument, and a pretty good one. But not a conclusive one.

I believe that just like with Valverde, outside factors helped us reach a conclusion that the testing could not.give, with froome the outside factors point heavily towards the side that he can perform in classics.

The outside factors being his performances in the races he targets.

If historically medium mountain climbing and multiple hill climbing have always been so strongly correlated why would froome.be such an amazing anomaly that he couldn't produce anywhere near the same performance in one as the other? Biologically it makes no sense that froome who has so many strengths, would have this one weakness so fantastically out of proportion with the rest of his skillset that his attributes look more like those of a pcm edit than of an actual person.

It makes no sense that a guy that can produce the acceleration froome did on a 20km climb, would not be able to produce the acceleration on a 2k one. What is he some robot who actually rides faster the harder the climb?

 

[thehog]

And what about when you are competing in the period when you're not doping? What happens to your values then?

What do you think happens?

You pull out of the world road championships en masse halfway through the event.

Thus avoid being tested.

Values remain intact because you only road 100km.

 

[JRanton]

There is no evidence against anymore than passing a drugs test is evidence of being clean. It's not something that can be disproved by absence of proof. As is the nature of the question since it's not possible for someone who has won a classic to be a bad classics rider but it is possible for someone who has never won one to be a good one. Just like it's not possible for someone who fails a drugs test to be clean but it is possible for someone who passed them all to be doped.

valverde for example passed every test he's ever had. By your definition that would be a lot of evidence in his favour. But it's been disproved by an outside factor.

What we are debating here isn't evidence it's, like in the doping discussions probability. Reaching a conclusion through arguments rather than scientific proof since scientific proof(which can only point in one direction) does not exist, yet.

so, the absence of a good performance from froome is not evidence, it is an argument, and a pretty good one. But not a conclusive one.

I believe that just like with Valverde, outside factors helped us reach a conclusion that the testing could not.give, with froome the outside factors point heavily towards the side that he can perform in classics.

The outside factors being his performances in the races he targets.

If historically medium mountain climbing and multiple hill climbing have always been so strongly correlated why would froome.be such an amazing anomaly that he couldn't produce anywhere near the same performance in one as the other? Biologically it makes no sense that froome who has so many strengths, would have this one weakness so fantastically out of proportion with the rest of his skillset that his attributes look more like those of a pcm edit than of an actual person.

It makes no sense that a guy that can produce the acceleration froome did on a 20km climb, would not be able to produce the acceleration on a 2k one. What is he some robot who actually rides faster the harder the climb?

Relative to the others, yes. Both in time trials and climbs. The longer they are the better he is against the competition. That's because the new Chris Froome is a massive diesel. Let's go back to PDBF in the 2012 Tour. You think Froome wins that stage if it's only 1km long?

It's as if we've been watching different riders the last two years. He is not an explosive rider relative to the competition on short distances and for that and other reasons (lack of technical ability/tactical know how) he is never going to be an accomplished classics rider!

 

[JRanton]

What do you think happens?

You pull out of the world road championships en masse halfway through the event.

Thus avoid being tested.

Values remain intact because you only road 100km.

You and I both know that doesn't prevent you from being tested. Mr Bassons says hi. Froome rode 180km and was clearly suffering from the effort.

 

[Race Radio]

What do you think happens?

You pull out of the world road championships en masse halfway through the event.

Thus avoid being tested.

Values remain intact because you only road 100km.

You can still be tested even if you drop out of a race.

 

[thehog]

You and I both know that doesn't prevent you from being tested. Mr Bassons says hi. Froome rode 180km and was clearly suffering from the effort.

Of course.

I'm not trying to convince you otherwise but there less chance of being tested by pulling out and you have reason to explain your values as you suggest - "suffering", "unwell".

They're not stupid enough to dope to actually test positive. We're talking passport here remember.

The passport as it stands encourages doping.

It also allows guys like Horner & Froome to win GTs.

The UCI gets what deserves when they designed a system so open to abuse.

They get Chris & Chris.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Ok, so what's your explanation then for the road race performance?

I dont have one, I just have questions. Given the Team Time Trial the week before valid questions. Team SKY had 3 finishers at the worlds RR, they all rode the Vuelta. The altitude blockers and the Tour de GB riders all failed to finish. Lets leave out the Tour de GB guys - Stannard and Wiggi - because they are not suited for the parcours or just not there with their mindset [queen Wiggi]. That leaves us with the performances of Froome and Porte[and the GB doms], or was Porte a dom for Simon Clarke there?

The drop off in performance is staggering.

 

[JRanton]

I dont have one, I just have questions. Given the Team Time Trial the week before valid questions. Team SKY had 3 finishers at the worlds RR, they all rode the Vuelta. The altitude blockers and the Tour de GB riders all failed to finish. Lets leave out the Tour de GB guys - Stannard and Wiggi - because they are not suited for the parcours or just not there with their mindset [queen Wiggi]. That leaves us with the performances of Froome and Porte[and the GB doms], or was Porte a dom for Simon Clarke there?

The drop off in performance is staggering.

I just don't think it is when you consider that neither rider has any classics record to speak of. Porte DNF's L-B-L when he was clearly in good form and Froome was nowhere. Let's see how Porte does in Beijing.

 

[Ferminal]

Porte's best ride (non-TT) pre-2012 was San Sebastian.

 

[JRanton]

Porte's best ride (non-TT) pre-2012 was San Sebastian.

In what universe is 10th at CSS better than 7th at the Giro as a neo-pro?

 

[JRanton]

owenslotTheTimes ‏@owenslot now

Philippe Maire (Motoman) told us how he used to work w/ Chris Froome and Richie Porte following introduction from Sean Yates

 

[Von Mises]

This is a very good question.

Doping has shifted.

Prior to 08. It was train and hide then race big, once, twice and that's it. With no or very little OOC much easier to dope and train than dope and race. Reduced risk.

Anglo riders could afford to do this. The Tour was really what was reported outside of Europe.

Teams with European sponsors required wins season long.

So you got a lot of Euro getting banged up for doping.

Now with the passport, ADAMS and OOC, consistency is the name of the game.

You need to appear your top form doping form is normal - your faux baseline.

Mix in altitude and sickness around the schedule to fluctuate irregularities and you're good.

So, yes, now I see those whom are doping are doing so 60% of the year and keeping performances high.

Sky, Horner, Fabian to name a few. 60% at the right time.

Interestingly enough Horner had blood injected into his knee to help it heal better. I don't really see that flagging up on his passport.

Back to your original point. Consistency pre-EPo was the rom for a good rider. Now it appears the template or a doper.

Does this answer the question?

Nice theory, pity that facts dont support.

 

[hrotha]

In what universe is 10th at CSS better than 7th at the Giro as a neo-pro?

Results aren't everything. It's also what you do during the race.

 

[Benotti69]

owenslotTheTimes ‏@owenslot now

Philippe Maire (Motoman) told us how he used to work w/ Chris Froome and Richie Porte following introduction from Sean Yates

????

Another dot to join against Sky.

 

[JRTinMA]

????

Another dot to join against Sky.

That's no dot. If not for PEDs why would anybody need a Motoman?

 

[Avoriaz]

????

Another dot to join against Sky.

For some yes, for others no. Motoman was the courier at USPS. He owns a bike shop and owns a motorbike.

Owen Slot thinks it is wrong, but not to do with doping

owenslotTheTimes ‏@owenslot 33m don't believe remotely he did anything bar mechanical work on their bikes. But this just shows the twisted, intertwined world of cycling

 

[Ferminal]

In what universe is 10th at CSS better than 7th at the Giro as a neo-pro?

I mean performance, not results. He wasn't really spectacular on any day at the Giro.

 

[sniper]

For some yes, for others no. Motoman was the courier at USPS. He owns a bike shop and owns a motorbike.
Owen Slot thinks it is wrong, but not to do with doping

must come as a genuine surprise to guys like slot and walsh to see how small the world is.
must be one brilliant mechanic

 

[Dazed and Confused]

must come as a genuine surprise to guys like slot and walsh to see how small the world is.
must be one brilliant mechanic

A Pinarello expert, no doubt.

 

[Avoriaz]

must come as a genuine surprise to guys like slot and walsh to see how small the world is.
must be one brilliant mechanic

or local

10 chars

 

[Benotti69]

must come as a genuine surprise to guys like slot and walsh to see how small the world is.
must be one brilliant mechanic

So few good doctors and bike mechanics out there. Amazing.

Sky really no how to dirty their bib and then proclaim innocence, naivety and still say they are the clean transparent team.

 

[Benotti69]

or local

10 chars

Porte and Froome live in Monaco. The south of France must be full of bike shops and ex team mechanics, but only motoman will do?

Stinks of doping.