Tyler says:

[This Charming Man]

Who else but guys like these: http://www.cyclingnews.com/teams/2004/t-mobile-team/ and Tyler Hamilton, to out doping?http://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/other/tyler-hamilton-insists-there-is-still-doping-in-cycling/ar-BBAMxKT

 

[ferryman]

Who else but guys like these: http://www.cyclingnews.com/teams/2004/t-mobile-team/ and Tyler Hamilton, to out doping?http://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/other/tyler-hamilton-insists-there-is-still-doping-in-cycling/ar-BBAMxKT

Made the link easier, hope you don't mind:


http://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/other/tyler-hamilton-insists-there-is-still-doping-in-cycling/ar-BBAMxKT

 

[This Charming Man]

Who else but guys like these: http://www.cyclingnews.com/teams/2004/t-mobile-team/ and Tyler Hamilton, to out doping?http://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/other/tyler-hamilton-insists-there-is-still-doping-in-cycling/ar-BBAMxKT

Made the link easier, hope you don't mind:


http://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/other/tyler-hamilton-insists-there-is-still-doping-in-cycling/ar-BBAMxKT

Thanks. Good to see that Tyler is watching too! He states the obvious, interestingly, two riders from the same team, banned, right before GIRO. I don't care, looks like a great GIRO, no matter.

 

[Tricycle Rider]

I like Tyler, but am not sure why he would say it's possible to compete clean nowadays. I mean, yes, you can compete clean at any point in your life. But that doesn't mean you'll actually win. (Or you'll even get close to it.)

Am I being too picky here?

 

[mcduff]

In so far as its possible that the anti-doping technology, if applied, has made rampant doping harder and more expensive, and therefore less prevalent...then yes, possibly. Of course its really hard to know from the outside as a lack of frequent positive tests doesn't tell you much. I have no doubt at all that there are still those who have the resources to afford some seriously high-level medical assistance with relative impunity.

 

[Aragon]

Here is an interesting quote from the link:

Speaking to Press Association Sport at the Sport Resolutions conference in London, Hamilton said he and his team-mates "abused the crap out of" Kenacort, a brand of triamcinolone.

He said: "It helped you 'lean out' for the grand tours and it was very effective. Look at the pictures - I weighed 30 pounds less than I do now. Not healthy.

Slightly OFFtopic, but I find this interesting, because in the available Puerto - files, there is also thyroid hormone Levothyroxine (Levothroid) mentioned being in the arsenal of dopers, Hamilton having scheduled to use it right after the 2003 Dauphiné, only a few weeks before the TDF. There might be some other PED-related use of the hormone, but my knowledge on thyroid hormones ends to the information that they increase your metabolic rate.

While discussing the difficulty of getting rid of the last pounds of fat before GTs in his autobiography, Tyler doesn't discuss neither Kenocort nor Levothroid in his book. He specifically makes the claim that Fuentes provided him with only transfusions, rEPO and testosterone when he had left USPS. I think he doesn't even mention corticosteroids after him ending his contract with the USPS, but I think he doesn't either specifically mention that he didn't use them post-2001.

While it is a great book, I my impression has always been that The Secret Race has some questionable parts and mysterious omissions which render the parts that can't be confirmed from other sources unreliable.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re:

I like Tyler, but am not sure why he would say it's possible to compete clean nowadays. I mean, yes, you can compete clean at any point in your life. But that doesn't mean you'll actually win. (Or you'll even get close to it.)

Am I being too picky here?

To ALL those who say " the sport is mostly clean" need to stop kidding themselves, It's Still dirty:

http://www.espn.com/olympics/story/_/id/18924287/josh-edmondson-ex-team-sky-rider-says-secretly-injected-tramadol

 

[tobydawq]

Re: Re:

I like Tyler, but am not sure why he would say it's possible to compete clean nowadays. I mean, yes, you can compete clean at any point in your life. But that doesn't mean you'll actually win. (Or you'll even get close to it.)

Am I being too picky here?

To ALL those who say " the sport is mostly clean" need to stop kidding themselves, It's Still dirty:

http://www.espn.com/olympics/story/_/id/18924287/josh-edmondson-ex-team-sky-rider-says-secretly-injected-tramadol

A relevant quote from the article:

"The drug is not banned"

 

[spiritualride]

Why inject tramadol? I didn't even know it could be injected. Has a really good absorption and duration when taken orally. Very addictive. An opiate and an SSRI and SNRI all at the same time, so withdrawals can be worse than heroin. Can cause seizures. Meant for serious pain... not something for someone who is well enough to be riding as a pro cyclist. It's like giving a cyclist Oxycontin.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

I like Tyler, but am not sure why he would say it's possible to compete clean nowadays. I mean, yes, you can compete clean at any point in your life. But that doesn't mean you'll actually win. (Or you'll even get close to it.)

Am I being too picky here?

To ALL those who say " the sport is mostly clean" need to stop kidding themselves, It's Still dirty:

http://www.espn.com/olympics/story/_/id/18924287/josh-edmondson-ex-team-sky-rider-says-secretly-injected-tramadol

A relevant quote from the article:

"The drug is not banned"

Ah, the mythical "grey area". This seems to me the last refuge of the faithful. Do people really believe that ridrs get caught for all the times they cheat? Did Rasmussen just miss a test? Or was he on a full program? Did Armstrong really come back clean as he claims? Or did he come back on a full program as his blood values seem to indicate? Do Sky really only use Kenacort for allergies (or whatever it is they claim)? Or do they abuse it rampantly, in and out of competition to cut weight and recover? Are their "altitude camps" there just for training, or do they mask the changing blood values of a full program? Did Froome really just "learn how to ride more efficiently" and get "cured of Bilharzia" (or did he have it, then was cured, then had it again, but performed at incredible levels...I can't keep it all straight) or did he simply go on a program to save his job? Was that time you got popped for speeding the only time you ever broke the speed limit?

People really don't buy this stuff, do they?

Didn't Brailsford say it himself back in the day? Cheaters don't just cheat a little.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

Why inject tramadol? I didn't even know it could be injected. Has a really good absorption and duration when taken orally. Very addictive. An opiate and an SSRI and SNRI all at the same time, so withdrawals can be worse than heroin. Can cause seizures. Meant for serious pain... not something for someone who is well enough to be riding as a pro cyclist. It's like giving a cyclist Oxycontin.

Pot Belge, 2017.

 

[Benotti69]

Here is an interesting quote from the link:

Speaking to Press Association Sport at the Sport Resolutions conference in London, Hamilton said he and his team-mates "abused the crap out of" Kenacort, a brand of triamcinolone.

He said: "It helped you 'lean out' for the grand tours and it was very effective. Look at the pictures - I weighed 30 pounds less than I do now. Not healthy.

Slightly OFFtopic, but I find this interesting, because in the available Puerto - files, there is also thyroid hormone Levothyroxine (Levothroid) mentioned being in the arsenal of dopers, Hamilton having scheduled to use it right after the 2003 Dauphiné, only a few weeks before the TDF. There might be some other PED-related use of the hormone, but my knowledge on thyroid hormones ends to the information that they increase your metabolic rate.

While discussing the difficulty of getting rid of the last pounds of fat before GTs in his autobiography, Tyler doesn't discuss neither Kenocort nor Levothroid in his book. He specifically makes the claim that Fuentes provided him with only transfusions, rEPO and testosterone when he had left USPS. I think he doesn't even mention corticosteroids after him ending his contract with the USPS, but I think he doesn't either specifically mention that he didn't use them post-2001.

While it is a great book, I my impression has always been that The Secret Race has some questionable parts and mysterious omissions which render the parts that can't be confirmed from other sources unreliable.

I think only Jiminez went through his medical cabinet in detail.

I don't believe that Sky only abused the Triamacoline 'legally'. It was part of the arsenal of PEDs.

 

[tobydawq]

Re: Re:

Ah, the mythical "grey area". This seems to me the last refuge of the faithful. Do people really believe that ridrs get caught for all the times they cheat? Did Rasmussen just miss a test? Or was he on a full program? Did Armstrong really come back clean as he claims? Or did he come back on a full program as his blood values seem to indicate? Do Sky really only use Kenacort for allergies (or whatever it is they claim)? Or do they abuse it rampantly, in and out of competition to cut weight and recover? Are their "altitude camps" there just for training, or do they mask the changing blood values of a full program? Did Froome really just "learn how to ride more efficiently" and get "cured of Bilharzia" (or did he have it, then was cured, then had it again, but performed at incredible levels...I can't keep it all straight) or did he simply go on a program to save his job? Was that time you got popped for speeding the only time you ever broke the speed limit?

People really don't buy this stuff, do they?

Didn't Brailsford say it himself back in the day? Cheaters don't just cheat a little.

You're very likely to be right but you can't really bust someone for doing something that is legal because it might be morally ambiguous, thus prompting you to come to conclusion that this amorality necessarily means that illegal aids are used as well. They probably are, but the usage of tramadol is definitely no evidence of this.

And regarding Froome, it's a pretty bad conspiracy theory that he never had the disease. Because if a bad rider suddenly could transform himself into being the best Grand Tour rider of his generation, many more riders would do that (oh, except that only one rider can be the best). So he is a very talented rider by default and has always had great potential even if it was not for the public to see.

Otherwise, you have to assume that Froome does heaps of illegal things that no other riders do and I don't think that is the case. Or, you have to assume that Froome somehow responds in a completely crazily effective manner to drugs compared to other riders, which is also very unlikely. So if you subscribe to the belief that every top level GC rider is taking medical aids then the only viable conclusion is that Froome is a very talented bike rider himself and probably had something hampering him in his first years as a professional.

 

[red_flanders]

I don't advocate busting anyone for it and Froome clearly seems to be a great responder on a solid program.

The bilharzia story has more holes in it than a deer crossing sign in Alabama. It's on the level of Vandenbroucke's dog.

 

[tobydawq]

So what is your explanation for Froome's sudden rise to greatness? Was he just lazy before 2011?

 

[Huapango]

Re:

So what is your explanation for Froome's sudden rise to greatness? Was he just lazy before 2011?

I think they/he/whoever found something that Froome responded well to. With that, one needs some kind of story to prove his newfound greatness.

 

[tobydawq]

Re: Re:

So what is your explanation for Froome's sudden rise to greatness? Was he just lazy before 2011?

I think they/he/whoever found something that Froome responded well to. With that, one needs some kind of story to prove his newfound greatness.

But why would it be reasonable to assume that for some reason, Froome is the only cyclist to respond so strongly to that something so that he can take the leap from being a crap WT rider with purely mediocre talents into becoming a great champion with multiple TdF victories? That does not make any sense to me at all.

But I guess I shouldn't anticipate anything else than such conspiracies considering the strong Sky antipathy reigning in here.

By the way, note that I am not stating anywhere that he is definitely clean, before you accuse me for being a naive imbecile or something. I just don't think he does much more than any other GC top rider in the medical department.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

So what is your explanation for Froome's sudden rise to greatness? Was he just lazy before 2011?

I think they/he/whoever found something that Froome responded well to. With that, one needs some kind of story to prove his newfound greatness.

But why would it be reasonable to assume that for some reason, Froome is the only cyclist to respond so strongly to that something so that he can take the leap from being a crap WT rider with purely mediocre talents into becoming a great champion with multiple TdF victories? That does not make any sense to me at all.

But I guess I shouldn't anticipate anything else than such conspiracies considering the strong Sky antipathy reigning in here.

By the way, note that I am not stating anywhere that he is definitely clean, before you accuse me for being a naive imbecile or something. I just don't think he does much more than any other GC top rider in the medical department.

Why would it be reasonable to assume that anyone thinks what you describe here is what happened?

We can speculate all kinds of things, but the fact is of course no one but Froome and whomever else was involved knows how it happened.

We know a few things. He was a mediocre rider (at best) before 2011. We know the explanations given around Bilharzia were both inconsistent in terms of when he did and didn't have it, how it was cured, how he claims it did and didn't affect his performance, how many times he was treated, when he found out about it and probably a few other things I forget at this point. With the level of inconsistency in the telling and the nonsensical descriptions of how it did and then didn't affect his performance, one can easily surmise that as far as an explanation for performance, it is a lie. He may well have had it at some point, who knows. The best lies always contain some truth. We know he lost a bunch of weight, very quickly. We know he is connected with a doctor Stephane Bermon, and it appears he started working with this doctor in 2011. This has a bunch of info: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=29971

We know he started performing at the top level of the sport in late 2011 and has carried that form since, with only this spring as a notable exception. We have heard from many quarters (can't find a link right now) that he was going to lose his contract at Sky. We know he was a late scratch for the Vuelta, originally not on the team. All of which strongly suggests (to say the least) that the team were not aware of his form or abilities.

My personal guess is that he was not on any kind of full program before 2011, got scared he was going to lose his contract and sought help from outside. I would guess his program, at least initially, was outside of whatever Sky are doing. We do know they started covering for him immediately when his wildly unexpected performance started raising obvious questions.

To my view the most obvious explanation is that a rider who wasn't doping or wasn't doing much, started a full program to stay competitive with everyone else who was fairly obviously doping. He could be almost as talented as the other riders at the top, and he is fairly obviously responding very well to whatever program he's on.

But again, this is simply speculation on my part. There are any number of explanations for his progression. Natural talent alone certainly isn't one of them. Nor is his nonsensical narrative around bilharzia. My explanation maps to all the things we know about what happened. His do not.

Complaining about "conspiracy theories" and "Sky antipathy" aren't going to get you anywhere but discredited. Plenty of people, particularly english-speaking fans, rooted for Sky when they came out. When they started insulting our intelligence they lost all credibility and a lot of fans. I had no antipathy for them, quite the opposite. They are reaping what they have sown.

 

[silvergrenade]

Re: Re:

So what is your explanation for Froome's sudden rise to greatness? Was he just lazy before 2011?

I think they/he/whoever found something that Froome responded well to. With that, one needs some kind of story to prove his newfound greatness.

But why would it be reasonable to assume that for some reason, Froome is the only cyclist to respond so strongly to that something so that he can take the leap from being a crap WT rider with purely mediocre talents into becoming a great champion with multiple TdF victories? That does not make any sense to me at all.

But I guess I shouldn't anticipate anything else than such conspiracies considering the strong Sky antipathy reigning in here.

By the way, note that I am not stating anywhere that he is definitely clean, before you accuse me for being a naive imbecile or something. I just don't think he does much more than any other GC top rider in the medical department.

Why would it be reasonable to assume that anyone thinks what you describe here is what happened?

We can speculate all kinds of things, but the fact is of course no one but Froome and whomever else was involved knows how it happened.

We know a few things. He was a mediocre rider (at best) before 2011. We know the explanations given around Bilharzia were both inconsistent in terms of when he did and didn't have it, how it was cured, how he claims it did and didn't affect his performance, how many times he was treated, when he found out about it and probably a few other things I forget at this point. With the level of inconsistency in the telling and the nonsensical descriptions of how it did and then didn't affect his performance, one can easily surmise that as far as an explanation for performance, it is a lie. He may well have had it at some point, who knows. The best lies always contain some truth. We know he lost a bunch of weight, very quickly. We know he is connected with a doctor Stephane Bermon, and it appears he started working with this doctor in 2011. This has a bunch of info: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=29971

We know he started performing at the top level of the sport in late 2011 and has carried that form since, with only this spring as a notable exception. We have heard from many quarters (can't find a link right now) that he was going to lose his contract at Sky. We know he was a late scratch for the Vuelta, originally not on the team. All of which strongly suggests (to say the least) that the team were not aware of his form or abilities.

My personal guess is that he was not on any kind of full program before 2011, got scared he was going to lose his contract and sought help from outside. I would guess his program, at least initially, was outside of whatever Sky are doing. We do know they started covering for him immediately when his wildly unexpected performance started raising obvious questions.

To my view the most obvious explanation is that a rider who wasn't doping or wasn't doing much, started a full program to stay competitive with everyone else who was fairly obviously doping. He could be almost as talented as the other riders at the top, and he is fairly obviously responding very well to whatever program he's on.

But again, this is simply speculation on my part. There are any number of explanations for his progression. Natural talent alone certainly isn't one of them. Nor is his nonsensical narrative around bilharzia. My explanation maps to all the things we know about what happened. His do not.

Complaining about "conspiracy theories" and "Sky antipathy" aren't going to get you anywhere but discredited. Plenty of people, particularly english-speaking fans, rooted for Sky when they came out. When they started insulting our intelligence they lost all credibility and a lot of fans. I had no antipathy for them, quite the opposite. They are reaping what they have sown.

+1000!

 

[tobydawq]

Re: Re:

So what is your explanation for Froome's sudden rise to greatness? Was he just lazy before 2011?

I think they/he/whoever found something that Froome responded well to. With that, one needs some kind of story to prove his newfound greatness.

But why would it be reasonable to assume that for some reason, Froome is the only cyclist to respond so strongly to that something so that he can take the leap from being a crap WT rider with purely mediocre talents into becoming a great champion with multiple TdF victories? That does not make any sense to me at all.

But I guess I shouldn't anticipate anything else than such conspiracies considering the strong Sky antipathy reigning in here.

By the way, note that I am not stating anywhere that he is definitely clean, before you accuse me for being a naive imbecile or something. I just don't think he does much more than any other GC top rider in the medical department.

Why would it be reasonable to assume that anyone thinks what you describe here is what happened?

We can speculate all kinds of things, but the fact is of course no one but Froome and whomever else was involved knows how it happened.

We know a few things. He was a mediocre rider (at best) before 2011. We know the explanations given around Bilharzia were both inconsistent in terms of when he did and didn't have it, how it was cured, how he claims it did and didn't affect his performance, how many times he was treated, when he found out about it and probably a few other things I forget at this point. With the level of inconsistency in the telling and the nonsensical descriptions of how it did and then didn't affect his performance, one can easily surmise that as far as an explanation for performance, it is a lie. He may well have had it at some point, who knows. The best lies always contain some truth. We know he lost a bunch of weight, very quickly. We know he is connected with a doctor Stephane Bermon, and it appears he started working with this doctor in 2011. This has a bunch of info: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=29971

We know he started performing at the top level of the sport in late 2011 and has carried that form since, with only this spring as a notable exception. We have heard from many quarters (can't find a link right now) that he was going to lose his contract at Sky. We know he was a late scratch for the Vuelta, originally not on the team. All of which strongly suggests (to say the least) that the team were not aware of his form or abilities.

My personal guess is that he was not on any kind of full program before 2011, got scared he was going to lose his contract and sought help from outside. I would guess his program, at least initially, was outside of whatever Sky are doing. We do know they started covering for him immediately when his wildly unexpected performance started raising obvious questions.

To my view the most obvious explanation is that a rider who wasn't doping or wasn't doing much, started a full program to stay competitive with everyone else who was fairly obviously doping. He could be almost as talented as the other riders at the top, and he is fairly obviously responding very well to whatever program he's on.

But again, this is simply speculation on my part. There are any number of explanations for his progression. Natural talent alone certainly isn't one of them. Nor is his nonsensical narrative around bilharzia. My explanation maps to all the things we know about what happened. His do not.

Complaining about "conspiracy theories" and "Sky antipathy" aren't going to get you anywhere but discredited. Plenty of people, particularly english-speaking fans, rooted for Sky when they came out. When they started insulting our intelligence they lost all credibility and a lot of fans. I had no antipathy for them, quite the opposite. They are reaping what they have sown.

Yeah, the bold part is just what I have been saying the whole time and is my only real point on the matter (even though I disagree with the "could be almost" and would swap it with "is most definitely"). And perhaps he wasn't sick, I have never really cared to look that deeply into the matter (and I may be in to deep regarding this discussion). I just know that something happened in 2011 and that you don't get to where he is now without being a seriously good bike rider of immense talent. How he may or may not respond to his programme is not something on which I can comment but you're probably right that he is responding well but in all likelihood, the same is true for his rivals.

And by the way, it is a conspiracy theory you have going - I know the connotations of the word are negative but a good conspiracy theory is just a big sample of indications that paint a general picture in order to give a negative explanation of something you don't like. You don't have any proofs for anything you say (which you also admit) and hence, it is a conspiracy theory by definition. And a lot of people in here certainly have antipathy against Sky which obviously prompt them to gather all these indications in the establishment of the aforementioned conspiracy theory (which I, by the way, am not saying that I disagree with). I don't really know how pointing these obviousnesses out should get me discredited but if that is the case, so be it. I'm not complaining about them though, just observing.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

So what is your explanation for Froome's sudden rise to greatness? Was he just lazy before 2011?

I think they/he/whoever found something that Froome responded well to. With that, one needs some kind of story to prove his newfound greatness.

But why would it be reasonable to assume that for some reason, Froome is the only cyclist to respond so strongly to that something so that he can take the leap from being a crap WT rider with purely mediocre talents into becoming a great champion with multiple TdF victories? That does not make any sense to me at all.

But I guess I shouldn't anticipate anything else than such conspiracies considering the strong Sky antipathy reigning in here.

By the way, note that I am not stating anywhere that he is definitely clean, before you accuse me for being a naive imbecile or something. I just don't think he does much more than any other GC top rider in the medical department.

Why would it be reasonable to assume that anyone thinks what you describe here is what happened?

We can speculate all kinds of things, but the fact is of course no one but Froome and whomever else was involved knows how it happened.

We know a few things. He was a mediocre rider (at best) before 2011. We know the explanations given around Bilharzia were both inconsistent in terms of when he did and didn't have it, how it was cured, how he claims it did and didn't affect his performance, how many times he was treated, when he found out about it and probably a few other things I forget at this point. With the level of inconsistency in the telling and the nonsensical descriptions of how it did and then didn't affect his performance, one can easily surmise that as far as an explanation for performance, it is a lie. He may well have had it at some point, who knows. The best lies always contain some truth. We know he lost a bunch of weight, very quickly. We know he is connected with a doctor Stephane Bermon, and it appears he started working with this doctor in 2011. This has a bunch of info: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=29971

We know he started performing at the top level of the sport in late 2011 and has carried that form since, with only this spring as a notable exception. We have heard from many quarters (can't find a link right now) that he was going to lose his contract at Sky. We know he was a late scratch for the Vuelta, originally not on the team. All of which strongly suggests (to say the least) that the team were not aware of his form or abilities.

My personal guess is that he was not on any kind of full program before 2011, got scared he was going to lose his contract and sought help from outside. I would guess his program, at least initially, was outside of whatever Sky are doing. We do know they started covering for him immediately when his wildly unexpected performance started raising obvious questions.

To my view the most obvious explanation is that a rider who wasn't doping or wasn't doing much, started a full program to stay competitive with everyone else who was fairly obviously doping. He could be almost as talented as the other riders at the top, and he is fairly obviously responding very well to whatever program he's on.

But again, this is simply speculation on my part. There are any number of explanations for his progression. Natural talent alone certainly isn't one of them. Nor is his nonsensical narrative around bilharzia. My explanation maps to all the things we know about what happened. His do not.

Complaining about "conspiracy theories" and "Sky antipathy" aren't going to get you anywhere but discredited. Plenty of people, particularly english-speaking fans, rooted for Sky when they came out. When they started insulting our intelligence they lost all credibility and a lot of fans. I had no antipathy for them, quite the opposite. They are reaping what they have sown.

Yeah, the bold part is just what I have been saying the whole time and is my only real point on the matter (even though I disagree with the "could be almost" and would swap it with "is most definitely"). And perhaps he wasn't sick, I have never really cared to look that deeply into the matter (and I may be in to deep regarding this discussion). I just know that something happened in 2011 and that you don't get to where he is now without being a seriously good bike rider of immense talent. How he may or may not respond to his programme is not something on which I can comment but you're probably right that he is responding well but in all likelihood, the same is true for his rivals.

And by the way, it is a conspiracy theory you have going - I know the connotations of the word are negative but a good conspiracy theory is just a big sample of indications that paint a general picture in order to give a negative explanation of something you don't like. You don't have any proofs for anything you say (which you also admit) and hence, it is a conspiracy theory by definition. And a lot of people in here certainly have antipathy against Sky which obviously prompt them to gather all these indications in the establishment of the aforementioned conspiracy theory (which I, by the way, am not saying that I disagree with). I don't really know how pointing these obviousnesses out should get me discredited but if that is the case, so be it. I'm not complaining about them though, just observing.

Well it is just one explanation. Another perfectly plausible one is that he is on a program which is more advanced than others. Another is that he's a super-responder. Who knows, all perfectly plausible. Another is that Sky are being protected by the UCI. They certainly have protected riders in the past, their head is deeply connected to the team, and they have incentive not to bust top riders. All could be true. The latter is more in line with "conspiracy theory" except that it's utterly plausible and fits with what we know about the sport.

For the record:

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy without warrant, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors. Conspiracy theories often produce hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of history or simple facts. The term is a derogatory one.

My speculation certainly does not fall into this category, and you are mis-using the term quite pointedly.

If you want to believe Froome was always as talented as his contemporaries I can't stop you, but to convince me you have a lot of work to explain why he never showed it. So far all the Sky explanations have been debunked. See "sand shoes", etc. I will grant that it's possible, but not that it's likely.

 

[tobydawq]

Well, to be fair that is not part of the definition but how they are "often" used. I also looked it up on Wikipedia to be sure I didn't use it wrong, which I technically didn't do

But okay, you make some valid points and regarding the UCI protection, that is also something Michael Rasmussen alluded to with regards to UCI's surprisingly passive stance on all the Sky polemics of the past half years (I described a lecture I attended with Rasmussen in the Giro doping thread if you don't know what I'm talking about). I just still don't think it's possible to the old turning a donkey into a race horse and given Froome's growing up in Africa it is not so surprising that he had a hard time showing his talent when he was young.

 

[red_flanders]

Maybe you overlook the part about "without warrant".

 

[meat puppet]

The last resort of the faithful is not necessarily the grey area discourse. It is the "yes, x probably dopes, but in all likelyhood so do the rest of the relevant players, and x performs in this environment so x must be a huge natural talent anyway" discourse.

This is how the narrative has evolved: first sky was totally cleans, then willing to explore the grey area, and finally they had froome tested which marked the beginning of the third phase.

Now, no one disputes the fact that froome, or any pro, is a physiologically gifted specimen. The question is whether froome has the natural talent to be the best amongst the best. First he was not, then he seems to be. The bilharzia story is not a convincing explanation of the transformation. Neither is the he just lost the fat story, though that clearly happened too. The question is how exactly did he lose the fat. And was the alleged engine affected too. Sky has been careful to frame the issue in terms that the engine has not been altered substantially.

Anyhow, the way I see this is in terms of Lakatos, the philosopher of science. Every research program for lakatos consist of a core proposition (froome had the engine all along; perhaps he enhanced it with peds, but he had it) and a protective belt comprising secondary and auxiliary propositions whose function it is to literally protect the core against anomalies, contradictions and questions threatening the cores integrity. This framework can be applied to analysing discourse such as this as well.

Once dealing with the protective belt takes the foreground, a research program becomes degenerative.

I have a hard time believing the froome was a megatalent, a diamond in the rough, story. It is cycling after all. And the transformation was immense. And the protective belt first a bit too well - until the claims are actually examined, and then it does not. Take bilharzia for instance. So i agree with those arguing that the most likely explanation is that in 2011 he found a program very well suited to his characteristics and is indeed a good responder.

In todays circumstances, this might be one of the most important aspects of "talent" around. In this sense froome apoears to be extremely talented.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Think people are overlooking the motor aspect. For this, protection from the UCI is even more important than for regular doping.
Of course, he probably uses a load of regular stuff as well. But it might explain why he's so far ahead of others, while they are on the regular stuff as well. Maybe they have to limit themselves to a magnetized wheel, while Froome and Sky can go all in with a hub motor.