Simon Yates seems to be winning at a canter. Explosive finishing on summit climbs every time. Wasn't he banned or was that his brother?
Quixoticgeek - a good source of race detail in Dutch is Wielerflits on Facebook. Lots of in-depth analysis and stories.
Simon Yates seems to be winning at a canter. Explosive finishing on summit climbs every time. Wasn't he banned or was that his brother?
Well that was an exciting stage finish. Froome at least has a chance at the Podium now. Will be interesting how the next week pans out.
J
Let's hope his Di2 doesn't let him down.:)
It's a 2 horse race now. Froome out of the picture (thankfully), Pinot just can't match Yates.
Is this an action replay of the day that Chavez lost 25 minutes? How is it that Michelton Scott's 2 leaders have gone from being solid to horrific in the space of a couple of days (each, not the same 2 days)?I can think of two possibilities; one he's just out and out cooked after trying to build the lead on Dumoulin before the TT the other is illness in the team.
Sorted of reminded me of an epic ride once ridden by Floyd Landis in the tour .Just saying.
Sorted of reminded me of an epic ride once ridden by Floyd Landis in the tour .Just saying.
Froome should write a book on training tips. How to go from absolutely no results of note at all ever to second step of GT podium, then 5 (probably 6) GT wins including the triple GT which puts you in the company of Merckx and Hinault.
And all from nowhere. Quite remarkable.
One for the history books.
From spesh’s BikeRadar thread, this (https://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=13092276&e=1&view=unread#p20351327) was interesting. Looks like he put more time into Doom on the descents than the climbs!
Using Giro live updates, I think this is where Froome took time on Dumoulin:
Finestere climb 37s
Finistere descent 1 min 15
Sestriere climb 49s
Sestriere descent 25s
Valley 15s
Final climb 3s
So 1 min 40 gained descending
Apropos of nothing, does anyone else find Carlton Kirby to be almost as irritating as Liggett and Sherwen were in the last few years before they were replaced by Boulting and Millar?
Sorted of reminded me of an epic ride once ridden by Floyd Landis in the tour .Just saying.
Froome should write a book on training tips. How to go from absolutely no results of note at all ever to second step of GT podium, then 5 (probably 6) GT wins including the triple GT which puts you in the company of Merckx and Hinault.
And all from nowhere. Quite remarkable.
You can achieve anything with a combination of the right pillows and beetroot juice.
Though some of time gain on the descent off Finestre could be ascribed to the Dumoulin group waiting for Reichenbach...So Dumoulin falls because of Reichenbach?
3 minutes slower than Santambrogio and Nibali in 2014, in far worse weather conditions.
You can achieve anything with a combination of the right pillows and beetroot juice.
Is this from the advice section in Cosmopolitan?
I'm sure I heard the commentator refering to Ron Dennis and Pots of Evil.
I'm sure I heard the commentator refering to Ron Dennis and Pots of Evil.
I definitely heard Ron Dennis mentioned, although Sean Kelly always calls him Ronan Dennis.
Kelly also seems to think Yates rides for Michelin-Scott (formerly Ulrika-Greenedge).
Ron Dennis seems to crop up every couple of days, very distracting!I'm sure I heard the commentator refering to Ron Dennis and Pots of Evil.
I definitely heard Ron Dennis mentioned, although Sean Kelly always calls him Ronan Dennis.
Kelly also seems to think Yates rides for Michelin-Scott (formerly Ulrika-Greenedge).
In his excitement at one point yesterday Kelly mentioned the group of Pozzitivo.
Anyway, dodgy Froome apart it's been an exciting race. And it's not over, Froome burnt a lot of matches yesterday and today the boot will probably be on the other foot. Dumoulin's team will be putting on the Pain.Yes, agree with all that.
Yates? Didn't conserve his energy. Inexperience. But he is a future GT contender. Thursday was where it all fell apart and the other teams noticed.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180525/3f403fda8157a94a278d6eaaacd69386.jpg)They've put a lot of effort into that, good work!
Lol
Anyway, dodgy Froome apart it's been an exciting race. And it's not over, Froome burnt a lot of matches yesterday and today the boot will probably be on the other foot. Dumoulin's team will be putting on the Pain.Yes, agree with all that.
Yates? Didn't conserve his energy. Inexperience. But he is a future GT contender. Thursday was where it all fell apart and the other teams noticed.
( Although ... it's possible that he doesn't have the legs to beat Tom over 3 weeks, and being leader after 17 stages was the best he could have hoped for - and he got that, so thanks Simon for giving it a go :thumbsup: )
[I do wonder how many people still find the race exciting, when all they talk about is Froome's "dodgy" antics. I do find this genuinely puzzling - look at how few actual race comments there are on this thread. Each to his own I guess ... ]
;D
See also the 2016 TdF:
https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=98314.msg2054446#msg2054446
https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=98314.msg2058569#msg2058569
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/05/25/16/4C9FBB8000000578-5772091-image-a-2_1527263950197.jpg)
https://twitter.com/LottoJumbo_road/status/1000105610489286662?s=19Looks like the lawyers had a word! An hour later:
"He did a Landis"
(for those that don't get the inference, Landis did something remarkably similar in 2006...only to test positive later that evening)
https://twitter.com/LottoJumbo_road/status/1000105610489286662?s=19Looks like the lawyers had a word! An hour later:
"He did a Landis"
(for those that don't get the inference, Landis did something remarkably similar in 2006...only to test positive later that evening)
LottoNLJumbo Cycling
@LottoJumbo_road
Disclaimer to avoid any misinterpretation: this is not an insinuation, but a way to express the admiration for an exceptional achievement. Congratulations to Chris Froome and Team Sky.
I'll take the result at face value and let the authorities deal with any doping issues.
QuoteI'll take the result at face value and let the authorities deal with any doping issues.
But the authorities secretly dealt out the dope, legally all within the rules to the favoured rider(s) of course!
QuoteI'll take the result at face value and let the authorities deal with any doping issues.
But the authorities secretly dealt out the dope, legally all within the rules to the favoured rider(s) of course!
Look, this is simple. The reputation of professional cycling is shot. Nobody can do anything special without the spectre of doping hanging over them.
I think it's irretrievably damaged actually. Other sports just don't dig deep enough into doping* (presumably to stop their sport's reputation ending up the same way).
You either watch it, enjoy the special moments, and let the authorities deal with the rules, for better or for worse, or don't watch it. I don't see any point in continually watching it and continually bitching about it.
Or....has "guess the doper" become an intrinsic part of the enjoyment now?
It seems that, for some, enjoyment of pro cycling is inversely proportional to the performance of the top cyclists. The more special the moment the more cynical, and miserable, the experience of the viewer.
*Jamaican sprint program. Kenyan/Ethiopian long-distance. Football, even Snooker FFS, etc etc. I have a feeling that, if they spot-checked every professional sports person right now, a high percentage would be caught with something dodgy coursing through their veins.
I suspect your addenda probably understates the prevalence of marginal performance enhancement across all sport.
C Froome | C me bide mi tiem! |
S Cummings | Oi! That is my line, C Froome! I will tuough u up! I will kill u utterly to DETH 4 that! |
Bethany (7+1) | Fight! Fight! Yay! (does vigorous soft-shoe shuffle) |
Bethany's Mum | Shurrup, you little skank! I'm tryna watch Eastenders! |
S Yates | NOT FAIR!!1! |
The Condensed Giro, by P@nd3m1c Pr0duckt10nzTM®:For a less serious view - from the other side of the TV screen - you can read the "overly-simplified race reports" of Chad Haga (great name, wot??):
C Froome C me bide mi tiem! S Cummings Oi! That is my line, C Froome! I will tuough u up! I will kill u utterly to DETH 4 that! Bethany (7+1) Fight! Fight! Yay! (does vigorous soft-shoe shuffle) Bethany's Mum Shurrup, you little skank! I'm tryna watch Eastenders! S Yates NOT FAIR!!1!
Well I'm giving Froome the botd in the Giro for an amazing performance - anything else is just pure speculation. :P
So, Froome learned his cyclecraft riding on gravel roads, riding in the heat.
Then, on gravel roads, in the heat, he rides away from the peloton, and surprises people with his (relatively) fast descending skills on poor surfaces.
He even commented on it, how like the roads were to the ones he rode on when he was a teenager.
So why was he so fucking shit at bike handling until recently? He fell off going uphill in this Giro. It's just more PR bullshit.
So why was he so fucking shit at bike handling until recently? He fell off going uphill in this Giro. It's just more PR bullshit.
He put 60 seconds into Dumoulin on the stage 19 decent. That's not drugs (unless it's booze..which helps my own descending)
Well I'm giving Froome the botd in the Giro for an amazing performance - anything else is just pure speculation. :P
No it isn't. He has a doping case hanging over his head.
Well I'm giving Froome the botd in the Giro for an amazing performance - anything else is just pure speculation. :P
No it isn't. He has a doping case hanging over his head.
Yes, it is - this is the Giro now, that was a salbutamol overdose then...
Froome should never have been able to start the Giro. It'll be interesting to see if results get deleted.
Froome should never have been able to start the Giro. It'll be interesting to see if results get deleted.
https://youtu.be/lEGpv0xn0E8
Zigzagging ha ha ha ha ;D
Froome should never have been able to start the Giro. It'll be interesting to see if results get deleted.
I agree that his case should have been resolved before this but it's not his fault, especially if he didn't break any rules*
It just adds pressure upon pressure. It's the TdF soon and he stands a great chance of winning it. If they ARE going to ban him then every month they delay means another result being voided.
*Shit rules, open to legal abuse.
Just out of interest which Grand Tour Winners are there who haven't been officially investigated now? It must be a handful in 20 years.
Okay – on the condition that Reichenbach promises to do a crash course on descending!..........
It seems highly likely that he'll lose the Vuelta but beyond that, who knows?
And that uncertainty is a real problem. Without making any comment on his guilt or innocence, I agree with you that he really shouldn't have been taking part in the Giro while the case was unresolved.
Might be the Giro too if he suffers from the same kidney malfunction (which he'd never had before,) that afflicted him for one day only in the Vuelta. ;D ;D
Seriously, you need to inform yourself before commenting. For those of us who look into the details it's a total farce.
Given that Froome is apparently arguing his innocence rather than admitting to an accidental overdose of salbutamol, he may have reasonable confidence that he can win his case outright.
There is some tension in this statement, because banning someone from racing in effect does comment on guilt. It harms the athlete, arguably without the possibility of adequate restitution should they prove innocent.
All of that notwithstanding, an athlete’s career burns briefly and all parties have a wish to avoid the uncertainty you mention. Those are two good reasons to force the gears of justice to grind more quickly in these cases. If you can’t get a plausible defence together in a few months, maybe there’s a good reason. I’m super-curious to hear why this case has taken so long.
First Brit ever to win the Giro...1. Nicole Cooke
First Brit ever to win the Giro...1. Nicole Cooke
2. He's Kenyan
First Brit ever to win the Giro...1. Nicole Cooke
2. He's Kenyan
1. Giro d'Italia Femminile / Rosa?
2. Born in Kenya, but yet he's British...
:)
Without evidence? What do you think the AAF is?It is an AAF. It is not a proof of doping. Salbutamol is a particularly interesting case.
It isn't a wild conclusion, it's a fact.
Le Monde reported that his defence was going to centre around a malfunctioning kidney, that stored up all the Salbutamol but then shat it all out on one day. Curiously, it only ever happened once.They do have to sell column inches.
It takes a particular type of ignorance, wilful or otherwise, to not understand what has gone on here. Froome found himself in a pickle. Chest infection and asthma. 3 options. Withdraw from the race, continue and risk health, or take a risk and use oral or nebulised Salbutamol, both banned.There is no evidence that he used oral salbutamol. Nebulised is a different issue. It is to do with routes of administration and the pharmacokinetics.
Informed opinion (ie.medics) is that the only way the huge quantity or the drug could have got in his system was through one of these banned methods.Your medics are not well informed. There are published studies showing that these levels are credible from legitimate uses of Salbutamol. They also appear to make a common error of mistaking quantity with concentration. A little bit of pharmacokinetic modelling shows that these levels are possible, given the right conditions, and that the test can distinguish between oral and inhaled doses. There are different metabolic products from the lungs and the gut, but inhaled Salbutamol is ingested both through the lungs and the gut.
Malfunctioning kidney or the action of self-confessed unethical team with a history of subterfuge, evasion and outright lying?Nonsense from Le Monde or a credible case actually built on facts rather than the populist myth gained from 'the clinic'?
Without evidence? What do you think the AAF is?It is an AAF. It is not a proof of doping. Salbutamol is a particularly interesting case.
It isn't a wild conclusion, it's a fact.QuoteLe Monde reported that his defence was going to centre around a malfunctioning kidney, that stored up all the Salbutamol but then shat it all out on one day. Curiously, it only ever happened once.They do have to sell column inches.QuoteIt takes a particular type of ignorance, wilful or otherwise, to not understand what has gone on here. Froome found himself in a pickle. Chest infection and asthma. 3 options. Withdraw from the race, continue and risk health, or take a risk and use oral or nebulised Salbutamol, both banned.There is no evidence that he used oral salbutamol. Nebulised is a different issue. It is to do with routes of administration and the pharmacokinetics.QuoteInformed opinion (ie.medics) is that the only way the huge quantity or the drug could have got in his system was through one of these banned methods.Your medics are not well informed. There are published studies showing that these levels are credible from legitimate uses of Salbutamol. They also appear to make a common error of mistaking quantity with concentration. A little bit of pharmacokinetic modelling shows that these levels are possible, given the right conditions, and that the test can distinguish between oral and inhaled doses. There are different metabolic products from the lungs and the gut, but inhaled Salbutamol is ingested both through the lungs and the gut.QuoteMalfunctioning kidney or the action of self-confessed unethical team with a history of subterfuge, evasion and outright lying?Nonsense from Le Monde or a credible case actually built on facts rather than the populist myth gained from 'the clinic'?
Without evidence? What do you think the AAF is?
Froome found himself in a pickle. Chest infection and asthma. 3 options. Withdraw from the race, continue and risk health, or take a risk and use oral or nebulised Salbutamol, both banned.
The team are not disputing the fact that double the permitted level of salbutamol was found in his urine sample. What they are arguing about is why his urine contained that much salbutamol.
They need to convince WADA that the arbitrary limit set for permissible salbutamol level in the urine is based on flawed reasoning. Good luck with that.
If Sky were members of the MPCC, he would have been withdrawn from all racing pending the outcome of the investigation even if the AAF had not been made public.
Without evidence? What do you think the AAF is?It is an AAF. It is not a proof of doping. Salbutamol is a particularly interesting case.
It isn't a wild conclusion, it's a fact.
QuoteLe Monde reported that his defence was going to centre around a malfunctioning kidney, that stored up all the Salbutamol but then shat it all out on one day. Curiously, it only ever happened once.They do have to sell column inches.
QuoteIt takes a particular type of ignorance, wilful or otherwise, to not understand what has gone on here. Froome found himself in a pickle. Chest infection and asthma. 3 options. Withdraw from the race, continue and risk health, or take a risk and use oral or nebulised Salbutamol, both banned.There is no evidence that he used oral salbutamol. Nebulised is a different issue. It is to do with routes of administration and the pharmacokinetics.
QuoteInformed opinion (ie.medics) is that the only way the huge quantity or the drug could have got in his system was through one of these banned methods.Your medics are not well informed. There are published studies showing that these levels are credible from legitimate uses of Salbutamol. They also appear to make a common error of mistaking quantity with concentration. A little bit of pharmacokinetic modelling shows that these levels are possible, given the right conditions, and that the test can distinguish between oral and inhaled doses. There are different metabolic products from the lungs and the gut, but inhaled Salbutamol is ingested both through the lungs and the gut.
QuoteuNonsense from Le Monde or a credible case actually built on facts rather than the populist myth gained from 'the clinic'?
Malfunctioning kidney or the action of self-confessed unethical team with a history of subterfuge, evasion and outright lying?
You’ve created this out of whole cloth. Stating it emphatically doesn’t prove anything. Besides, what about the TUE option for something stronger?
It doesn’t seem so unlikely to this layman, given some of the lab tests and other salbutamol cases I’ve skim-read. There is room for doubt when experts disagree, and that’s all Froome needs. Also, I understand Froome’s urinary concentration of salbutamol has been recalibrated down to 1429 ng/ml. That may explain his cockiness about proving his innocence … or the cockiness could be a bluff.
I know. Given how that breaks the presumption of innocence, it seems like a good reason not to join the MPCC (itself increasingly lacking credibility for other reasons).
I think there was someone in this Giro with a swollen face from an insect bite he couldn’t treat for some MPCC reason. Not cool.
It doesn’t seem so unlikely to this layman, given some of the lab tests and other salbutamol cases I’ve skim-read. There is room for doubt when experts disagree, and that’s all Froome needs. Also, I understand Froome’s urinary concentration of salbutamol has been recalibrated down to 1429 ng/ml. That may explain his cockiness about proving his innocence … or the cockiness could be a bluff.
I suspect it's simply a case that they've got a lot to lose if the case against Froome is upheld so they need to fight it using whatever legal means are available (much like their approach to winning races).
Even at the adjusted level, Froome's salbutamol reading is still well in excess of the limit. But that's one for Team Sky and WADA's lawyers to fight over, I won't pretend to claim any kind of special understanding of the science so let's wait and see what comes out of the case. Although it's unlikely that any of us will ever get to see the evidence so the speculation is unlikely to end even then.
As for the time it is taking, that's not so unusual - the very similar Ulissi case took a long time to resolve. The difference was that it was kept out of the public eye until the verdict was delivered.QuoteI know. Given how that breaks the presumption of innocence, it seems like a good reason not to join the MPCC (itself increasingly lacking credibility for other reasons).
I think there was someone in this Giro with a swollen face from an insect bite he couldn’t treat for some MPCC reason. Not cool.
I've said before that I think Sky's non-membership of the MPCC is a red herring if looking for evidence of bending the rules. However, since membership is voluntary and teams who sign up do so out of a desire to be seen to be clean, they shouldn't have a problem with voluntarily suspending their own riders even if it isn't required by the UCI. And a lot of the younger riders are totally on board with that - Tim Wellens voluntarily withdrew from last year's Tour after suffering an allergic reaction to an insect bite rather than have the treatment that would have allowed him to continue racing because it would have required a TUE.
On the other hand, Lotto-Jumbo quit the MPCC because George Bennett (another rider who did very well at this year's Giro) registered a low cortisol level, requiring them to withdraw him from the 2015 Giro. And that's one of the problems with credibility the MPCC has - teams will quit the organisation rather than follow its rules. Or they can just ignore the rules, like Astana, who let Lars Boom race in the 2015 Tour even though he had also registered a low cortisol level.
Mitchelton-Scott quit the MPCC because they felt its aims had already been achieved when some of its recommendations were incorporated into UCI regulations. :facepalm:
Ullissi 's AAF was announced by his team in June after the Giro, in September with the case ongoing the UCI stopped him racing.
It is not surprising that a few major teams have pulled out of the MPCC. They see Team Sky shitting all over the race scene with Cortisone abuse and they realise that with that Team Sky have shot the MPCC down in flames.
There would most likely never have been a "jiffybag" because it is highly likely it contained Kenacort.
I think Sky have given us enough rope with the known facts, without the need to resort to speculation.
I think Sky have given us enough rope with the known facts, without the need to resort to speculation.
That doesn't really make any sense at all. It is speculation that has caused the rope to be given. If there hadn't been speculation about possible contents of the jiffybag there would not have been any interest in pursuing the case. The 'jiffybag' leaker speculated as to the contents.
Rather than the populist myth gained from 'the clinic'?
So, Froome learned his cyclecraft riding on gravel roads, riding in the heat.
Then, on gravel roads, in the heat, he rides away from the peloton, and surprises people with his (relatively) fast descending skills on poor surfaces.
He even commented on it, how like the roads were to the ones he rode on when he was a teenager.
So why was he so fucking shit at bike handling until recently? He fell off going uphill in this Giro. It's just more PR bullshit.
Again just conjectures and waffle. We need hard evidence from the tour organisers and testers.
Here are Phillipa York's qualifications for saying what she said (including 3 Grand Tour 2nd places):
Robert Millar, a contemporary of Hinault's and a former Tour King of the Mountains, made the following observation in a column for Cyclingnews:
"The high-profile withdrawal of Laurent Jalabert is just one step of a necessary process which is going to hang heavily over this year's event and it doesn't matter if guys like Bernard Hinault stand up and say things have changed or not. That's exactly the kind of attitude that allowed the deceptions to continue for as long as they have."
Millar also acknowledged his role in those deceptions.
"I started writing my explanation (of my experience of doping) back in February and to my shame it has sat in a folder unfinished. I think I wanted it to be a story of sorts but I now know it doesn't need to be entertaining – facts, names and places will do.
"This latest affair has reminded me I really need to get on with it and send it to someone who I think will use it wisely. I'm not seeking to be a hero or a martyr for doing so . . . but if it helps understand why the culture got as bad as it did, or why Omerta dominated, then so be it."
It was a brave piece of writing and raised a question that Hinault, and many other gods in the sport have never addressed:
What has hurt cycling more? The doping or its denial?
Again just conjectures and waffle. We need hard evidence from the tour organisers and testers.
Taking aside whether or not Froome, or indeed Team Sky, should have been riding, surely the performance of Froome was outstanding. From being 4min 52sec down after stage 15 to winning by 46sec is simply unheard of in modern racing. While he clawed some of the deficit back in the TT, his 80km attack will be the stuff of legend for years to come. Perhaps we could acknowledge that achievement?It's not entirely unprecedented in modern cycling - it's been done once before in this century. Landis tested positive. There are stories of legendary days like this (eg Chiapucci). All of them have admitted taking drugs. Chris Froome is currently awaiting a hearing for overdosing on asthma medication. All these things are facts.
Dumoulin, later admitted he was waiting for support and expected Froome to crack. Dumoulin lost the race on the descents that day and whatever you may believe in terms of PEDs, I don’t think there is any evidence to show they assist during descending!The thing is, that Dumoulin then got help - Reichenback worked with Dumoulin (and Pinot a little), and they lost time to Froome on the valley floor. So you have to believe that for the last 4 days, Froome is the fastest climber in the race, the fastest descender in the race, and also capable of taking time out of 2.5 riders chasing him on the flat after they have had a comparative rest on the descent.
bla
Landis and Chiapucci took banned substances whereas Froome took an allowed substance and the only question is whether he exceeded the permitted dose or whether there is a reason for the result.
Landis and Chiapucci took banned substances whereas Froome took an allowed substance and the only question is whether he exceeded the permitted dose or whether there is a reason for the result.
You claim to know what Froome did and didn't take? Ha!
Walsh has made his living off the back of Team Sky in recent years
Landis and Chiapucci took banned substances whereas Froome took an allowed substance and the only question is whether he exceeded the permitted dose or whether there is a reason for the result.
You claim to know what Froome did and didn't take? Ha!
Do you?
I can only go on the facts rather than supposition based on bias or obvious dislike of a team and/or rider.
Had Froome took a banned substance he would have been suspended immediately. This has not happened.
Walsh has made his living off the back of Team Sky in recent years
As you have stated in another thread on Team Sky:
"There is precisely zero likelihood that Froome is a clean rider. Zero. Based on career trajectory alone. There are precisely no informed observer's who think that he is. Not even Walsh, now that he has banked his 30 pieces of silver."
So Walsh clearly supported your theories. But now Walsh appears to have changed his tune. No doubt you another conspiracy theory about that.
It appears from your postings you will never believe that Froome can win a race without PEDs. You flame alternative views and attempt to ridicule those who have a different opinion to yours. Brave stuff on an internet forum. Pity you have nothing that would stand-up in a court room.
It's not for you to tell people here what they should or should not say.
It's not for you to tell people here what they should or should not say.
My apologies. I didn't realise that was your job.
Please carry on.
No is the short answer.Thanks ;D
There is a longer answer, but no is quicker and just as informative.
Landis and Chiapucci took banned substances whereas Froome took an allowed substance and the only question is whether he exceeded the permitted dose or whether there is a reason for the result. That is a fact. As is the fact that Simon Yates was banned for taking a substance without a TUE that was blamed on his team doctor only after a positive test resulted. Was the team taking a hit? Why hasn't anyone questioned whether Yates was taking 'stuff', particularly as his team is not part of the MPCC; he rode away from everyone and then suddenly expires. How peculiar. Anyone questioning?Chiapucci was taking something that was not tested for - he ended up hitting the 50% rule, but that's not a positive test either.
Yes, in 15yrs time we may know more, but until then why not, in the absence of evidence, support the line of Walsh who has been a massive sceptic of Team Sky, and just accept that Froome produced an incredible performance at the Giro? Or is it easier just to bash Team Sky and Froome?Walsh flip flops on whether he thinks Sky are clean. For years he defended Wiggins and Frome. Then Froome had his AAF, and Walsh got cold feet. Now he's back onside. I think that Sky decided that getting the guy who pursued Armstrong on side was crucial to the perception of cleanliness, so they have worked hard to convince him. On the other hand, other critics (eg Kimmage) have had all the promises made to them broken.
Brave stuff on an internet forum
If you read the thread, you'll notice that I was questioning why the 2 M-S leaders both looked very strong, and then had a major issue and lost half an hour.
Salbutamol is an interesting substance - it's allowed via inhaler (to a certain number of puffs), but it's banned via injection or pills. Froome had a level in his urine that is very difficult to achieve via inhaler …
I'm reserving judgement on this performance. Modern cycling has a lot of false dawns, and I have insufficient faith in Sky to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Slightly off-topic but.. (Edit. Flatus just made it on-topic)
Let's say Froome is found to have been taking something significantly stronger than Salbutomol*
Let's say SKY had engineered a US Postal Service style set-up. That's what we're talking about right? Froome can't run his own private doping program without SKY being aware surely, they track performance data better than any WADA lab.
Brailsford's name runs through British cycling like Blackpool rock. There's no aspect of team SKY that he doesn't oversee, he knows what's in every jiffy bag, I have no doubt about that.
What would this do to British cycling?
*I'm not convinced Salbutomol is the doper's first choice for 5 hour Mountain stages. A short TT definitely but I don't think it has long-lasting effects.
They already are and have already spoken, hence the discussion on social media. For example:
http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/anti-doping-expert-on-froome-it-doesnt-quite-add-up_453381
They already are and have already spoken, hence the discussion on social media. For example:
http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/anti-doping-expert-on-froome-it-doesnt-quite-add-up_453381
First, social media is not a reasonable discussion. It’s along the lines of this thread, usually: wild claims made by people who seem unaware of their ignorance.
Second, the experts that matter are in court, not giving pop interviews to the media.
Third, that particular expert was speaking before Froome’s urine concentration was adjusted downward to 1429 ng/ml. Maybe that would have changed his view on the likelihood of a few extra puffs producing the result. Even without that, he declares it possible.
Fourth, if you’re at all honest with yourself, it’s impossible to read that interview as evidence in favour of Froome doping. I invite readers of this thread to read it and come to their own conclusions.
They already are and have already spoken, hence the discussion on social media. For example:
http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/anti-doping-expert-on-froome-it-doesnt-quite-add-up_453381
First, social media is not a reasonable discussion. It’s along the lines of this thread, usually: wild claims made by people who seem unaware of their ignorance.
Second, the experts that matter are in court, not giving pop interviews to the media.
Third, that particular expert was speaking before Froome’s urine concentration was adjusted downward to 1429 ng/ml. Maybe that would have changed his view on the likelihood of a few extra puffs producing the result. Even without that, he declares it possible.
Fourth, if you’re at all honest with yourself, it’s impossible to read that interview as evidence in favour of Froome doping. I invite readers of this thread to read it and come to their own conclusions.
1429 is still way higher than the 1000 limit.
The hearing is waiting on Sky - if there was overwhelming evidence that would have cleared Froome, everything would have been done by now.
However, there is a bigger perspective to this than 'the case'. As you will no doubt be aware, criminals are frequently acquitted for their crimes by courts. We all know of such people, and we dont start pretending that they havent committed crimes just because a prosecution lawyer fails to prove it.
If Froome succeeds in escaping this AAF it will not change my overall view of whether he is or isn't a clean athlete.
I wonder what the 'opposing camps' will make of this...That study is super dodgy.
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 May 3.
Futility of current urine salbutamol doping control (https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/bcp.13619)
Heuberger JAAC et al.
Froome Finistere power details have been released on the internet. I’ll get a link soon.
I think you'll always get cheating in power sports like athletics and cycling. Even some of the guys at your local club "10" are probably taking something, whether it's to win or just to try and hang on to a PB as they age. It's been going on since the early days (although the Pelissier brothers were yanking the journo's chain in "Les Forçats De La Route") but the pharmacology evolves.
You missed out Indurain :)Genetic freak to end all genetic freaks :thumbsup:
It's hard to know.
20 years ago, the vow of public silence reigned but with openness between riders as to their various nefarious methods.
Then it went underground, with riders not discussing their doping strategies with other riders.
In the final analysis, pro cycling is part of the entertainment industry and not purely about supreme athleticism.
I don't think salbutamol would help Froome all that much. Even if he is asthmatic, asthma normally relieves itself after about 20 minutes of exercise. The inhaler is just to get you through that first 20 minutes, otherwise you'd be sitting at the side of the road wheezing. It has a few minor side-effects but I don't think they're particularly beneficial.
The suspicion on my part arises from the fact that previous Grand Tour winners have been cheats or genetic freaks, sometimes both at once. Merckx: genetic freak. Anquetil: genetic freak (look at his appalling lifestyle). LeMond: genetic freak, look at his VO2 - it was off the scale. Hinault: genetic freak (rock-hard Breton farming genes) and intimidating to other riders. Delgado: cheat. Armstrong: cheat. Pantani: cheat. Ullrich: cheat. Then Sky turn out two clean winning riders in succession, just like that.
I knew you would respond with both those points. Entirely predictable.
Civilisation doesn't hinge on cycling. Besides, does the law provide objectivity? Perhaps youve never had the unedifying experience of sitting on a jury.
Many of us rightly suspected Armstrong of being guilty of doping despite his innocence.
I don't think salbutamol would help Froome all that much. Even if he is asthmatic, asthma normally relieves itself after about 20 minutes of exercise. The inhaler is just to get you through that first 20 minutes, otherwise you'd be sitting at the side of the road wheezing. It has a few minor side-effects but I don't think they're particularly beneficial.Your view supports that referenced by Flatus earlier:
The suspicion on my part arises from the fact that previous Grand Tour winners have been cheats or genetic freaks, sometimes both at once. Merckx: genetic freak. Anquetil: genetic freak (look at his appalling lifestyle). LeMond: genetic freak, look at his VO2 - it was off the scale. Hinault: genetic freak (rock-hard Breton farming genes) and intimidating to other riders. Delgado: cheat. Armstrong: cheat. Pantani: cheat. Ullrich: cheat. Then Sky turn out two clean winning riders in succession, just like that.this is the problem with Guilt By Suspicion - the human mind is crap at evaluating probabilities. We see patterns and make conclusions - but natural chance creates patterns too. It is inevitable that at some point the next genetic freak will be hired by a team that already has one. That doesn't rule out cheating, but I'm just pointing out some realities ...
Dr. Tom Bassindale: I was surprised that something as innocuous as Salbutamol would cause a positive test with Chris Froome. It’s an unlikely drug to take for performance-enhancing use. The evidence is quite mixed, and studies suggest toward it not being performance-enhancing. If you are an asthmatic, it only gets you back to ‘normal’ breathing, and there’s not a huge boost beyond that when taken as an inhaler.My bold. The limit is there, not to stop riders using their inhalers, or because taking 9 puffs when they should have 8 is going to confer some great advantage, but to prevent oral and injected use which apparently has similar effects to kenacort *.
Read more at http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/anti-doping-expert-on-froome-it-doesnt-quite-add-up_453381#Cb4GFOsmvVHJeLyV.99
I think you'll always get cheating in power sports like athletics and cycling. Even some of the guys at your local club "10" are probably taking something, whether it's to win or just to try and hang on to a PB as they age. It's been going on since the early days (although the Pelissier brothers were yanking the journo's chain in "Les Forçats De La Route") but the pharmacology evolves.
Ever read the list of what's banned? sudofed is banned at concentrations over 150µg/litre in urine. How many standard cough pills do you need to take to be over the limit there?
The question comes into if people are doing it intentionally...
J
I knew you would respond with both those points. Entirely predictable.
Civilisation doesn't hinge on cycling. Besides, does the law provide objectivity? Perhaps youve never had the unedifying experience of sitting on a jury.
Many of us rightly suspected Armstrong of being guilty of doping despite his innocence.
Flatus, no nastiness intended but what do you think would be necessary to convince you that Froome is clean? Since I have now come round to your point of view after a long while sitting on the fence with my legs dangling on the optimisyic side, I feel in need of one or two reference points. What has convinced me is that there are too many inconsistencies in this last Giro. I am starting to see similarities with Armstrong's performance curve (and mental attitude).
Is a belief that rules don't apply to them common to dopers? I have become convinced that drugs have a negative impact on the capacity to make logical decisions.
... Then Sky turn out two clean winning riders in succession, just like that.You can’t compare wiggins with Froome or Hinault, etc. wiggins won one tdf in a year where there was an exceptional amount of time trialing and the other TTer rode the Giro before hand. It was at best a two hours race and the better TTer with the better support team won.
I hope TdF get sued plenty by banning Froome on hearsay.
I hope TdF get sued plenty by banning Froome on hearsay.
What? Where? Linky?
So an AAF is now "hearsay" :facepalm:
I hope TdF get sued plenty by banning Froome on hearsay.
What? Where? Linky?
Twitter talks. It’s being said Froome is going to banned from entering by any means necessary. I can’t put a link to it yet as it’s all unverified. But legally I can’t see how they can justify it. I do know/think that the rule for adverse analytical results should mean an immediate suspension of said athlete from now on.
I hope TdF get sued plenty by banning Froome on hearsay.
What? Where? Linky?
Twitter talks. It’s being said Froome is going to banned from entering by any means necessary. I can’t put a link to it yet as it’s all unverified. But legally I can’t see how they can justify it. I do know/think that the rule for adverse analytical results should mean an immediate suspension of said athlete from now on.
It's obviously a grey area - to say the least - but I'd say it's loosely comparable to a school sacking their French teacher following an allegation of <random dodgy behaviour> that is still under investigation. Such allegations CAN be hopelessly without grounds - but they still create bad PR. If no one knew about the allegation, there would be no scandal, no harm to anyone. .So an AAF is now "hearsay" :facepalm:
Yes hearsay. It’s been leaked, it involves a drug that’s on the legal lists of drugs approved by UCI. Also it is currently being fought by a bunch of lawyers. I’d be taken to the cleaners if I said Froome is doping in an official legal way no?
So an AAF is now "hearsay" :facepalm:
Yes hearsay. It’s been leaked, it involves a drug that’s on the legal lists of drugs approved by UCI. Also it is currently being fought by a bunch of lawyers. I’d be taken to the cleaners if I said Froome is doping in an official legal way no?
ASO would be "not inviting" him, right? I don't understand how it can be restraint of trade if you are simply not inviting someone to a particular (invitation only) event.
ASO would be "not inviting" him, right? I don't understand how it can be restraint of trade if you are simply not inviting someone to a particular (invitation only) event.
Also, I don't understand why whether or not Froome is invited to the Tour is under the Giro 2018 topic.
FWIW, this is a fantastically put together post. It sums up my, and most people I know, feelings towards the subject perfectly.
Unfortunately nothing would convince me, and that is because I'm not looking at a single event such as Stage 19 of the Giro but the whole context of Froome's place in cycling, and the conduct of his team, Sky.
If you look at the most vociferous pro-Froome posters on this thread, whether it be Samuel or Veloman and his sockpuppet 'A Cyclist', their entire argument rests on whether he has failed a drugs test (ditto Wiggins). Of course we know from prior experience that passing dope tests tells us little about the cleanliness of the rider in question. The biggest busts have come about from price actions and whistle-blowers, and careful athletes can beat the anti-doping system.
Riders cannot prove they are clean. and therefore benefit of the doubt can be accorded, or in other words a little suspension of disbelief.
However, what do you do when certain events are have no credible explanation? For me Froome stands out head and shoulders above everybody because prior to Vuelta 2011 he had no pedigree. No wins of note. Nothing. A few weeks before the Vuelta he was climbing with the gruppetto. He was a mediocre mountain domestique who's team were looking to pass him off to a pro-continental team when his contract was up at the end of the season.
And then he nearly won the Vuelta (2nd). The following year he was clearly the strongest rider in the TdF and would have likely won had he not been working for Wiggins. The rest is history. Of course, when questions started to be asked about this miracle transformation from low-grade nobody to the greatest tour rider of his generation we were fed the Bilharzia story, which poses more questions than it answers, for example why did he not show any signs of brilliance before he contracted bilharzia, and why didn't Team Sky, self-professed masters of detail, not pick it up until the final weeks of his contract?
In recent years we have been made aware that Team Sky used TUEs to win races. One of their key players, Shane Sutton, admitted that this self-proclaimed "whiter than white" team are unethical.
So here we have an unethical team, caught out lying on numerous occasions, caught abusing the TUE system for competitive advantage, freely using Tramadol, ordering Testosterone patches et etc etc employing a rider with the most astonishing of transformations.
Hmmm...Nothing to see here :facepalm:
So is he doping now? Who knows. It may well be that he did something 7 years ago that changed him forever. Something within him changed profoundly and for the life of me I can't find a precedent. Even transformations due to EPO (such as Ricco) were not as stark. He is on his way to becoming the greatest Grand Tour rider ever....from nothing.
That’s all I have to say on the matter until new facts emerge. Going back to the Giro, here are three interesting titbits on the race:That's not strictly true. At least one of them tried to in the spring, but was stopped by snow (can't remember who - might have been Yates). Same for the Finestre.
INRNG’s commentary (http://inrng.com/2018/05/the-moment-the-2018-giro-was-won/), insightful as always and with intelligent reader comments.
Something about power (http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/4807/giro-ditalia-power-play-froomes-finestre-watts-revealed) but more interestingly a video of Sky’s Portal talking Froome through the curves on the descent. Did Dumoulin benefit from a similar team effort? Probably not. This may have had something to do with Froome’s success.
Did you know that Froome was the only Giro contender to recon the Zoncolan? The other teams thought Google Maps would do. This may have had something to do with his success.
Alex Dowsett was on Instagram talking about how he uses his GPS map screen to descend mountains (with the caveat that he was 100% plugging his teams GPS sponsor), obvious I know, but there's that option too.That’s all I have to say on the matter until new facts emerge. Going back to the Giro, here are three interesting titbits on the race:That's not strictly true. At least one of them tried to in the spring, but was stopped by snow (can't remember who - might have been Yates). Same for the Finestre.
INRNG’s commentary (http://inrng.com/2018/05/the-moment-the-2018-giro-was-won/), insightful as always and with intelligent reader comments.
Something about power (http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/4807/giro-ditalia-power-play-froomes-finestre-watts-revealed) but more interestingly a video of Sky’s Portal talking Froome through the curves on the descent. Did Dumoulin benefit from a similar team effort? Probably not. This may have had something to do with Froome’s success.
Did you know that Froome was the only Giro contender to recon the Zoncolan? The other teams thought Google Maps would do. This may have had something to do with his success.
There was an interview with the guy behind Veloviewer on one of the podcasts talking about how the GC teams that use his stuff (and that includes Sky and Sunweb) do this sort of thing regularly - you can essentially insert into the app pace notes like a rally driver and read them out to your guys as you drive along. So it's entirely possible Dumoulin could have benefitted the same way on the descent if he wasn't waiting for Reichenback.
Did you know that Froome was the only Giro contender to recon the Zoncolan?That's not strictly true. At least one of them tried to in the spring, but was stopped by snow (can't remember who - might have been Yates).
Talk about selective quoting. You actually said (my bold):Did you know that Froome was the only Giro contender to recon the Zoncolan?That's not strictly true. At least one of them tried to in the spring, but was stopped by snow (can't remember who - might have been Yates).
Then it is strictly true. Trying doesn’t count here!
By the way, I’d like to know who this other person was who tried. The thread has enough rumour. Let’s pin down the facts where we can.
Did you know that Froome was the only Giro contender to recon the Zoncolan? The other teams thought Google Maps would do.That isn't strictly true. ;) Pinning down facts goes both ways. :P
It shouldn’t be, but Flatus turns every thread on racing (and many besides (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=108168.msg2290272#msg2290272)) into tireless invective against Sky and all who disagree with his crude tropes. Letting that slide every time proves that bullying works and lowers the tone of the whole forum. In the absence of effective forum moderation, someone has to stand up to his hectoring, regardless of whether Froome found a one-time permanent doping method seven years ago or not. I am all for robust debate as my post history shows, but we shouldn’t tolerate a playground slanging match every time we disagree … or indeed any time we disagree.
Also, I don't understand why whether or not Froome is invited to the Tour is under the Giro 2018 topic.
I think you'll always get cheating in power sports like athletics and cycling. Even some of the guys at your local club "10" are probably taking something, whether it's to win or just to try and hang on to a PB as they age. It's been going on since the early days (although the Pelissier brothers were yanking the journo's chain in "Les Forçats De La Route") but the pharmacology evolves.
Ever read the list of what's banned? sudofed is banned at concentrations over 150µg/litre in urine. How many standard cough pills do you need to take to be over the limit there?
The question comes into if people are doing it intentionally...
J
His description of what he took, when and the timings work together to provide the 'perfect storm' that give a high reading whilst being within the legal amount of consumption. Bear in mind that the AAF is not in itself sufficient, the offence is to take more than a certain amount in a stated time. It is known (see reference to the medical literature above) that it is possible to exceed the AAF limit whilst being within the legal limit.QuoteQuoteInformed opinion (ie.medics) is that the only way the huge quantity or the drug could have got in his system was through one of these banned methods.Your medics are not well informed. There are published studies showing that these levels are credible from legitimate uses of Salbutamol. They also appear to make a common error of mistaking quantity with concentration. A little bit of pharmacokinetic modelling shows that these levels are possible, given the right conditions, and that the test can distinguish between oral and inhaled doses. There are different metabolic products from the lungs and the gut, but inhaled Salbutamol is ingested both through the lungs and the gut.
We will have to wait and see as to what explanations are accepted for twice the permitted level being present, on top of probable route of administration.
Strangely enough, I follow the evidence and the mechanisms. Balance does not mean two opposing views but weighing each approach with the credibility it requires. Suggesting that Froome used oral salbutamol is crazy - why would he do that when he knows he will be tested and it will take some time to clear. Oral doses are orders of magnitude higher than inhaler doses. Likewise for nebulisers, again a massive dose compared to that used from an inhaler. Read the product sheets, routes of administration, half lives through the different metabolic pathways, do some basic maths (mass in divided by volume multiplied by a reasonable constant for metabolic processing, through an exponential decay with a delay, integrate and you get your possible ranges of compound in the test. Numbers which are very close to those seen empirically when testing elite athletes.QuoteQuoteuNonsense from Le Monde or a credible case actually built on facts rather than the populist myth gained from 'the clinic'?
Malfunctioning kidney or the action of self-confessed unethical team with a history of subterfuge, evasion and outright lying?
Balanced and impartial view, or one who's nationalist sporting fervour blinds him.
His description of what he took, when and the timings work together to provide the 'perfect storm' that give a high reading whilst being within the legal amount of consumption. Bear in mind that the AAF is not in itself sufficient, the offence is to take more than a certain amount in a stated time. It is known (see reference to the medical literature above) that it is possible to exceed the AAF limit whilst being within the legal limit.QuoteQuoteInformed opinion (ie.medics) is that the only way the huge quantity or the drug could have got in his system was through one of these banned methods.Your medics are not well informed. There are published studies showing that these levels are credible from legitimate uses of Salbutamol. They also appear to make a common error of mistaking quantity with concentration. A little bit of pharmacokinetic modelling shows that these levels are possible, given the right conditions, and that the test can distinguish between oral and inhaled doses. There are different metabolic products from the lungs and the gut, but inhaled Salbutamol is ingested both through the lungs and the gut.
We will have to wait and see as to what explanations are accepted for twice the permitted level being present, on top of probable route of administration.QuoteStrangely enough, I follow the evidence and the mechanisms. Balance does not mean two opposing views but weighing each approach with the credibility it requires. Suggesting that Froome used oral salbutamol is crazy - why would he do that when he knows he will be tested and it will take some time to clear. Oral doses are orders of magnitude higher than inhaler doses. Likewise for nebulisers, again a massive dose compared to that used from an inhaler. Read the product sheets, routes of administration, half lives through the different metabolic pathways, do some basic maths (mass in divided by volume multiplied by a reasonable constant for metabolic processing, through an exponential decay with a delay, integrate and you get your possible ranges of compound in the test. Numbers which are very close to those seen empirically when testing elite athletes.QuoteQuoteuNonsense from Le Monde or a credible case actually built on facts rather than the populist myth gained from 'the clinic'?
Malfunctioning kidney or the action of self-confessed unethical team with a history of subterfuge, evasion and outright lying?
Balanced and impartial view, or one who's nationalist sporting fervour blinds him.
Or presume that because you don't like Sky and Froome is winning that he must be cheating and construct evidence to fit your conclusion.
Froome Finistere power details have been released on the internet. I’ll get a link soon.
Only a small amount of power data has been released (3km of the climb)
Froome - 397W
Dumoulin - 395W
So is he doping now? Who knows. It may well be that he did something 7 years ago that changed him forever. Something within him changed profoundly and for the life of me I can't find a precedent. Even transformations due to EPO (such as Ricco) were not as stark. He is on his way to becoming the greatest Grand Tour rider ever....from nothing.
Yes, I dislike Team Sky and Froome and I firmly believe that the are cheats and liars.
That is why every major bike racing website has carried a headline article either straight up denouncing Froome, or at least doubting his legitimacy. Similar articles are also to be found in newspapers, such as the Guardian.
Should I register a sockpuppet of my own to talk to you, Veloman?
Should I register a sockpuppet of my own to talk to you, Veloman?
No idea what you are talking about.
Then I could address your ridiculous attempt at a straw man and your fatuous ellision of homophobic and racist bigotry with a mistrust of Team Sky and their ethics.
That is why every major bike racing website has carried a headline article either straight up denouncing Froome, or at least doubting his legitimacy. Similar articles are also to be found in newspapers, such as the Guardian.
You're right.
Guardian really slated him of here:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/27/chris-froome-flash-of-magic-giro-italia (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/27/chris-froome-flash-of-magic-giro-italia)
Then I could address your ridiculous attempt at a straw man and your fatuous ellision of homophobic and racist bigotry with a mistrust of Team Sky and their ethics.
Bigot = obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, and intolerant towards other people's beliefs and practices.
Might describe a racist, someone homophobic, or whatever. Might describe someone who obstinately puts the same old stuff across and no matter what other view is provided will denounce it or the person giving that view. They will always firmly believe what they believe, no matter what. Even if a cyclist performs a remarkable feat that even previous sceptics acknowledge as being something special, they will continue with the same vitriol and same old viewpoint. No straw man in that, just a straightforward observation based on postings.
Bear in mind that the AAF is not in itself sufficient, the offence is to take more than a certain amount in a stated time.
I thought this (https://cyclingtips.com/2018/05/could-froome-lose-his-giro-or-be-blocked-from-the-tour-a-sports-lawyer-qa/) was interesting from a CAS lawyer.
I thought this (https://cyclingtips.com/2018/05/could-froome-lose-his-giro-or-be-blocked-from-the-tour-a-sports-lawyer-qa/) was interesting from a CAS lawyer.
Indeed. Interesting too that he sees the UCI as the source of the delay.
More new content in this Velonews podcast (http://www.velonews.com/2018/05/podcast/vn-podcast-ep-96-making-sense-froomes-giro-win_467825). The first 45 minutes has, first, some chat about the race including interviews with Froome and Svein Tuft, and then a debate among Andrew Hood and Fred Dreier about the AAF situation. Hood’s reporting is the maybe the best on cycling at the moment, but Dreier usually gets on my nerves. However, from about the 30 minute mark they do a good job suggesting why Froome is hated with the fanatical, blind hatred seen in this thread and on social media. Dreier’s rant puts his finger on it. Worth a listen.
Just listened. Apart from a few points with which I agree, such as motor-doping and whether from Froome's perspective he should be racing GTs, apart from this it is overwhelmingly fatuous.
One of them asks why Froome would dope knowing that he is under scrutiny. Ummm....ask Armstrong if he ever failed a dope test. Seriously...how idiotic. If Froome is doping, he has done so successfully and it has made him a multi-millionaire. The question is why would he not continue if he has evaded detection successfully.
Let's be clear, I'm not talking about Salbutamol. This is a red herring and from what I've read about the substance it does not account for Froome's unbelievable transformation. Which brings me to my final point. The reporter in this podcast attempts to claim that people dislike Froome because he rides with his elbows pointing out. The reporter should speak for himself only. Most people who doubt Froome do so based on a rational examination of whether his sudden leap in performance in 2011 has an explanation that doesn't involve doping.
Given that every successful bike racer will at some point have been not as good as the best, is the deduction from this that anyone who becomes successful at top level pro-racing is on the sauce ?No, but there is often a progression that looks legit. You get some outliers (eg Rusty Woods) who come to the sport late from another discipline, but usually you see a rider do well at age group cycling, then U23, then in 1 day or short stage races (or portions within them like the TT), and then finally, after riding some grand tours for others and finishing way down, make progress towards top 20 and up. Both Yates follow this progression.
Given that every successful bike racer will at some point have been not as good as the best, is the deduction from this that anyone who becomes successful at top level pro-racing is on the sauce ?No, but there is often a progression that looks legit. You get some outliers (eg Rusty Woods) who come to the sport late from another discipline, but usually you see a rider do well at age group cycling, then U23, then in 1 day or short stage races (or portions within them like the TT), and then finally, after riding some grand tours for others and finishing way down, make progress towards top 20 and up. Both Yates follow this progression.
Flatus' argument (and I have some sympathy for this view) is that Froome came to road cycling late, and was a journeyman for a few years, winning nothing of note (and not showing much in TTs either). And then, in his mid-late 20s, just before he's let go by Sky, he is the best grand tour rider of a generation. There's no baby steps, no slow creep up the rankings, he just goes from the 150th best GC rider in the world to the top 1 and then stays there for 6 years. Step changes like that look suspicious.
Given that every successful bike racer will at some point have been not as good as the best, is the deduction from this that anyone who becomes successful at top level pro-racing is on the sauce ?
The standard refutation is that he was ill and as soon as he was better, his performances picked up. That's fair enough, but the magnitude is astonishing.
The standard refutation is that he was ill and as soon as he was better, his performances picked up. That's fair enough, but the magnitude is astonishing.
...He gives really vacuous interviews too!
attempts to claim that people dislike Froome because he rides with his elbows pointing out. The reporter should speak for himself only. Most people who doubt Froome do so based on a rational examination of whether his sudden leap in performance in 2011 has an explanation that doesn't involve doping.
We KNOW you think he's innocent.
Why don't you park it?
Besides, I know you like to stalk me here,As you well know, there is plenty of evidence of the reverse behaviour :-*
but if you look closely you will see there are many people talking on this thread. Have a look and see what they are talking about.Perhaps I was not clear - I am NOT singling out the Great Flatus for banging on about Sky Cheats. I'm well aware it's a hot topic for thousands of internet cycling "enthusiasts". But it's like smoking, or racists, or helmet discussions ... just because there's a lot of you, that doesn't make you popular. It just makes you harder to ignore.
How do Froome's times on the climbs in this Giro compare with previous riders' times ?
... for all that Sky drilled it at the bottom of Finestre, Froome's ascent of the col was by no means the fastest. Carapaz was 20 seconds quicker than Froome up the final climb, albeit 3 minutes slower than Santambrogio and Nibali in 2014, in far worse weather conditions.
https://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=13092276&start=1120#p20351339
Besides, I know you like to stalk me here,As you well know, there is plenty of evidence of the reverse behaviour :-*
Don't worry K, I'm sure you'll find your own special forum someone one day :)Besides, I know you like to stalk me here,As you well know, there is plenty of evidence of the reverse behaviour :-*
You two are so sweet :thumbsup:
So until actual verdicts are reached in these cases, I view it as a fairly tedious side-show.
It's like arguing about whether Cliff Richard* will be found guilty of <whatever>
bla bla bla doping bla bla
Let's be clear, I'm not talking about Salbutamol. This is a red herring and from what I've read about the substance it does not account for Froome's unbelievable transformation. Which brings me to my final point. The reporter in this podcast attempts to claim that people dislike Froome because he rides with his elbows pointing out. The reporter should speak for himself only. Most people who doubt Froome do so based on a rational examination of whether his sudden leap in performance in 2011 has an explanation that doesn't involve doping.
I dunno about that, it can be pretty entertaining, where else do you see folk trying to work out the size of a cow from the size of a steak?
Of course, comparing climb times is problematic because the same climb may appear in different years but at a different point in a stage or indeed in the race. There may be different tactics at play and differing priorities. Certainly in this Giro, even with his Stage 19 attack, Froome's cycling is not as out there as in the past. There are plausible explanations for his ability to gap Dumoulin. What is unusual is his resurrection from the dead as highlighted by Phillipa York.
^
Veloman sockpuppet troll post.
Why not just log in with your Veloman account and post? Why the dishonesty?
^
Veloman sockpuppet troll post.
Why not just log in with your Veloman account and post? Why the dishonesty?
I thought you played the ball, not the man Flatus ? Every post he makes you slag off because of who its from.
^
Veloman sockpuppet troll post.
Why not just log in with your Veloman account and post? Why the dishonesty?
I thought you played the ball, not the man Flatus ? Every post he makes you slag off because of who its from.
No, I'm not slagging him off. There are no personal comments made by me. I'm pointing out a forum member has created a sockpuppet account. On some forums creating a sockpuppet account results in a permanent ban of all accounts associated with the IP address.
I ridicule who rock up not knowing what they are talking about.
...... That pompous, tedious and self-opiniated tone, whilst curiously uniformed and unable to think beyond two dimensions.
I don't understand the "innocent until proven guilty" comments given that doping is so ingrained in cycling and for so long. Or is it "they all dope so the best still win"?
What about that Sam Bennett eh? :thumbsup:Yup, he had some cracking wins, didn't he.
What about that Sam Bennett eh? :thumbsup:Yup, he had some cracking wins, didn't he.
Is he riding the Tour?
I don't understand the "innocent until proven guilty" comments given that doping is so ingrained in cycling and for so long. Or is it "they all dope so the best still win"?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.".
innocence
ˈɪnəsəns/Submit
noun
the state, quality, or fact of being innocent of a crime or offence.
"they must prove their innocence"
synonyms: guiltlessness, blamelessness, freedom from guilt, freedom from blame, irreproachability, clean hands
"the accused protested his innocence"
lack of guile or corruption; purity.
"the healthy bloom in her cheeks gave her an aura of innocence"
synonyms: harmlessness, innocuousness, lack of malice, inoffensiveness
"they questioned the innocence of our motives"
euphemistic
a person's virginity.
"all the boys lost their innocence with her"
synonyms: virginity, chastity, chasteness, purity, lack of sin, sinlessness, impeccability, spotlessness;
And of course there is the inevitable hyped up and over zealous reaction of both the media and the losers in anything that in some way the winner(s) must have cheated. It's what makes social media buzz, what pays journos excessive amounts of money, what keeps Murdoch rich, etc.
I doubt they'll take him and Sagan to the Tour.What about that Sam Bennett eh? :thumbsup:Yup, he had some cracking wins, didn't he.
Is he riding the Tour?
I doubt they'll take him and Sagan to the Tour.What about that Sam Bennett eh? :thumbsup:Yup, he had some cracking wins, didn't he.
Is he riding the Tour?
All the big sprint guys seemed to be at the Tour of California (Kittel, Gaviria, Sagan, Cav, Greipel?). It seems like the Giro got the next level down (Viviani, Bennet, Modolo etc) - I reckon it's because the mountains were so hard that getting over them would impact on Tour form.
It's interesting how the Giro and the Vuelta are not attracting the top sprinters - too many mountain top finishes?
And of course there is the inevitable hyped up and over zealous reaction of both the media and the losers in anything that in some way the winner(s) must have cheated. It's what makes social media buzz, what pays journos excessive amounts of money, what keeps Murdoch rich, etc.
So can you give me examples of when there has been "inevitable hyped up and over zealous reaction of both the media and the losers in anything that in some way the winner(s) must have cheated" when other people have won Grand Tours over the last 5 years?
To help you out, Giro: 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 (Nibali x2, Contador, Quintana, Dumoulin.
Vuelta: 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 (Horner, Aru, Contador, Quintana)
Tour Dr France: 2014 (Nibali.)
There is only one, Horner's Vuelta win, and even then it was low key compared to the reaction to Froome.
So what you cite as "inevitable", isn't actually. But it does pose an interesting question as to why it happens every time Froome wins. Why do you think that is?
Cavendish railed against Giro and Vuelta organisers for making their tours sprinters unfriendly.
Cavendish railed against Giro and Vuelta organisers for making their tours sprinters unfriendly.
Hopefully this is a general trend because organisers have realised that sprint stages make for pretty bad television viewing. (Except for 5 minutes at the end of the race.)
Bespoke Live on R5 last night had some interesting talk on the case. May well be a year before a verdict will be reached.
I hope it's not, echelon racing makes fantastic viewing and sprinting is a skill, both team and individual and the sprint trains don't always get it right. IMO GT parcours are already tilted too heavily to the climbers.
Armstrong was innocent until 2012. By which time he had been retired for a couple of years. If he hadn't staged a comeback in 2009, he would most likely still be innocent.
In which case you'll be able to provide some links to back up your claims, within cycling. Start by newspaper articles and mainstream cycling websites (cyclingnews, velonews, Cyclingtips etc). Or perhaps key figures such as Hinault, Lemond etc calling riders into question. Or maybe even Tour organisers.
Random forum posts are neither here nor there.
What's not to like about 4 or 5 teams hauling ass at 65km/hr all trying to launch their sprinter at 75km/hr? The only downside is that TV can't convey the incredible speed very well. My parents just think they are cycling very quickly. I have difficulty explaining just how impossible it actually is for a normal human to cycle as quickly as a Cavendish.
I'll still watch it and most likely enjoy it, even if Froome rides and wins, just as I enjoyed the Giro.
It's funny to mention Armstrong again, because it was the way Sky and their leaders rode from 2011 onwards that seemed remarkably reminiscent of USPS. People reacted at the time, howls of laughter in the media tent whilst watching the race apparently. They'd seen it all before.
The ensuing relevations of TUE abuse, Tramadol, employment of doping doctors, jiffy bags, spurious excuses to account for unlikely performances, government investigations, testosterone patches, failed drug tests, lies, 'lost' medical records and so on came as no surprise.
It's strange they don't talk about marginal gains anymore. Apparently this accounted for their early successes, but surely with movement of teams staff and riders to other teams these gains have been adopted by all.
Last Friday they claimed it was 'nutrition strategy'.
As the thread rumbles on I was considering why the vilification of Sky and Froome continues. Perhaps Sky, because of their money and resources, have become the cycling equivalent of Chelski and more recently Man City.
Even though the DCMS stated they had broken no rules.The DCMS gave a rather confused message. They said that they had broken no rules, then they said that the TUEs Wiggins used were probably not justified on medical grounds and that they thought the jiffy bag contained kenacort. Both of which accusations would constitute breaking the rules.
It will be interesting to see how history will judge Team Sky.On that, I think everyone will agree. ;)
Even though the DCMS stated they had broken no rules.The DCMS gave a rather confused message. They said that they had broken no rules, then they said that the TUEs Wiggins used were probably not justified on medical grounds and that they thought the jiffy bag contained kenacort. Both of which accusations would constitute breaking the rules.
As the thread rumbles on I was considering why the vilification of Sky and Froome continues. Perhaps Sky, because of their money and resources, have become the cycling equivalent of Chelski and more recently Man City. Or perhaps the equivalent of Mercedes in F1, although having Hamilton drive for Mercedes does help reduce the negative comments. Sky have far more resources compared to other teams as witnessed by their vehicle support and the ‘Death Star’ revealed last year, along with complaints from other teams they take too much space on the car parks. A recent article by one rider said whereas on other teams the laundry would be taken care of by someone as an additional duty, at Sky they have someone dedicated to laundry, such are the resources available. The style of riding is also criticised as they have the resources to recruit a good squad with plenty of firepower. They get on the front, set an almighty pace and control the race, after which they blow-up and leave it to their leader. That is not liked by other teams or some fans. They were criticised for the clothing they wore during TTs last year at the TdF as it was said to give an unfair advantage, even though the clothing was approved and had been worn previously at the Giro. This goes on and on. People will hark back to Wiggins, unethical behaviour, credibility etc. Even though the DCMS stated they had broken no rules. Meanwhile, Dan Martin uses an inhaler, Simon Yates has also received medication to treat asthma and no barbs at them. Both their teams are not members of MPCC and according to the MPCC website only 38% of World Tour Teams are members in 2018. Perhaps it is because they are not winning and are seen to embody a Corinthian spirit rather than the organised and extremely well resourced Sky. Eventually, it all rests with the rider and Froome pulled an amazing performance out of the bag to win the Giro and probably surprised himself, while others imploded or got the tactics wrong. Nobody appears to be seriously questioning whether his performance was clean in that race. Questions arise as to whether he should have been there, which is a different debate, and one that is likely to continue for some time. It will be interesting to see how history will judge Team Sky.
I look forward to the Dauphine with Thomas and Kwiatkowski and wonder what comments will be aimed at them if they start riding well. I also note their latest recruitment, Egan Bernal, has won the Tour of California and no comments appear to have been made about that. Everything appears to be directed at Froome.Kwiatkowski was world champion when joining Sky and has been consistently one of the best 1 day riders in the world. At the Tour Sky will probably use him as a domestique again - I don't know if he has ambitions to lead a team for GC, but it's unlikely at Sky. G is cut from the same cloth as Wiggins (palmares from youth up as a big power trackie/roadie, lost a lot of weight but still not a natural climber), and IMO should have aimed at the classics - I don't think he can cut it in the high mountains.
Thomas? The drugs only help him until he crashes.
Oh wait, the Dauphine is less than a day old and he's crashed already? Get 'em in early I suppose.
I knew Froome was just about to start a run of 6 GT wins and 4 GT podiums when he came 94th in The Tour of Poland.
From 94th in a minor race to 2nd in a GT in only three weeks shows what class he has.
Who else has ever pulled off such an achievement?
But he's only a pursuiter, not a madison acrobat like Cav (and, errr Brad) so we really can't expect the same bike handling skills, even when he isn't being barged out of the descents by Warren B. (Come to think of it Cav is a bit accident prone as well, as was a certain Mr Froome when he came out of Africa, if the stories of his early days by teammates are to be believed - wait, wasn't the descending speed in the Giro credited to bike-handling skills learnt on Kenyan dirt roads? Something not quite right there!)He's won junior Roubaix, as well as E3.
As the thread rumbles on .........
I saw this post and failed to read it.
I’m sorry.
Are there any drugs that I could have taken to help me read it?
The ensuing relevations of TUE abuse, Tramadol, employment of doping doctors, jiffy bags, spurious excuses to account for unlikely performances, government investigations, testosterone patches, failed drug tests, lies, 'lost' medical records and so on came as no surprise.
https://m.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/ewan-mackenna-so-how-is-it-then-that-you-explain-a-freak-like-chris-froome-36968940.html#click=https://t.co/M5OXVoIStG
...by coming 94th in the Tour of Poland.
:facepalm:
How tall is Pozzovivo?
...by coming 94th in the Tour of Poland.
:facepalm:
Perhaps Flatus should consider becoming a teacher of history as he seems fascinated with the past. I'm sure his pupils would love to hear about the Battle of Hastings in 1075. Quite a result apparently and one in the eye for someone.
About 5' 4". That really is small (for a man). Mr fimm is 5' 5" and had enough problems getting a decent TT sent up (meaning, he didn't...) I wonder if Pozzovivo falls foul of UCI reglations about bike set up? I remember reading Emma Pooley saying that she had to have a special dispensation from the regs in order to get a decent TT set up (obviously she's a small woman, so even shorter than Pozzovivo, I assume).How tall is Pozzovivo?
164cm tall and weighs 57kg
teambahrainmerida.com/domenico-pozzovivo/
An AAF (also sometimes incorrectly called a positive test) is the lab result of a permitted substance, irrespective of the type of substance involved. It could be the presence of a prohibited substance or a specified substance above it's permitted level.
An AAF (also sometimes incorrectly called a positive test) is the lab result of a permitted substance,
That is correct and they are all for banned substances that result in a ban as the test was positive regarding the substance. In other words, there is no acceptable limit as highlighted in the Contador case. This is unlike salbutamol where the substance is accepted and the only debate is whether the level exceeds what is permitted. Every test that identifies salbutamol could be considered as positive as it has identified the substance, but within limits it results in no further action. If outside the limit than action is generated in accordance with protocol for an AAF.
Hence why Sky rebutted the reference to a "positive test". Subtle difference, but one that becomes important in a legal sense.
We can only assume that terminology in the Sky rebuttal was incorrect based on what you have posted. Sneaky feeling that Sky would have passed rebuttal to lawyers first to check they were correct in stating the AAF was not a positive test.
Ask yourself why Sky are putting out a press release rather than going after Hinault for slander.
From the original article following the interview with Hinault:
Chris Froome komt nu in hun buurt, maar daarmee is ‘de Das’, nog altijd even grimmig als in zijn topdagen, het niet eens. “Froome hoort niet in die lijst”, zegt Hinault. “Hij heeft een positieve test afgelegd in de Vuelta en nadien bleek ook zijn B-staal positief, dus heeft hij doping gebruikt en moet hij geschorst worden.”
https://www.hln.be/sport/wielrennen/giro/gepikeerde-hinault-froome-maakt-geen-deel-uit-van-de-legende-van-deze-sport-het-is-een-schandaal~a3674700/ (https://www.hln.be/sport/wielrennen/giro/gepikeerde-hinault-froome-maakt-geen-deel-uit-van-de-legende-van-deze-sport-het-is-een-schandaal~a3674700/)
Notice the reference to 'positive test'?
Guardian and others summarised the original interview/article. Rebuttal from Sky was referring to original interview. Sky must do their homework rather than rely on summaries from other sources.
I love the idea that Sky issuing a press release could damage his reputation. He must be quaking with fear.
Seems an unusually thorough approach for Sky to take. They’ll be keeping records next.
A Cyclist, in my earlier post where I talked about layman's terms, was there something in that you need me to clarify?
There might be a good reason why Merckx is a bit more circumspect than Hinault when it comes to commenting on other cyclists doping.
But he's only a pursuiter, not a madison acrobat like Cav (and, errr Brad) so we really can't expect the same bike handling skills, even when he isn't being barged out of the descents by Warren B. (Come to think of it Cav is a bit accident prone as well, as was a certain Mr Froome when he came out of Africa, if the stories of his early days by teammates are to be believed - wait, wasn't the descending speed in the Giro credited to bike-handling skills learnt on Kenyan dirt roads? Something not quite right there!)He's won junior Roubaix, as well as E3.
However, the people in the peleton regarded as the best bike handlers tend to have been top level off-road cyclists (cross or MTB) - I'm not sure madison is the gold standard...
Seems an unusually thorough approach for Sky to take. They’ll be keeping records next.
Excellent comment!
No doubt Simon Yates will also ensure the paperwork has been all OK after his TUE moment. Dragging-up old stuff serves no real purpose as we should be judging on contemporary matters rather than historical detail. Yes it was a PR disaster, but as WADA noted, and DCMS, no rules were broken and Sky gave a response.
https://www.teamsky.com/article/team-sky-response-to-dcms-committee-combatting-doping-in-sport-report (https://www.teamsky.com/article/team-sky-response-to-dcms-committee-combatting-doping-in-sport-report)
Meanwhile, racing is happening in the Dauphine.
I doubt they'll be admitting to the doping ;)
EDIT:Just read the transcript. They wouldn't dope because it wouldn't make winning fun.
No SDB, maybe not, but it has made you a millionaire ;)
'Doing a Landis', is exactly what is described. Dropping the other contenders and thereby giving your team a clear space for close, and meticulously planned' support. The chaos in the chasing group means they can't be as well supported.
I've recently formed an opinion on one contributor to this thread, based on their opinion of PBP terrain, derived from riding the first 300km. I'm now questioning the ratio of evidence to prejudice in their posts.
Going back to the Salbutamol case and its impact:
Comments on the TCP (that I've only just caught up with :facepalm: ) from quite informed people are making me think that Froome will almost certainly keep his Giro title, but lose the Vuelta (and possibly some additional punishment, such as ban starting at the verdict?) if he is judged guilty of a doping offence.
Which I think is a good thing. (although I'd have preferred Dumoulin to win this race!)
I doubt they'll be admitting to the doping ;)
EDIT:Just read the transcript. They wouldn't dope because it wouldn't make winning fun.
No SDB, maybe not, but it has made you a millionaire ;)
I too read the transcript and was impressed/disappointed with the absence of any real refutal (is that the word I want; still thinking in french!) of doping, just saying that they had people passing up continuous small doses of energy carbs and bottles all the way up the climbs (which made me wonder if that was legal outside designated feeding zones but I suppose it must be otherwise they wouldn't be so ready to brag about their planning - and indeed what's the difference between being handed a bottle by a bloke running or by a bloke driving a car, other than that it is slightly more sporting).
On the whole I don't think that this takes the arguement forward. Froome's mental attitude still makes me think of Armstrong and Sir DB seems to be accepting that that is the case, no matter what he says. All this piece made me think was "micro-dosing". Sad really.
There's no reason to strip him of his Giro title, he's clear to race, which makes backdating any potential ban tricky,
Poor Lizzie poor chris (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lizzie-deignan-chris-froome-hasnt-had-a-fair-process/)
"Twenty-plus-year career, 500 drug controls worldwide, in and out of competition. Never a failed test. I rest my case."
"Twenty-plus-year career, 500 drug controls worldwide, in and out of competition. Never a failed test. I rest my case."
Who/where is this quote from please ?
Armstrong did fail a dope test, in his first Tour win, but the UCI colluded with his team to cover it up.Hold on. Are you saying Armstrong's a liar? ;D