Author Topic: Giro 2018  (Read 17265 times)

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #150 on: May 28, 2018, 08:57:22 pm »
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.
Quote
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.

Maybe it is possible.  Maybe Froome produced the best clean grand tour day in history. If that day is viewed as clean in 15 years time, then he should go down as the best grand tour rider ever. From this vantage point, there's something fishy about Sky, something strange about Froome, and something even stranger about that particular stage. So while it was an epic ride, and a massive spectacle, I can't help but be sceptical.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #151 on: May 28, 2018, 09:20:26 pm »
bla

Arch critic David Walsh??????

What planet are you on????

Walsh was hagiographer-in-chief for Team Sky, punting the marginal gains bullshit and ghost writing Froome's autobiography.

It was only after the Govermental committee that Walsh became a turncoat and said he was sceptical of Team Sky.

Walsh has made his living off the back of Team Sky in recent years

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #152 on: May 28, 2018, 09:22:51 pm »
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? Tom Dumoulin's rise has been quite spectacular and also rides for a team not in the MPCC.  He also started riding with a Rabobank team.  But no questions about other riders.  Only Froome.  Perhaps the recent article by David Walsh should be read as he seems to have his finger on the pulse regarding doping.

Dumoulin has stated he was not getting the help he needed on the flat and the TV coverage showed that.  He also climbed faster than Froome on the final climb.  No doubting what Dumoulin has said about that stage that also included the fact if he went 1:1 with Froome that day he would have lost as Froome is the better climber.  Don't forget Domoulin won Giro 2017 on the last day because of a TT which is his speciality.

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?

Karla

  • car(e) free
    • Lost Byway - around the world by bike
Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #153 on: May 28, 2018, 09:25:42 pm »
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!

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #154 on: May 28, 2018, 09:28:41 pm »
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.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #155 on: May 28, 2018, 09:33:53 pm »
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.

Karla

  • car(e) free
    • Lost Byway - around the world by bike
Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #156 on: May 28, 2018, 09:53:59 pm »
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.

Are you one of those people who thinks Vladimir Putin should be given the benefit of the doubt over whether he poisons former agents abroad?

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #157 on: May 28, 2018, 09:59:55 pm »
Not sure whether comment by Karla is contributing to the debate about Giro 2018.

But for the record, the evidence points to Russia.  That is the difference between performance of Froome in Giro 2018.  Only evidence is of a very good piece of riding and a hell of a lot of tenacity.

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #158 on: May 28, 2018, 10:08:26 pm »
When you do a 'connect the dots' picture, do you recognise the picture before you reach the very last dot?
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #159 on: May 28, 2018, 10:18:42 pm »
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.

I ridicule who rock up not knowing what they are talking about.

Walsh has changed tack on Team Sky twice, not once. You are unaware of this.


As to the bolded: Not at all. I think he can win the Anatomic Jock Race  ;D ;D ;D ::-)

Anyway, you registered here today. You are amongst people who for the most part know each other in person, and have done so for over a decade. It's not for you to tell people here what they should or should not say.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #160 on: May 28, 2018, 10:52:10 pm »
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.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #161 on: May 28, 2018, 10:57:33 pm »
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.

Hmmm....and with that you have confirmed my suspicions.

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #162 on: May 28, 2018, 11:01:26 pm »
No is the short answer.
There is a longer answer, but no is quicker and just as informative.
Thanks  ;D

I feared as much ...
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #163 on: May 29, 2018, 09:59:56 am »
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.
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, so when you say it's a permitted substance, that's open to doubt.
 
Quote
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.
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.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #164 on: May 29, 2018, 10:21:00 am »
"A Cyclist's"  behaviour is unusual.

He registered yesterday, and then posted prolifically on one thread and one thread only, and with a definite agenda. Seems to have an axe to grind. Perhaps very butthurt from prior experience.

Seems odd.

And yet the style of prose is eerily familiar. That pompous, tedious and self-opiniated tone,  whilst curiously uniformed and unable to think beyond two dimensions.

Reminds me of someone.

Sounds like a sockpuppet account. Somebody without the courage to post under their own username and somebody who's previous attempts to shut down discussion of Froome or Sky have been shot down with ease.

Brave stuff on an internet forum

Indeed.  Hoist by your own petard, eh VM.  ::-)


Samuel D

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #165 on: May 29, 2018, 10:21:51 am »
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.

As a practising cyclist, I don’t see anything odd about losing half an hour in those mountains. If you’re exhausted you’re exhausted! Unless you possess Froome-like courage, you’re also likely to go to pieces mentally. Yates and Chaves are both young to boot.

Chaves was so tired he couldn’t keep up with the processional pace in Rome. I think he finished last on that stage.

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 …

Why make that claim, DuncanM? This thread has too much of this impossible style of ‘debate’: wild claims thrown out that cannot be argued against rationally because the writer has demonstrated no curiosity for the truth. Come on. If you know Froome and Sky are doping, there should be no need for these methods that remind me of recent politics in English-speaking nations.

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.

That’s a reasonable approach and similar to the one I take. But then stick to that and leave the salbutomal dosages to experts who stand a chance of navigating the complexity of those matters.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #166 on: May 29, 2018, 10:32:23 am »
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

LEE

  • "Shut Up Jens" - Legs.
Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #167 on: May 29, 2018, 10:32:28 am »
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.
Some people say I'm self-obsessed but that's enough about them.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #168 on: May 29, 2018, 10:38:58 am »
You assume that Froome isn't using methods that are, as yet, undetectable.

Whatever he did or didn't do, his transformation In the space of several weeks in 2011 (when his contract was up and he was heading for relegation to pro-continental teams, on much lower pay) was literally unbelievable.

What would it do to British Cycling? Probably make them very relieved them at they severered the siamese link with Team Sky.

It's funny how Sky don't talk about marginal gains anymore, isn't it.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #169 on: May 29, 2018, 10:43:02 am »
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.


It would open up all the questions that should have been asked and answered long ago.

It should also open up similar questions about our success in other sports.

Samuel D

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #170 on: May 29, 2018, 10:44:27 am »
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.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #171 on: May 29, 2018, 10:50:48 am »
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. Loads of riders are using salbutamol inhalers, and yet very few have been over the limit (that we know of), and they have been handed bans. The hearing is waiting on Sky - if there was overwhelming evidence that would have cleared Froome, everything would have been done by now.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #172 on: May 29, 2018, 11:01:08 am »
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.

It is good that you are, at last, showing some self-awareness.

Joking apart, what you say is for the most part correct. The signal to noise ratio on social media is weak...but where there is signal it is often crucial. The most obvious and example is when somebody tweeted " Just so you know, Lance doped" 😉

Quote
Second, the experts that matter are in court, not giving pop interviews to the media.

Those that matter to the case, yes. 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.

Quote
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.

Which is why I haven't quoted it as 'evidence of doping'.Ive quoted it as an example of an expert talking usefully and informatively about the case, on social media.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #173 on: May 29, 2018, 11:13:42 am »
I wonder what the 'opposing camps' will make of this...

Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 May 3.
Futility of current urine salbutamol doping control
Heuberger JAAC et al.

Destroying rainforest for economic gain is like burning a Renaissance painting to cook a meal.  EOW.

Samuel D

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #174 on: May 29, 2018, 11:14:42 am »
1429 is still way higher than the 1000 limit.

Even that judgement should be left to experts. If you model the body as an empty 1000 ml container and add 1100 ml of water to it, you get an overflow of 100 ml. If you up the ‘dose’ to 1200 ml, you get an overflow of 200 ml or an increase in overflow of 100%.

If instead you model the body as a 100 ml container, a 1100 ml dose gives a 1000 ml overflow while the 1200 ml dose produces 1100 ml of overflow, an increase of just 10%.

So by increasing the dose by the same amount, the body might overflow by a seemingly unrelated amount. In this way 1429 ng/ml may be “way higher” than the tolerated amount or just a bit higher. The studies I’ve seen – and I’ve only skim-read a few in the Google-able public domain – are contradictory.

Of course the real situation with salbutomal in the human body is not modelled like this but is more complex and affected by many known and some unknown factors with large fudge factors. Definitely one for the experts.

The hearing is waiting on Sky - if there was overwhelming evidence that would have cleared Froome, everything would have been done by now.

These are more claims unjustified by the facts I have seen. We don’t know who the hearing is waiting on. It might be Sky or Froome or their agents – I’d guess it is, but that can only be a guess – or it might be a cautious LADS concerned not to expose the UCI to a legal case down the line that would compromise its authority on future cases and open it up to paying damages in this one.

Nor do we know that overwhelming evidence would have cleared Froome by now. How can you know that? There’s an elaborate bureaucracy to satisfy for the purpose of ensuring fairness and preventing corruption. Unless you know every step in that process, your claims are just guesses.