chris froome

walshb

I firmly believe that Chris is riding clean.

AstraMonti

^ You have a fitting name for that as well

chanelfreak

Can I ask a (possibly stupid) question? Are the other teams releasing their data and Team Sky are the only ones not doing that? Because if no-one else is, then why should Team Sky? Sorry now if that is a stupid question, I'm just curious.

AstraMonti

Noone is obliged to release anything, Sky had promised to be open and clear but they don't deliver, that's what all the fuss is about.

chanelfreak

But (and again, forgive me if I am asking stupid or obvious questions!) why should they release something that would give their competitors an advantage? I mean, I realize that they are under scrutiny given the doping scandals in the past, but I can see why they would want to keep to themselves data that might be used by other teams to give them an edge over Team Sky. I think there is a limit to being open and transparent, it's still a competition after all and if the drug tests are coming back clear, then it's fine no?

AstraMonti

Well there is a lot of disagreement around that. Personally I don't think by giving away your power data you are losing anything. To simplify that if Quintana gets dropped at 450w, then he knows Froome is doing 460. The secret is how you made Froome from a 3rd category rider to 1st class TdF winner and that's not something you are going to get from the power data. And again, if they hadn't promised transparency there were would have been a lot less people asking them about it.

chanelfreak

Ah ok, thanks for that AstraMonti, its a bit clearer now

Brian?

AstraMonti wrote: »

Well there is a lot of disagreement around that. Personally I don't think by giving away your power data you are losing anything. To simplify that if Quintana gets dropped at 450w, then he knows Froome is doing 460. The secret is how you made Froome from a 3rd category rider to 1st class TdF winner and that's not something you are going to get from the power data. And again, if they hadn't promised transparency there were would have been a lot less people asking them about it.

Exactly.

Sky frustrate me and I don't think they are doping. They could do themselves a huge favour and instead of talking about transparency, actually be transparent.

I follow several riders on Strava who share all of their data daily. I know exactly what power I need to ride for how to drop Laurens Ten Dam- watch out Laurens I'm coing for you. Only problem is I can't quite get that fit.

desertcircus

It's possible that there's implied answers in the power data. I don't know enough about how lactate buildup works to do it myself, but if you can see that Froome's LTP is say 5.9w/kg, and he never goes above 6.8 if there's more than an hour's riding left, then you can assume that he can't hold over 115% for any more than one hour without burning out. That gives you a pretty good idea of how to attack him.

desertcircus

In other words: the extrapolations we're seeing are giving us an idea of Froome's LPT, but they may not be enough to indicate how long he can go above that before fatiguing, or his recovery time once he is fatigued. If he does ten minutes at 125%, how long does he needs at 80% to flush the lactate?

Lumen

desertcircus wrote: »

In other words: the extrapolations we're seeing are giving us an idea of Froome's LPT...

What's LPT? Local property tax?

edit: oh, presumably lactate threshold power. There are several. Maybe FTP?

walshb

Sky have released data that they don't have to. Didn't they release all data to WADA? Why should they release the data to the public? Ridiculous!

mcgratheoin

walshb wrote: »

Why should they release the data to the public?

Because they said that they were going to be the most transparent and open team ever, they weren't going to hire ex-dopers, they weren't going to use cycling doctors and they weren't going to seek TUEs for riders. If they want to regain the public trust that they lost by reneging on their promises, this would be a good way to go about it.

gordongekko

walshb wrote: »

Sky have released data that they don't have to. Didn't they release all data to WADA? Why should they release the data to the public? Ridiculous!

Why would Wada want it. They are hardly going to say that a person is deffo not doping. That's not their job.

Leroy42

walshb wrote: »

Why should they release the data to the public? Ridiculous!

As Kimmage said on Newstalk, what is the point of winning the TdF if nobody believes in it?

In an ideal world, you are right and Sky should not have to give out this information. They should also not be subject to the constant stream of loaded questions calling into question their credibility.

However, this is pro-cycling, and pro-cycling after an era where doping was not only not tackled it seems that it was actually facilitated by those in charge.

So they are coming from a position where the sport needs to reestablish credibility, you don't do that by saying that people should just believe you even if the evidence to their eyes is reminisant of previous times.

walshb

Leroy42 wrote: »

As Kimmage said on Newstalk, what is the point of winning the TdF if nobody believes in it?

I.

And what numbers are believable? When will you satisfy people? The numbers themselves are not an indicator of doping or not doping. That is the point that has been made.

Kimmage is obsessed with doping and cheating.

walshb

gordongekko wrote: »

Why would Wada want it. They are hardly going to say that a person is deffo not doping. That's not their job.

I don't know, but from reading I see that data was made available to WADA.

There is no obligation or requirement for Sky to release data just because someone wants it.

walshb

Leroy42 wrote: »

if the evidence to their eyes is reminisant of previous times.

How so? What is so glaringly obvious with Froome that points to previous times?

mcgratheoin

walshb wrote: »

There is no obligation or requirement for Sky to release data just because someone wants it.

Nobody has said they're obliged to release data. They can quite happily skip along with the status quo but they can't complain about non-UK journalists and fans being sceptical given cycling's history.

lennymc

didnt they release their data to l'equipe who got a respected guru type person to analyse it? His results iirc where that the data was fine and didnt indicate anything untoward.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/news/froome-reiterates-claims-hes-racing-clean-at-the-tour_295236

walshb

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Nobody has said they're obliged to release data. They can quite happily skip along with the status quo but they can't complain about non-UK journalists and fans being sceptical given cycling's history.

Of course they can complain, just like the journalists can be skeptical. It's a free world. It's a non story. Froome has done nothing wrong here, and nor have Sky. No matter what is or is not released you will have the doubters and naysayers and haters.

mcgratheoin

walshb wrote: »

Of course they can complain, just like the journalists can be skeptical. It's a free world. It's a non story. Froome has done nothing wrong here, and nor have Sky. No matter what is or is not released you will have the doubters and naysayers and haters.

Absence of wrong does not equal right.

Brian?

walshb wrote: »

I don't know, but from reading I see that data was made available to WADA.

There is no obligation or requirement for Sky to release data just because someone wants it.

No obligation, except the one they made themselves. They promised transparency and failed to deliver.

walshb

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Absence of wrong does not equal right.

So, what are you saying? The same tired line that not being guilty doesn't make you innocent? It's a no win situation with some people. No matter what Sky and Froome do they cannot win with some people.

walshb

Brian? wrote: »

No obligation, except the one they made themselves. They promised transparency and failed to deliver.

How transparent did they promise to be? How many hoops did they say they would jump through?

terrydel

jackstaff wrote: »

Maybe it's a Kenyan thing .
He has the same body frame as a Kenyan long distance runner.

Anyway I seen him win in Oman just there pulled away on the last climb after been riding for 4hrs, wins the race, then jumps back on the bike to go higher up the mountain to cool down

He grew up there but both his parents are English as far as Im aware, so he probably has as much Kenyan genes as you or I.

Brian?

walshb wrote: »

How transparent did they promise to be? How many hoops did they say they would jump through?

They promised "unprecedented levels of transparancey". Yet they didn't join the MPCCC and refused repeatedly to release data on TUEs and power.

Leroy42

walshb wrote: »

And what numbers are believable? When will you satisfy people? The numbers themselves are not an indicator of doping or not doping. That is the point that has been made.

Kimmage is obsessed with doping and cheating.

I agree that the numbers themselves will not prove or disprove anything. But withholding the numbers, or argueing that the calculated numbers are way off only to come out later and give the data that prove the calculated numbers materially correct gives the impression of lack of transparency.

You will satisfy people when they believe what you are saying. Right now, most people don't because of the history of the sport. That of course of not Sky's fault but that is where it is.

walshb wrote: »

How so? What is so glaringly obvious with Froome that points to previous times?

There is nothing glaringly obvious, but then LA didn't cycle around with a syringe in his arm either. Its the way the team dominates the race, domestiques are now better than GC contenders from other teams. The way they are prepared to bend the rules to suit themselves, (Froomes gel on Alpe), the massive improvement in their star man without any real explanation (for 'he had a mystery virus which is now cured', read 'he lost all his weight but kept his muscle'). The times he is doing are comparable to times done by LA, Pantani etc.

Nothing really wrong with any of this, but again it is the impression it gives and must be looked at in the light of the LA era and Postal. You can't simply expect people to forget that.

Undercover Elephant

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Absence of wrong does not equal right.

Yes it does.

Absence of evidence of wrong isn't necessarily evidence of right, unless you've looked in the places you expect to find wrong and not found it.

mcgratheoin

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

Yes it does.

Absence of evidence of wrong isn't necessarily evidence of right, unless you've looked in the places you expect to find wrong and not found it.

Let me rephrase then, there's a huge grey area between illegal behaviour and optimal behaviour. It is in this murky area that Sky (and all other teams) operate, having promised much much more.

e.g. Dave Brailsford said in 2009

I've specified that I want British doctors who haven't worked in professional cycling before.

he then hired Geert Leinders. They also began life with a statement that they wouldn't seek TUEs for riders in competition, but they have frequently done so, and then not been clear in numerous interviews about whether a rider took something, or has a TUE, or has asthma etc. etc.

BadCharlie

Leroy42 wrote: »

The times he is doing are comparable to times done by LA, Pantani etc.

I think if you look at all todays sports across all fields. You will find the athlete's of today are faster, stronger.

Swimming we have phelps "The best Ever"
Sprinting we have Bolt "The best Ever"
Bikes we have Froom "I dont think his the best but lots of people having jibs at the guy"
Boxing we have Taylor "The best Ever in Laddies"
Soccer we have Ronaldo/Messi. "The best Ever"
Triathlete's we have Brownlee brothers.
Tenis we have Roger "The best Ever"

And this list goes on & on & on but i don't have all day to list them.

walshb

Why stop at Pantani and LA as regards times. LeMond rode the fastest ever TT in 1989. I am sure the average speed has been beaten, but only recently. Was LeMond on the juice as well? Lance competed at his peak 10-15 years ago, and Pantani was several years before that.

Are we to assume that all the athletes who ran faster than 9.79 in the 100 meters are cheats because Ben ran that time whilst on steroids?

mcgratheoin

walshb wrote: »

Lance competed at his peak 10-15 years ago, and Pantani was several years before that.

What's that got to do with it? There has been only one tour with no dopers in the top 10 since the Festina scandal so it's not like doping in cycling is a decades old problem.

walshb

mcgratheoin wrote: »

What's that got to do with it? There has been only one tour with no dopers in the top 10 since the Festina scandal so it's not like doping in cycling is a decades old problem.

It's got to do with athletes getting better and faster and stronger through progression/equipment/diet and overall desire to improve. Froome is riding comparable times to men from 10-15-18 years ago. Both those men were cheaters. I don't find it odd that 10-15-18 years later that the earth cannot produce clean cyclists who can be as good as dirty cyclists from years gone by.

mcgratheoin

walshb wrote: »

I don't find it odd that 10-15-18 years later that the earth cannot produce clean cyclists who can be as good as dirty cyclists from years gone by.

neither do I - (I assume you mean "can" though)

I think you're seriously underestimating the effect of doping (and I don't think that performances have caught up the dirty performances overall). To get an idea of how much doping can distort a sport I'd suggest you have a quick glance at the women's track and field records and tell me whether you think clean performances have caught up to doped performances there, closing in on 30 years from the collapse of the eastern bloc.
Of the 17 women's track and field events at the 1988 Olympics, 12 of the world records at the time still stand, 27 years later. Of the other 5, two were set by Wang Junxia in China, Dibaba only recently broke Qu Yunxia's 1500m record and the East German 4x100m record had lasted 27 years until the USA broke it in London. Some of those records may never be broken - nobody has got within 20 seconds of the 10K record in 25 years!

Leroy42

walshb wrote: »

It's got to do with athletes getting better and faster and stronger through progression/equipment/diet and overall desire to improve. Froome is riding comparable times to men from 10-15-18 years ago. Both those men were cheaters. I don't find it odd that 10-15-18 years later that the earth cannot produce clean cyclists who can be as good as dirty cyclists from years gone by.

I'm not saying its odd, I'm saying that the comparison raises legitimate questions based on the fact that those times from 10-15 years ago are known to be based on doping.

I have said on other threads that the times of themselves mean nothing, I would expect times to get faster due to better equipment, better more focused training etc.

But you are missing the point. The reason why so many questions are being asked is that people have been burnt already in the past, quite recent past, and those are not quickly forgotten. You are argueing a valid point, except for the fact that pro cycling has little to no credibility.

We got all the same reasons for LA as we get for Froome (better equipment, more focused training) and given the total lack of credibility that cycling has created for itself it is hardly surprising that people question what is now shown to us as the new reality.

"Yeah, we know all that LA was complete BS, we know we actively helped cover it up, but this time its different, this time this guy really is a hero."

Its unfair on Froome, its unfair on Sky, but that is the way the sport has let itself go.

walshb

mcgratheoin wrote: »

neither do I - (I assume you mean "can" though)

I think you're seriously underestimating the effect of doping (and I don't think that performances have caught up the dirty performances overall). To get an idea of how much doping can distort a sport I'd suggest you have a quick glance at the women's track and field records and tell me whether you think clean performances have caught up to doped performances there, closing in on 30 years from the collapse of the eastern bloc.
Of the 17 women's track and field events at the 1988 Olympics, 12 of the world records at the time still stand, 27 years later. Of the other 5, two were set by Wang Junxia in China, Dibaba only recently broke Qu Yunxia's 1500m record and the East German 4x100m record had lasted 27 years until the USA broke it in London. Some of those records may never be broken - nobody has got within 20 seconds of the 10K record in 25 years!

Thanks for the correction

I am not underestimating doping and its effectiveness. But, I also happen to believe that the earth can produce clean humans that can do extraordinary things. Example: I am close to 100 percent that Bolt is a genuine and honest and decent and clean athlete who happens to be extraordinarily fast.

I also believe Bekele to be clean and EL G and many other track athletes. Is Sonia's 2 K WR clean? I think it is. It's years old! Yes, it's not all that targeted but you can bet people still do try and beat it.

In relation to Froome. Yes, I do believe we have a good guy here. I really do.

mcgratheoin

Leroy42 wrote: »

We got all the same reasons for LA as we get for Froome (better equipment, more focused training)

Miraculous disease recovery...

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its unfair on Froome, its unfair on Sky, but that is the way the sport has let itself go.

Nail on the head. While I would hazard a guess that most people here do believe Froome to be clean, we've done this dance before and far from "Fool me once.." we're on to iteration 4 or 5 by now and we're mostly fed up of it. Cycling has forfeited it's right to presumed innocence in the court of public opinion a long time ago and they are doing nothing to try to win back that belief.

walshb

Leroy42 wrote: »

I'm not saying its odd, I'm saying that the comparison raises legitimate questions based on the fact that those times from 10-15 years ago are known to be based on doping.

I have said on other threads that the times of themselves mean nothing, I would expect times to get faster due to better equipment, better more focused training etc.

But you are missing the point. The reason why so many questions are being asked is that people have been burnt already in the past, quite recent past, and those are not quickly forgotten. You are argueing a valid point, except for the fact that pro cycling has little to no credibility.

We got all the same reasons for LA as we get for Froome (better equipment, more focused training) and given the total lack of credibility that cycling has created for itself it is hardly surprising that people question what is now shown to us as the new reality.

"Yeah, we know all that LA was complete BS, we know we actively helped cover it up, but this time its different, this time this guy really is a hero."

Its unfair on Froome, its unfair on Sky, but that is the way the sport has let itself go.

So, it really boils down to the sport's reputation. It has a really bad rep. That then is equating to no man ever being given the real kudos he deserves for succeeding. It's a sad world, but I understand the suspicion. I do not get the way many are so adamant that someone is a cheater with F all evidence, apart from the lame "LA was a cheat, and this guy and that guy were cheats."

There is a section of society who won't believe anything, and label any of the best as cheats. It's unfortunate.

mcgratheoin

walshb wrote: »

In relation to Froome. Yes, I do believe we have a good guy here. I really do.

You're kinda missing the point here though - this is not just about Froome, it's about the structures that are in place throughout cycling that can still facilitate doping - the secrecy, the omerta, the unapologetic ex-dopers running teams, the ex-dopers prevalent at every level of the sport, the closing of ranks to any questioning, the aggressive responses and the repetition of everything we've seen and heard before. The anger towards SKY, that seems excessive when compared to that directed at Astana for example, is a backlash at having had the wool pulled over our eyes again by another team that promised much and delivered none of it. There's a very good post on the cycling news forum that sums up the anger here

LeoD

walshb wrote: »

How so? What is so glaringly obvious with Froome that points to previous times?

i don't think Froome's performance level in the last 4 years is impossible for the world's best to achieve 'clean' but it's his jump from a nobody that Sky were even going to dump from the team at the end of 2011 to the most dominant Grand Tour rider in the world that has people wondering how the f**k did he do that - hence the curiosity to see the numbers. Just look at him - nothing about him even resembles what you'd expect from the world's best bike rider - the physique, the riding style, the race tactics, etc. The guy won an olympic TT bronze medal for god's sake 3 years after finishing a minute behind David McCann in World TT (but ahead of his pal Bradley Wiggins but that's another story). An amazing transformation at such a late stage in his career - no wonder people have concerns.

David Brailsford's favourite website

walshb

LeoD wrote: »

Just look at him - nothing about him even resembles what you'd expect from the world's best bike rider - the physique, the riding style, the race tactics, etc.

]

I don't get this way of looking at it. If he looks so not like a champion then what bloody drugs are making him so great? Drugs help, but seriously, they don't turn donkeys into racehorses. The guy is a great cyclist. End of. His physical appearance here is completely irrelevant. Many great cyclists didn't look all that.

diomed

Unusually high cadence, very low body fat.
That reminds me of someone.

walshb

mcgratheoin wrote: »

You're kinda missing the point here though - this is not just about Froome, it's about the structures that are in place throughout cycling that can still facilitate doping - the secrecy, the omerta, the unapologetic ex-dopers running teams, the ex-dopers prevalent at every level of the sport, the closing of ranks to any questioning, the aggressive responses and the repetition of everything we've seen and heard before. The anger towards SKY, that seems excessive when compared to that directed at Astana for example, is a backlash at having had the wool pulled over our eyes again by another team that promised much and delivered none of it. There's a very good post on the cycling news forum that sums up the anger here

I was more speaking about Froome, though. I agree with your post above as regards the whole organizational aspect surrounding cycling as a sport. There's a lot of dirty laundry, but there is also a lot of clean laundry, and for me, Froome is one wearing clean laundry. It's unfortunate that the dirt gets splashed onto him.

Nermal

walshb wrote: »

Example: I am close to 100 percent that Bolt is a genuine and honest and decent and clean athlete who happens to be extraordinarily fast.

Not this again... You're trotting out loads of opinions, but you're not backing them up with anything.

'I believe X is clean' isn't really adding anything to the discussion. What are you basing this opinion of Bolt on? The fact that the media presents him as a cool personality? That he's a bit tall? The tripe written about him living on chicken nuggets and never training?

You have the air of someone who swallows everything the media tells you.

eeeee

walshb wrote: »

There is a section of society who won't believe anything, and label any of the best as cheats. It's unfortunate.

Whilst this is out there, I think the biggest reason for the SKY hate is below:

Brian? wrote: »

No obligation, except the one they made themselves. They promised transparency and failed to deliver.

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Because they said that they were going to be the most transparent and open team ever, they weren't going to hire ex-dopers, they weren't going to use cycling doctors and they weren't going to seek TUEs for riders. If they want to regain the public trust that they lost by reneging on their promises, this would be a good way to go about it.

They promised one thing and have done another on many occasions. Froome's transformation is part of that. They made so much noise about being different and then proceeded not to be. That's the nub of it. The racing style doesn't endear them either.

Personally, I can't get excited about Froome at all. I find him incredibly boring. Boring to listen to, watch etc. His riding stye is ungainly. The way SKY ride for him isn't exactly riveting. He's a perfectly nice chap by all accounts, but none of these things endear himself to fans or the press and the way SKY is doesn't help him either. It's the combination of all these factors that create the attitude people have towards Froome.

walshb

Nermal wrote: »

Not this again... You're trotting out loads of opinions, but you're not backing them up with anything.

'I believe X is clean' isn't really adding anything to the discussion. What are you basing this opinion of Bolt on? The fact that the media presents him as a cool personality? That he's a bit tall? The tripe written about him living on chicken nuggets and never training?

You have the air of someone who swallows everything the media tells you.

I don't really need to back it up. I could say something like Bolt to date has never been found to have used PEDs. But, to some that means nothing. Like a lot of the athletes, I can't win. Pi££ing against the wind with some people.

mcgratheoin

Nermal wrote: »

What are you basing this opinion of Bolt on?

He has been an athletic freak since he was a kid, it's not as if he was crap until he turned 25 and then started beating everyone around him.

Nermal

walshb wrote: »

I don't really need to back it up. I could say something like Bolt to date has never been found to have used PEDs. But, to some that means nothing. Like a lot of the athletes, I can't win. Pi££ing against the wind with some people.

You don't need to back it up, but if you don't no-one can take you seriously.

Bolt:

- Comes from a country known for abysmal testing regime
- Coached by/on a team with people who have still failed to pass even that regime
- Has absolutely THRASHED the times of known dopers while jogging past the finish line
- Competes in a sport where at the elite level margins are tiny, and doping can have a comparatively huge effect

But hey, he mimes having a bow & arrow after the race - that's enough for me!

mcgratheoin wrote: »

He has been an athletic freak since he was a kid, it's not as if he was crap until he turned 25 and then started beating everyone around him.

That's true of him and not Froome, I agree. On the other hand, his performances are far, FAR more of an outlier than Froome's. Probably unprecedented.

MPFG

walshb wrote: »

I don't get this way of looking at it. If he looks so not like a champion then what bloody drugs are making him so great? Drugs help, but seriously, they don't turn donkeys into racehorses. The guy is a great cyclist. End of. His physical appearance here is completely irrelevant. Many great cyclists didn't look all that.

You are fighting a losing battle on here ...because you say one thing and its another in the comeback
All the issues raised about SKY could and should be addressed to other teams equally but they are not. No one else get the level of scrutiny or abuse and then the comeback is 'but SKY need to be X, Y or Z'. The anti SKY bias is remarkable and unjustified by so many . If one doubts cycling then SKY is not the place to start nor the team to focus on...but all do..The article in the Irish Idependent today I thought was terrible..Did they ask questions and raise concerns over Stephen Roches Grand Tours or Sean Kellys classic wins. The same people who expect everything from SKY and say we are only asking questions while all the while casting aspersions at only ONE team never scrutinized in the manner they now call for.

This Tour showed Froome's performance was not unbelievable. He was beaten by Nibali one day & Quintana was better in the mountains. But where is this logic in the so called reasonable debate. Only when SKY do well are there calls about doping. Anyone else matches or beats them and here is silence.
Hypocrisy is rife