|
Jul 2015
8:10am, 15 Jul 2015
13,097 posts
|
The Teaboy
I'll wait and see. I want to find out more about this independent testing Froome will be undergoing after Le Tour.
Of course, that won't completely eliminate the possibility of microdosing and how valid it could be in the context of being performed after a hard three week tour when the rider may naturally be fatigued.
|
|
Jul 2015
9:23am, 15 Jul 2015
84 posts
|
PeeG
The Teaboy, you are right on other potentially being not on form. Without saying Froome is clean or not, but it seems that the only truly way that a cyclist can show he is clean (whether he is or not) is to simply not win. As soon as you win there is a doubt by many that you may be doping.
With regards to monitoring and openness, it needs to come from WADA, UCI etc in my view. I tend to agree with Brailsford with not just uploading every cyclists data to the Team Sky website as then you get everyone on twitter suddenly pretending to have a sports science degree and coming to their own conclusions.
Ultimately, there needs to be trust that the system doesn't allow for dopers to sneak through and not get caught. I don't know what needs to be done to make it good enough that the trust is gained to get to a point in a number of years with the winner of the Grand Tour not being accused of doping simply by beating everyone else.
|
|
Jul 2015
9:24am, 15 Jul 2015
776 posts
|
gcwenn
And of course, if there is a man you want on your side in your argument about drugs then the honesty of Lance Armstrong is a goer every time!!!!!!!!
|
|
Jul 2015
9:41am, 15 Jul 2015
1,104 posts
|
Spleen
To my uneducated eye it didn't look yesterday as if Froome and the rest of Sky were doping, it just looked as if the rest of the field were rubbish. You can't seriously believe that the rest of the field is clean and only Froome, Porte and co are cheating. Either all of them are doping or none of them are. Either way, it was a spectacular climb by the Sky riders.
Armstrong is a twat. If you have no clue then end your first post at the word "strong". If you want to accuse people of doping, do it honestly, without hiding behind weasel words.
I did giggle at the highlights show yesterday when someone pontificated "Cycling needs to be clean for 10 years before people begin to trust again". When are they starting?
|
|
Jul 2015
9:45am, 15 Jul 2015
85 posts
|
PeeG
How do you define that though Spleen? Is it just that no one needs to be caught for 10 years before people can trust it? I don't know the answer to that.
|
|
Jul 2015
10:01am, 15 Jul 2015
779 posts
|
gcwenn
Cycling will never be trusted 100% again. And for good reason. However, i strongly beleive that 99% are now clean. We have had the drugs scandal for this years edition and as the presenter on ITV4 said "it was for complete stupidlity" as it was not even a performance enhancing drug.
As i stated on the other cycling thread........you only need to look at athletics and the mess that is in with just about every "top" 100 metres runner being caught at least once in the recent past.
Cycling is stricter with their drugs, biological passports etc, but there will always be the non-believers.
|
|
Jul 2015
10:53am, 15 Jul 2015
7,643 posts
|
Chrisull
I don't think 99% are clean. Performances are stepping up too quickly since 2009. Doesn't mean Froome is necessarily doping. But in the Giro average speeds were jumping up this year. Bikes aren't loads better than last year. They're not much fitter. So what else is likely?
I agree Nibbles and Contador were rubbish yesterday and that magnified Froome and Porte. So really only Quintana was cycling at his normal level, and Nibbles and Contador would have been with him if they had been fit/well etc. So yes, I buy that, And I buy that one person can be head and shoulders above the others, and that Sky have timed their peaking to perfection. All fine. And Porte by giving up on the Giro is now in a better place than Contador. But still when one team smashes it, and gives no explanation for smashing and hides their data despite claiming transparency, and cites "marginal gains", you go "those gains are not marginal".
I wonder if Sky are like the Oregon project, though, perhaps not doping but dabbling in borderline permissible activities. I agree it would lead to utter destruction of credibility of Sky/British cycling/Olympics if they were caught doping, which on balance perhaps makes it more unlikely. But then US Postal - I was going that would mean as well as Armstrong then Heras, Leipheimer, Hamilton, Landis, Andreu and Hincapie ALL had to be doping. And Bruyneel would have to know about it. They were sponsored by the US Postal service. Had the backing of the Discovery channel. And one by one they came forward and said yes. And it was like, even George, I mean Hincapie was like a labrador up those slopes with Armstrong, always faithful never getting ahead of himself, the perfect domestique. Even him.
SPR is right to say ""If someone is ahead it's almost certainly enhanced" logic is rubbish. But at the same time, is there a clear biological or power marker that shows someone is doping? I feel there must be. Even if it differs for each individual. Perhaps Ross Tucker and his fellow statisticians are now guilty of mistrust/paranoia and group-think. But the history of Le Tour tells you that the top 3 for every one of Armstrong's 7 years was a known doper or had some reason (missed test) to make you doubt.
|
|
Jul 2015
11:02am, 15 Jul 2015
86 posts
|
PeeG
I don't like comparisons of average speeds, times up climbs with respect to previous years as think it is not helpful and doesn't tell the full story.
You can't compare an average speed across different grand tours over the years because the parcours is different each time. Similarly times up Ventoux can be preceded by a different route for that day, follow a rest day or be after an easy or hard day of racing.
The experts obviously have to look at all the data such as power, heart rate and compare it to each other and against what is known to be physically possible to reach better conclusions.
|
|
Jul 2015
11:02am, 15 Jul 2015
9,809 posts
|
Wriggling Snake
I'm not an expert but Armstrong can just fuck off. He has anaxe to grind, hi swhole defence was everyone else is so I will do it better. As I said, he can fuck off. As for vidoe evidence, fuck off too, you can doctor that. As for Sky not being open, ok, but then they divulge what they do in training, hopefully they will show stuff later.
The idea of uploading everything all the time, as regards training is an ok idea,apart fromt he fact you can dope so you see minimal changes, so it wont work. Testing is the answer, always is always will be.
To me, it looks like theothers threw int he towel in the face ofa better team and athlete, I have no proof of that, but there is no proof to show he doped. Innocent until proven guilty, that is fair.
FUCK OFF Armstrong.
|
|
Jul 2015
11:16am, 15 Jul 2015
32,650 posts
|
Velociraptor
I agree, Armstrong should either come clean about the details and names from the era that he made his own for the wrong reasons or keep his trap shut about a sport he is no longer part of.
I'm just watching. I don't think anyone's not pushing the boundaries of what they can get away with. I doubt whether one team is doping and another isn't - riders move teams, riders from different teams train together, riders from different sponsored teams also ride for their national teams, it would be impossible for secrets to be kept. I suspect we'd be surprised, across a wide range of sports and not just at the elite level, if we knew who was taking what PEDs ("but he/she seems like such a nice person, not the type at all ... ") and I'm also fairly sure that, in the majority of cases, we will never know.
Shiny bicycles  Shiny, shiny bicycles 
|
