On July 16 2013 02:07 Dybdal wrote: And for those wondering froome refused to release his numbers earlier this year, his watt output, V02/max and such and you only do that for one reason and thats because your going to be posting something thats beyond that at some point and you only do that while doped.
No you do it because terrible pseudo-scientists will take your results as evidence of doping when they aren't.
Dave Brailsford and team Sky are legit. Just like the British Cycling team is legit. All this nonsense has to stop. Sky will hand every single piece of data over that people want, and it still isn't enough. How many urine samples does it take? Follow him around if you like? They've said they would even allow that! We know Brailsford's methods are exceptional and give riders an extra edge - the GB cycling team is evidence of this.
And then there are always exceptional performers in Sport. It's not inconceivable that 10 years on training and equipment has improved enough that the outliers can almost touch pre-doping times. It's a shame Froome may have to wait as many as 10 years to get the credit he deserves.
Your entire post is laughable.
Straight to the point. 1) http://bikepure.org/ before this year (and 2012) Froome has given this organization every scientific number they have requested from him becomming the organizations poster boy for clean riding. This year? they have asked multiple times and he has refused every single one of them leaving bikepure no other option than http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/06/news/bike-pure-removes-froome-ahead-of-tour_292019removing him from their site.
And your argument that this "terrible pseudo-science" aka junk science isnt accurate or misused is just.. im speechless!
2) How many urine samples does it take? Follow him around if you like? They've said they would even allow that!
The same was said about pretty much everyone in the 1990's that did EPO and 60% of every single sample they froze down from that period came back positive when they were re-tested in 2006 to learn how to better detect EPO. The point is that testing has allways been behind the curve and it allways will be.
3) It's not inconceivable that 10 years on training and equipment has improved enough that the outliers can almost touch pre-doping times.
This is about the dumbest argument i've ever heared, So your saying that training methods & equipment is somehow improving riders lung capacity & red bloodcell count to such a degree that it eclipsis EPO usage? because im sorry to say.. bullshit, the only thing that humans can do to improve humans endurance beyond what the EPO riders of the 1990's->2011 was doing is by using chemicals of some sort. Humanity did not start evolving super human british people in the last 30 years.
1) Performance numbers do not prove doping, they are just fuel for the uninformed - like you. No athletes want to be bullied into giving data that is important for tactics but not important for proving/disproving doping. 2) They are under far more intense scrutiny now. Where are they hiding the fridges when they are staying in some lodges as other teams and have reporters/cameramen in their faces 24/7? 3) Wrong, he has not eclipsed any of the previous EPO times. Athletes improve over time, see: any sport ever.
Also to those saying where was Froome in 2010? Suffering from a form of schistosomiasis.
Honestly what did froome expect of the pro cycling universe since the last 10 years has been infested with doping winners, and veterans from all over the world admitting to have doped throughout the last 23 years of pro cycling. Doping has been in cycling since it's dawn in 1903. Ofcourse he will get asked the question, he just have to proved ha hasn't doped i love watching cycling anyways..
At some point the best climbers used low rhythm in high gears and power to climb fast on to the hills. Than somebody not known as a special climber came with "special training" that allowed him to climb, with high rhythm in lower gears relying on stamina over power, faster than everybody else. This guy had nothing to hide, was willing to undergo all doping tests. His name was Lance Armstrong and it was obvious then and its been confirmed recently what his special training was.
In the end I dont care whether Froome (as well as Wiggins last year) uses doping, history tells us he is and he is probably not alone, either way if he is he'll get caught in 10 years from now, when his teammates are no longer paid to remain silent. The sport remains interesting either way, with the insane distances and speeds they are driving for 3 weeks.
With regards to media questions, the media got burned for not finding out Armstrong used doping, now they get burned for asking questions, whatever.
I dont think its the media's place to find out if someone is using doping. It was there job with Armstrong and its not there job with Froome. Asking an athlete during an interview if they use doping is beyond insulting. Seriously what do you expect? That the guy will admit to it on the spot?
On July 16 2013 06:51 Gorsameth wrote: I dont think its the media's place to find out if someone is using doping. It was there job with Armstrong and its not there job with Froome. Asking an athlete during an interview if they use doping is beyond insulting. Seriously what do you expect? That the guy will admit to it on the spot?
I don't see why the media should enquire into one guy with superhuman performance but ignore another.
I do agree that they shouldn't just straight up ask an athlete about it, because that has no merit and is simply trying to provoke a reaction, but there should be continued investigative journalism into team preparation and doping.
This is cycling, and the scar Armstrong left on the sport will ensure every stand out performer for the next decade or two is subject to scrutiny, but rigorous investigation from the media can help with catching and deterring dopers, as well as giving some supporting evidence of riders being clean. In the long run it is better to ask the questions now even if the answers come up as "no, they weren't doping" than to completely ignore the question and 10 years down the line go through the same shit again.if they were.
In the meantime hopefully fans can enjoy the races for what they are, even when the only interesting part of the GC is for positions 2 and below.
On July 16 2013 04:58 Klive5ive wrote: 1) Performance numbers do not prove doping, they are just fuel for the uninformed - like you. No athletes want to be bullied into giving data that is important for tactics but not important for proving/disproving doping. 2) They are under far more intense scrutiny now. Where are they hiding the fridges when they are staying in some lodges as other teams and have reporters/cameramen in their faces 24/7? 3) Wrong, he has not eclipsed any of the previous EPO times. Athletes improve over time, see: any sport ever.
Also to those saying where was Froome in 2010? Suffering from a form of schistosomiasis.
Now, I am not 100% convinced that Froome is doping, but lets be clear: He is in fact eclipsing the times of the doping era. Saying otherwise is just ignorant. Over the last 15 kilometers of Mt Venoux he posted the second fastest time ever at 48:35, a mere 2 seconds off the time of Lance Armstrong in 2002 for the record and ahead of the times of many other confirmed dopers.
You are correct that this doesn't count as proof of doping. Ross Tucker (well respected sports physiologist) has already called this performance plausible, and I am inclined to believe him. I am holding out judgement for now. Still, no matter how you frame it his performance was fairly extreme in the range of normal human performance. Denying that does nobody any good.
Getting away from the doping talk for a moment, here is a video of Quintana at the top of Mt Venoux. Just in case you ever doubted the effort these guys give!
I'd be surprised if there was any kind of Sky/Brailsford-endorsed doping, much more so than I would be if Froome or any other rider did so independently. The guy's track pedigree and Olympic-focused programme's success is what got Sky on board in the first place, from the oft they've been extremely anti-doping and hell Brailsford has even become a knight of the realm in the UK.
It would take humongous, monstrous balls to be running any kind of doping programme with all that in the background. That said, I suppose Armstrong created an entire charitable empire around his doped-up achievements so it's not inconceivable.
About EBH not showing improvements, or even going backwards since joining Sky as any kind of 'proof' of anything, that's rather silly. I defer to those more knowledgable on road cycling in the most part, but his relative lack of progression could be ascribed to any number of other factors, personal motivation etc etc.
On July 16 2013 06:51 Gorsameth wrote: I dont think its the media's place to find out if someone is using doping. It was there job with Armstrong and its not there job with Froome. Asking an athlete during an interview if they use doping is beyond insulting. Seriously what do you expect? That the guy will admit to it on the spot?
Are you stupid? If journalists aren't looking for strange things about Froome than who is supposed to do that? So you just want it to go back to like it was with Armstrong, no journalist brave enough or lazy to look for anything(apart from some individuals)? And yes, just straight up asking the rider is stupid. Those are the lazy ones, just asking things without any actual research
On July 16 2013 10:48 Wombat_NI wrote: I'd be surprised if there was any kind of Sky/Brailsford-endorsed doping, much more so than I would be if Froome or any other rider did so independently. The guy's track pedigree and Olympic-focused programme's success is what got Sky on board in the first place, from the oft they've been extremely anti-doping and hell Brailsford has even become a knight of the realm in the UK.
It would take humongous, monstrous balls to be running any kind of doping programme with all that in the background. That said, I suppose Armstrong created an entire charitable empire around his doped-up achievements so it's not inconceivable.
About EBH not showing improvements, or even going backwards since joining Sky as any kind of 'proof' of anything, that's rather silly. I defer to those more knowledgable on road cycling in the most part, but his relative lack of progression could be ascribed to any number of other factors, personal motivation etc etc.
Yeah, I concur. I mean, I can't believe that the french finance minister is really using offshore funds. His pedigree is outstanding and with that background it would require major balls to pull it off and lie to the whole national assembly.
LOL
I don't want anyone to misunderstand, I'm not on a crusade against Froome nor do I care about who wins the Tour, all runners are doped anyway, Froome just has the talent and dedication to make most of these products but any attempts to deny doping in highly profitable sports is beyond ludicrous.