Froome Braces for Doping questions

[Patchelicious]

Well yes I think most teams are still doping.  However to do it "properly" you need a budget and unfortunately (or fortunately) not all teams can afford the best program (like Discovery could).

 

Nibali, Contador are all dopers yes.  The reason Sky gets singled out is because they are winning and most of their riders appears to be boxing above their weight (or in week 1 at least).

 

Time will tell. If Sky are doping then eventually it will come out.  All we need is one bitter teammate or a rider clearing his conscious in a few years from now. 

 

During a riders career and directly thereafter one can understand the silence as they are protecting fellow athletes but later on is when the truth comes out. 

 

It has nothing to do with not allowing other a place in the sun.  Do you think Froome or Sky worries for one second about what I think?

 

It is they that need to sleep at night not me.  I just apply my logic by taking into consideration all things past and what I see. 

 

I still enjoy the tour and I think it was fantastic entertainment this year.

Question still stands.

 

WHY do you think Sky is doping?

 

Edit: What evidence/assumptions/observations is your stance based on?

[WhuYu]

Probably because they're not winning the TdF.  People like bringing down winners.  The spotlight is already on them, so the criticism may as well join in on the fun.

 

And yes, that sounds contrarion given my own stated scepticism, except, I don't have a problem with doping as such.  I have a problem with the attitutde towards reasonable scepticism and the smugness with which alot of the success is enjoyed (yes that assumes my scepticism is founded, otherwise smugness turns to justified resentment).

"People like bringing down winners"...............................and, me thinks, you are one of those..........people's arguments that previous winners were dopeheads means Froome is one is a pathetic argument/assumption. Blanket grouping/profiling of people is one of the most dangerous assumptions one can make..... After all that has been seen, interviews conducted etc, if one still thinks Froome/Sky dope........then I pity those people. Provide the evidence or shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh (read "shut up")

[Garfield2010]

Question still stands.

 

WHY do you think Sky is doping?

 

Edit: What evidence/assumptions/observations is your stance based on?

 

Because of the following:-

 

Froome missed a test.  I find the explanation worrying that the hotel reception failed to call him.  This a hotel in Italy where cyclist stay all the time and they should know of better.  Did they call him and why did he not answer?

 

My theory is that they did not dope during the tour but before.  Hence they came in very strong and performed exceptionally well in the first part and basically won the tour in week 1.  That could also be why parity was restored in week 3 with pure climbers putting him and his team into difficulty.

 

The history of the tour also shows us that the guy who wins the tour is more than likely doping.  It is very hard to say someone is doing something on assumptions.  However if I add up all the "circumstantial" assumptions (if I may call it that) then I find it difficult to convince myself that they are clean. 

 

I was also worried by the response of the team manager when the data was stolen.  Not that I read much into data as I am no expert there.  Also reading all of David Walsh's books (and Paul Kimmel) and Tyler and obviously what happened with Lance and all doesn't help to convince me otherwise.

 

I believe that the TDF is clean.  However I think that leading up to it is where the problem might lie.

 

That is my reasoning

[Pure Savage]

Still annoys me that Quintana got pulled around by a convicted doper most of the tour.

 

Valverde is having the same run of form he had while he was doping in 08/09... hmmmm.....

[Patchelicious]

Because of the following:-

 

Froome missed a test.  I find the explanation worrying that the hotel reception failed to call him.  This a hotel in Italy where cyclist stay all the time and they should know of better.  Did they call him and why did he not answer?

 

My theory is that they did not dope during the tour but before.  Hence they came in very strong and performed exceptionally well in the first part and basically won the tour in week 1.  That could also be why parity was restored in week 3 with pure climbers putting him and his team into difficulty.

 

The history of the tour also shows us that the guy who wins the tour is more than likely doping.  It is very hard to say someone is doing something on assumptions.  However if I add up all the "circumstantial" assumptions (if I may call it that) then I find it difficult to convince myself that they are clean. 

 

I was also worried by the response of the team manager when the data was stolen.  Not that I read much into data as I am no expert there.  Also reading all of David Walsh's books (and Paul Kimmel) and Tyler and obviously what happened with Lance and all doesn't help to convince me otherwise.

 

I believe that the TDF is clean.  However I think that leading up to it is where the problem might lie.

 

That is my reasoning

Cool that gives us something to work other than "just because".

 

 

However if I add up all the "circumstantial" assumptions (if I may call it that) then I find it difficult to convince myself that they are clean.

 

So far the circumstantial evidence you mention is:

 

1. A missed test

2. David Walsh's book on Lance

3. A reaction to stolen data, not the data itself, but the reaction to it.

4. The sports history

 

The missed test, I agree that is raises eyebrows, but because Froome missed one test he is guilty? How many tests didn't he miss? Is it only him that missed the test? If not then surely everybody who has missed a test should be persecuted.

 

David Walsh's book on other people should carry less weight on your view to Sky than the one he wrote specifically about Sky. Read it, and if you take his word as gospel, you will never question Sky again. Here you go: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Inside-Team-Sky-Challenge-France/dp/1471133311

 

Stolen data. Read that again, it was stolen, of course they would be pissed off. If you steal data from me, I will sue you. Simple. Its IP and your competitive advantages can be exposed. Could they have handled it better, probably.

 

History of Tour shows that winners is a doper... Its a crap when current people are judged and persecuted by the actions of those from the past. I know, I get blamed for apartheid each day.

 

The theory about doping before the tour isnt a new one. PEDs are mostly used in training as it takes time for their effects to add benefit. That is why there is blood passports and out of race testing, a lot of it. Blood bags are a quick solution, so sudden jumps in improvements during a race should raise eyebrows too. As for them dropping off during the race, the effects of most PEDs would mean that they are stronger than the "clean" guys even more so towards the end. A clean cyclist will fatigue more over a tour than a doped up rider.

 

In one breath you say people are doping, and in another you say the whole tour is clean? Seriously? (those same book you base your argument on specifically says people doped  during the tour just BTW)

[Gen]

speaking of tests.

 

Anyone know if SA anti doping ever did get permission to do out of competition tests on athletes from other nationalities? 

[raptor-22]

Ok so if you had to say what you believe.  Consider the history of the <insert any historical wrong doing> sport and then say what you "think".  Do you think Sky is 100% clean?  Yes or no?

 

 

lets apply your thinking to politics....

 

 

this should be fun

[Garfield2010]

Yes but when there is an undetectable drug then they will use it in the tour.  I have said that before.  So if we assume all drugs can be tested for then I do believe the tour itself was clean because there it is impossible to hide.  (except if the bus brakes down)

 

Tyler also wrote about missed tests etc.  Lance also denied everything and later he started believing himself that he was clean.

 

Yes there are a lot of ifs and buts.  In my book "passing" a test means zero (or not testing positive) or whatever you want to call it.

 

It is a shame that the sport is in this state and it would be an even greater shame if Froome and co is actually cleaning it up.  Questions being ask was always going to be a reality - due to the history of it. 

 

My concern with the reaction was that he was exactly that - the reaction.

 

Biological passports and all that is fine but why do guys then still test positive for banned substances and it was not picked up.

 

You have to admit there is a lot of similarities between Sky and Discovery

 

Big budget

Very strong team with riders riding well above their normal limitations

Past connections with dopers

Missed tests

Lack of historic performance explained by illness (compared to current)

Saying that others should be tested (or is doping)

 

Only thing that remains is for Sky to donate funds to WADA

 

I can tell you now that members of this current team will move to other teams in years to come and some will get caught.  Obviously then everyone will say it is the new team but the difference will just be the program will not be as good.

 

It is the nature / culture of the sport and it is not just about to change.

 

I like the apartheid comparison by the way.

[rock]

someone said it, only 15 guys could finish the tour within an hour of froome. definitely two speeds.

[Patchelicious]

someone said it, only 15 guys could finish the tour within an hour of froome. definitely two speeds.

Saw that tweet.

 

So are we saying that all 15 of those guys doped.

 

Or that only 15 guys tried to get a good GC time and that others rode in support of said GC riders or that they focused on other jerseys/stage wins?

 

Bit of a uneducated tweet that was.

[Andrew Steer]

someone said it, only 15 guys could finish the tour within an hour of froome. definitely two speeds.

 

Two speeds, or two different objectives? 

[Andrew Steer]

Yes but when there is an undetectable drug then they will use it in the tour.  I have said that before.  So if we assume all drugs can be tested for then I do believe the tour itself was clean because there it is impossible to hide.  (except if the bus brakes down)

 

Tyler also wrote about missed tests etc.  Lance also denied everything and later he started believing himself that he was clean.

 

Yes there are a lot of ifs and buts.  In my book "passing" a test means zero (or not testing positive) or whatever you want to call it.

 

It is a shame that the sport is in this state and it would be an even greater shame if Froome and co is actually cleaning it up.  Questions being ask was always going to be a reality - due to the history of it. 

 

My concern with the reaction was that he was exactly that - the reaction.

 

Biological passports and all that is fine but why do guys then still test positive for banned substances and it was not picked up.

 

You have to admit there is a lot of similarities between Sky and Discovery

 

Big budget

Very strong team with riders riding well above their normal limitations

Past connections with dopers

Missed tests

Lack of historic performance explained by illness (compared to current)

Saying that others should be tested (or is doping)

 

Only thing that remains is for Sky to donate funds to WADA

 

I can tell you now that members of this current team will move to other teams in years to come and some will get caught.  Obviously then everyone will say it is the new team but the difference will just be the program will not be as good.

 

It is the nature / culture of the sport and it is not just about to change.

 

I like the apartheid comparison by the way.

 

Past connection with Dopers???? Debating this with you is truly going to be a futile effort isn't it... 

[Andrew Steer]

Saw that tweet.

 

So are we saying that all 15 of those guys doped.

 

Or that only 15 guys tried to get a good GC time and that others rode in support of said GC riders or that they focused on other jerseys/stage wins?

 

Bit of a uneducated tweet that was.

 

Griepel really needs to work on his climbing if we are going to take him serious as a Tour de France rider 

[GaryvdM]

Yes but when there is an undetectable drug then they will use it in the tour.  I have said that before.  So if we assume all drugs can be tested for then I do believe the tour itself was clean because there it is impossible to hide.  (except if the bus brakes down)

 

During the 90's, the use of EPO was undetectable, but there was knowledge of it use by the authorities, media, and some public.

 

If your logic is to hold, then we should know what the new undetectable drug is. Any idea what it is?

[Pure Savage]

someone said it, only 15 guys could finish the tour within an hour of froome. definitely two speeds.

 

Ah man, I knew it was too good to be true, MTN was doping!!!!

[DJR]

............. we should know what the new undetectable drug is. Any idea what it is?

My guess is something that helps to shed weight without losing muscle, thus dropping the fat but keeping the power up resulting in a better power to weight ratio. But of course, it's just my wild guess. Might be bulemia for all I can prove.