Froome Braces for Doping questions

[SAGecko]

Fact 3: in various cases the leader was doping along with one or two teammates hence the strong performance of teams in some tours and not just the individual

 

Well done. You're rehashing proven facts.

 

Now tell me how any of that proves Chris Froome is a drug cheat.

[Garfield2010]

Fact 4: doping is as much part of professional cycling as bicycles. If you do not realise this then you should really read a few books. Floyds book, Tylers book, books from David Walsh is a good start.

[Baaisikilist]

I think somebody needs to find a different sport to 'enjoy'.

Garfield, have you tried golf...?

Apparently it's the new cycling...

[worriesnot]

some folk on here need to chomp down on a few of these...

 

edit: oh no wait!!!! will that be considered doping? 

[Garfield2010]

Well done. You're rehashing proven facts.

 

Now tell me how any of that proves Chris Froome is a drug cheat.

None do as of yet. But there are many similarities between Sky and Discovery anybody can see that. I am not saying he is doping, but i am also definately not saying he is clean. Lets wait and see.

[GaryvdM]

Conmon sense

 

Leave it would be better. You are uninformed And naive. If you think cycling is clean go look at the stats.

 

Fact 2: most of the winners in the last 20 years of the TDF was eventually caught or admitted to doping

 

(Not wanting to take sides, just trying to steer discussion/debate in a constructive direction.)

[SAGecko]

None do as of yet. But there are many similarities between Sky and Discovery anybody can see that. I am not saying he is doping, but i am also definately not saying he is clean. Lets wait and see.

 

Nice climb down Garfield 

[Garfield2010]

I think somebody needs to find a different sport to 'enjoy'.

Garfield, have you tried golf...?

Apparently it's the new cycling...

I moved to triathlon. Everyone is clean in triathlon. Except Lance. But then again he never tested positive so guess then he is clean.

[Patchelicious]

Fact number 1: not testing positive does not mean you are clean. In fact it means nothing. Can we start with this?

Cool I'll bite.

 

Do you understand the concept of proving a negative or more correctly evidence of absence?

 

Testing negative to a doping test does not mean you are clean, its means you passed a doping test. 

 

Passing a doping test ALSO does not mean you ARE doping. You cannot use the fact that people have passed tests while doping as evidence that he IS for a FACT doping in this case. Sorry that's not how it works. Then we could just say that every cyclist who has passed a test is a doper.

 

You can speculate that he is doping, based on circumstantial evidence, like speed of climb, Power stats, performance vs other riders etc. But its speculation not fact, so don't state it as fact.

 

If you said: "I think Froome is doping because of X/Y/Z" we can debate your variables(you r X/Y/Zs) and it could be a constructive discussion. BUT you cannot state something as fact based on speculation, for something to be a fact you need evidence.

 

So you might BELIEVE he is doping, but you don't KNOW that he is doping.

[Plentipotential]

And in other news today, MTN's Serge Pauwels is in the break. He had a great ride yesterday, lets hope he's clean.

[Patchelicious]

I moved to triathlon. Everyone is clean in triathlon. Except Lance. But then again he never tested positive so guess then he is clean.

I dont mean to be ugly, but that says a lot

 

These bloody tri guys and their TT bikes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ps: its a joke, so dont get worked up.

[GaryvdM]

If you said: "I think Froome is doping because of X/Y/Z" we can debate your variables(you r X/Y/Zs) and it could be a constructive discussion. BUT you cannot state something as fact based on speculation, for something to be a fact you need evidence.

 

Nicely put!

[Andrew Steer]

"Then Froome, on the verge of being discarded, having not even stood out as exceptional in our SA cycling circuit (good, but not “let’s blow away the best” exceptional), transformed into the greatest ever cyclist after the age of 25, with VO2max values that would have made a physiologist’s eyeballs explode (and hey, we’re in Africa, but we aren’t that backward here), riding away from people who WERE earmarked for greatness from a young age.  It’s the most remarkable transformation of a mature athlete ever.  Late emergence is one thing, transformation when you’re already in the ‘window’ quite another."

 

This point here above is what has always worried me about Froome... the big hoohah about his performance yesterday is odd to me, as it's very much the same as 2013 and pretty much everything else he has done since that Vuelta.

 

Him about to be dumped by Sky then suddenly out of pretty much nowhere tearing it up at the Vuelta - was a big alarm bell...

 

Does it mean he is guilty? Of course not.

[Stoffies1]

Its called Neuro doping.. tap into the brain and cancel the pain receptors! 

[davem]

Two points:

 

History shows us that if any rider is doping at the front end, there is no reason why they are not all doping. Drugs are not developed by teams but by pharmacists who sell them to teams. There may be different strategies to use the drugs available and degree of use but the drugs are equally available to all. So as a spectacle, doping or not, it is a level playing field.

 

The one thing that sets Froome apart from all the GC contenders is that he rides O'Symetric chainrings. If you believe the manufacturer's claims on them, it would easily explain his superior performance on that route profile.

[Garfield2010]

Cool I'll bite.

 

Do you understand the concept of proving a negative or more correctly evidence of absence?

 

Testing negative to a doping test does not mean you are clean, its means you passed a doping test. 

 

Passing a doping test ALSO does not mean you ARE doping. You cannot use the fact that people have passed tests while doping as evidence that he IS for a FACT doping in this case. Sorry that's not how it works. Then we could just say that every cyclist who has passed a test is a doper.

 

You can speculate that he is doping, based on circumstantial evidence, like speed of climb, Power stats, performance vs other riders etc. But its speculation not fact, so don't state it as fact.

 

If you said: "I think Froome is doping because of X/Y/Z" we can debate your variables(you r X/Y/Zs) and it could be a constructive discussion. BUT you cannot state something as fact based on speculation, for something to be a fact you need evidence.

 

So you might BELIEVE he is doping, but you don't KNOW that he is doping.

 

 

Lance and co all passed hundreds of tests because they where ahead of the system.  In the one book I read more money goes into research of illegal doping than in actually preventing it.  In other words being ahead of the system has become the norm. 

 

Rassmussen never tested positive yet he was banned for lying about his whereabouts.  Again - not testing positive doesn't mean a thing.  Not for the dopers, not for the none dopers.

 

I have seen the same thing happen over and over again and whilst I once believed in Lance and Floyd the same thing unfortunately has happened too many times for me to just go along with another fairy tale.

 

I have learned that if something seems to good to be true then it probably is.

 

 

Here is my concern.  Lets face it there are dopers in the Tour I think we all know that.  Now if a rider drops the field like happened yesterday then questions will get asked - like it or not (and should really be allowed to be asked).  If Froome is clean then he has to be on another level genetically, physically and training wise.  He would almost have to be one of an era so to speak.  While this is not impossible, my issue came in with Porte.  What are the chances he could drop the pure climbers as well?

 

Also the numbers that where hacked and responses was even more concerning.  The guy basically just kept declining to comment on a simple question.

 

It reminds me of Lances "I never tested positive" tune etc.

 

Does Froome dope?  I don't know.  If you force me to answer I would probably say yes.  I stand to be proven wrong.  Unfortunately it might take years before any of us will really know.

 

I can speculate yes, but that is a good thing, or are we just gonna accept every hero is clean until he gets caught...  Definition of insanity almost.