Froome Braces for Doping questions

[tombeej]

.... I am not saying he is doping, but i am also definately not saying he is clean...

 

huh??

[MTBeer]

[Garfield2010]

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.

 

 

I have them and you beat me DaveM

[davem]

I have them and you beat me DaveM

 

I had them long before you did.

[davem]

Thats funny.

[tombeej]

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.

['Dale]

Lovely party going on here hey!

[GaryvdM]

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.

 

LA had positive tests but managed to explain them away with post dated TUE's ('99 TdF corticosteroid) or hidden with "donations" to the UCI ('01 TdS EPO). It was less to do with being ahead of the curve, and more to do with a morally weak UCI.

 

 

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?

 

Fair

 

 

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

 

Yip, Dave Brailsford's response to this is alarming!

[SAGecko]

Lovely party going on here hey!

 

The kind of party your parents warned you about 

[Andrew Steer]

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?

 

 

Erm, not sure why you think Richie Porte is some hack... 

 

http://www.richieporte.com/palmares/

 

He came in the top 6 on 5 occasions in the 2013 Tour, so brace yourself for more angst 

And yes, he's already won 3 stage races this year 

[Thor Buttox]

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

That's not a fact. It's a hypothesis.

[Andrew Steer]

Lovely party going on here hey!

 

And I didn't pack any popcorn today 

['Dale]

The kind of party your parents warned you about

Hehehee

[Garfield2010]

GaryvdM when EPO did not have a "test" everybody was using it.  The stats shows how the tour kept getting faster and faster until the test came out.  How is this not ahead of the system?

 

For all we know they are now using something else that is untraceable.  Maybe only one team is using this but the others could catch-up and next year we will see another closely fought tour.

 

Let me put it this way.  I have no facts or figures proving team sky is making use of illegal methods but there are a lot of similarities to other doping cases in the past.

['Dale]

And I didn't pack any popcorn today

This is HubSA

Always be prepared!

 

*in Spartan voice*

[tombeej]

GaryvdM when EPO did not have a "test" everybody was using it.  The stats shows how the tour kept getting faster and faster until the test came out.  How is this not ahead of the system?

 

For all we know they are now using something else that is untraceable.  Maybe only one team is using this but the others could catch-up and next year we will see another closely fought tour.

 

Let me put it this way.  I have no facts or figures proving team sky is making use of illegal methods but there are a lot of similarities to other doping cases in the past.

 

I really am trying to keep an open mind and listening to both sides. But I'm really struggling to follow your posts.

 

Earlier you said you've based your belief that Sky's doping on "facts and logik (sp)". 

 

But now you say you've actually got no facts or figures about Sky, just pure conjecture.

 

You're giving me a headache trying to keep up with you. Then again, maybe I'm just slow.