Froome Braces for Doping questions

[tombeej]

.

[Thor Buttox]

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.

You and I agree, and that's 3 of us!

[NelAndre]

This was from a Tweet by Dr Jeroen Swart, I found it interesting.

 

 

 

 

[tombeej]

You and I agree, and that's 3 of us!

 

Pure speculation

[Garfield2010]

i never said sky is doping and i never said i had proof or facts that they are

[GaryvdM]

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?

 

 

Yip, from the introduction of EPO (late 80's) to 2001 when they started EPO testing, it's use was ahead of the system.

 

But when LA got caught out in 2001 at TdS with EPO, the UCI turned the blind eye in exchange for a "donation".

[Gen]

Yip, from the introduction of EPO (late 80's) to 2001 when they started EPO testing, it's use was ahead of the system.

 

But when LA got caught out in 2001 at TdS with EPO, the UCI turned the blind eye in exchange for a "donation".

Pharmaceutical geeks are always 10 yrs ahead of the authorities..

[shawnvan]

Can't resist the urge to chip in here... 

 

There will always be suspicions around the likes of Froome, just given the history of drug cheats (LA) coming from relative obscurity in stage racing to suddenly winning the biggest one of all.  I even have my doubts about old Sir Wiggo - good track cyclist, yes, mediocre road rider who suddently wins the Tour...? must be the Ossymetrics!

 

But, looking again at the "facts" around the other members of the "faboulous five" in yesterday's stage, as Andrew elquently summarised earlier, I don't think Froome's performance yesterday was exceptional.  Exhibits 1-5:

 

1.  Contador - has clearly been tired from the Giro since the start of the Tour.  Battled up Mur de Huy - the first 1km climb of the race - and lost time to Froome!  Also what Andrew stated regardind losing his best support rider and Basso.... understandable that he is not all there.

 

2.  Nibs - has had no real form this year, managed one mediocre attack against Froome in the Criterium de Dauphine.  His victory last year was at a canter with no serious climbers to battle.

 

3.  TvG - always has been just below the climbing level of Froome, Nibs, Contador and Quinatana - I think he is right where he should be in terms of his previous results and ability.

 

4.  Quintana - did the best of the others and lost a minute.  Keep in mind that Movistar were doing nearly all for the pacing up to the start of the climb, while Sky stayed back watching in their draft.  As soon as the road turned up, nearly all the Movistar riders except Valverde were blown out, leaving just Valverde and Qintana to fend for themselves (Sky still had 6/7 riders there with Froome).  Valverde did a few mock attacks to try pressure Sky (still with 3 riders + Froome), who didn't flinch.  When Sky then put the pressure on Valverde dropped off leaving just Porte, Froome, Quinana and I think TvG for a while.

 

Also, as others have mentioned, Porte is the Froome of 2012 - a super domestique and GC contender in his own right (hence why he is leaving Sky).

 

Therefore, to summarise: 

 

Nibs and Contador had bad days because they are tired and/or have no form.

TvG is where he should be for his abilities.

Qunitana was left exposed to Sky because Movistar did too much work too early (before) the climb, and then Froome attacked him.  He only lost 60s!

(also bear in mind that the other "mediocre" climbers such as Yates, Gallopin, and Rolland only lost 2 minutes to Froome)

 

Froome and Sky played out a perfectly well strategised and planned attack on the first mountain stage (modus operandi for Postal in the LA days and Sky for Wiggens and Froome's previous wins) - he even said afterwards that they targeted this stage.  The fact that they copied previous racing strategy is completely unsurpising, and the other teams should have expected this... especially with all the Sky mind games talk on Monday of Froome being "defensive in yellow" 

 

Nothing about the above suggests Froome / Sky are doping, but we've all been let down by our heros before unfortunately...

['Dale]

This was from a Tweet by Dr Jeroen Swart, I found it interesting.

 

 

7BA95556-E2EF-4C02-87E0-D7899591DC77550D0A35-5BA3-4712-9ABA-855274AF6244.jpg

Superb analysis

[Garfield2010]

Yip, from the introduction of EPO (late 80's) to 2001 when they started EPO testing, it's use was ahead of the system.

 

But when LA got caught out in 2001 at TdS with EPO, the UCI turned the blind eye in exchange for a "donation".

In 2004 they retested 60 sames of 1998 TDF. Between the positive tests and riders admitting to doping a total of 8% was negative the rest all positive.

 

Lets say there was an undetectable drug at present. Would you say they will not use it?

 

Also saying Froome was average and the rest sucked is also not a watertight argument.

 

I have read 10 books + on cycling and doping. It opened my eyes. Its incredible really how many people just decide he is clean because they want him to be clean. There are signs me says. Watch this space.

[tombeej]

i never said sky is doping and i never said i had proof or facts that they are

 

How about this?

 

And you're being quite disingenuous now making out you never actually said Sky is doping, whereas every post of yours on this thread has been pretty much saying that.

 

Look, I'm not trying to be a d00$. I'm just asking for considered and thoughtful argument on this issue. People seem too often to start arguments/debates based on a set of beliefs and emotion, and then making comments without giving much thought to them at all.

 

Then, when they get questioned on the content of their arguments, they start backtracking and saying, "no, I never said that". I have to say, that's what I see you doing here.

 

I would much rather if you stick to your convictions and don't flip-flop as soon as you get some resistance. If you believe Sky is doping, then fine. I'm not holding anything against you - I'll give you the full benefit of the doubt with an open mind. And look forward to proper considered argument to back up your claims. You need to back yourself, and persuade me!

 

But I get irritable if you begin flip-flopping. It means you didn't think this through in the beginning and now you're trying to back out of it. I can't respect that.

[GaryvdM]

In 2004 they retested 60 sames of 1998 TDF. Between the positive tests and riders admitting to doping a total of 8% was negative the rest all positive.

 

Lets say there was an undetectable drug at present. Would you say they will not use it?

 

Also saying Froome was average and the rest sucked is also not a watertight argument.

 

I have read 10 books + on cycling and doping. It opened my eyes. Its incredible really how many people just decide he is clean because they want him to be clean. There are signs me says. Watch this space.

 

I think we are in agreement. Suspicion of Froome, or any pro cyclist, is reasonable. (Which is sad.)

 

(I hope he is clean.)

[Garfield2010]

Again i never stated that they dope outright as there is no concrete proof for now in anycase. From my very first post i was wondering and speculating. If i was forced to choose between yes and no i would say yes. Reasons was well dovumented. Anyways you raise an opinion and get crucified. Thats typical hub style. My fur is thick. Read my posts again.

[tombeej]

Can't resist the urge to chip in here... 

 

There will always be suspicions around the likes of Froome, just given the history of drug cheats (LA) coming from relative obscurity in stage racing to suddenly winning the biggest one of all.  I even have my doubts about old Sir Wiggo - good track cyclist, yes, mediocre road rider who suddently wins the Tour...? must be the Ossymetrics!

 

But, looking again at the "facts" around the other members of the "faboulous five" in yesterday's stage, as Andrew elquently summarised earlier, I don't think Froome's performance yesterday was exceptional.  Exhibits 1-5:

 

1.  Contador - has clearly been tired from the Giro since the start of the Tour.  Battled up Mur de Huy - the first 1km climb of the race - and lost time to Froome!  Also what Andrew stated regardind losing his best support rider and Basso.... understandable that he is not all there.

 

2.  Nibs - has had no real form this year, managed one mediocre attack against Froome in the Criterium de Dauphine.  His victory last year was at a canter with no serious climbers to battle.

 

3.  TvG - always has been just below the climbing level of Froome, Nibs, Contador and Quinatana - I think he is right where he should be in terms of his previous results and ability.

 

4.  Quintana - did the best of the others and lost a minute.  Keep in mind that Movistar were doing nearly all for the pacing up to the start of the climb, while Sky stayed back watching in their draft.  As soon as the road turned up, nearly all the Movistar riders except Valverde were blown out, leaving just Valverde and Qintana to fend for themselves (Sky still had 6/7 riders there with Froome).  Valverde did a few mock attacks to try pressure Sky (still with 3 riders + Froome), who didn't flinch.  When Sky then put the pressure on Valverde dropped off leaving just Porte, Froome, Quinana and I think TvG for a while.

 

Also, as others have mentioned, Porte is the Froome of 2012 - a super domestique and GC contender in his own right (hence why he is leaving Sky).

 

Therefore, to summarise: 

 

Nibs and Contador had bad days because they are tired and/or have no form.

TvG is where he should be for his abilities.

Qunitana was left exposed to Sky because Movistar did too much work too early (before) the climb, and then Froome attacked him.  He only lost 60s!

(also bear in mind that the other "mediocre" climbers such as Yates, Gallopin, and Rolland only lost 2 minutes to Froome)

 

Froome and Sky played out a perfectly well strategised and planned attack on the first mountain stage (modus operandi for Postal in the LA days and Sky for Wiggens and Froome's previous wins) - he even said afterwards that they targeted this stage.  The fact that they copied previous racing strategy is completely unsurpising, and the other teams should have expected this... especially with all the Sky mind games talk on Monday of Froome being "defensive in yellow" 

 

Nothing about the above suggests Froome / Sky are doping, but we've all been let down by our heros before unfortunately...

 

Another fact not really mentioned about yesterday's stage is how Jacque Janse van Rensburg rode to 18th on the stage, just 4 min down on Froome and beating Nibali in the process. And Serge Pauwels did even better, coming in 14th.

 

No-one is calling them dopers, beating "specialist climbers" on the day.

 

What I saw yesterday was Froom & co. just having a very good day (but like the Doc said, not super exceptional) and the other contenders just having a bad day at the office. It was more about their poor performances than anything special from Sky.

[Garfield2010]

How about this?

 

And you're being quite disingenuous now making out you never actually said Sky is doping, whereas every post of yours on this thread has been pretty much saying that.

 

Look, I'm not trying to be a d00$. I'm just asking for considered and thoughtful argument on this issue. People seem too often to start arguments/debates based on a set of beliefs and emotion, and then making comments without giving much thought to them at all.

 

Then, when they get questioned on the content of their arguments, they start backtracking and saying, "no, I never said that". I have to say, that's what I see you doing here.

 

I would much rather if you stick to your convictions and don't flip-flop as soon as you get some resistance. If you believe Sky is doping, then fine. I'm not holding anything against you - I'll give you the full benefit of the doubt with an open mind. And look forward to proper considered argument to back up your claims. You need to back yourself, and persuade me!

 

But I get irritable if you begin flip-flopping. It means you didn't think this through in the beginning and now you're trying to back out of it. I can't respect that.

I dont flip flop. And i certainly didnt ask for your respect as such. Asking for respect on a forum with no real names? Really?

[GaryvdM]

But I get irritable if you begin flip-flopping. It means you didn't think this through in the beginning and now you're trying to back out of it. I can't respect that.

 

I disagree with this Tombeej. My point of view often changes in discussions like this. Information that is new to me is often provided. When explaining my point of view, I often realize my own logical errors (sadly often after I've posted.) I think that a changing opinion is an indication of an open mind (in a good way.)

 

To me, changing an opinion, be it mine or someone else's, is the whole point of having a discussion/debate.