Sky are damned if they do, damned if they don't. They got rid of Leinders, Yates, Rogers and everyone else who had any kind of question mark, but they are still winning and getting slagged off on here more than they did before. They've allowed David Walsh free and unfettered access to them. Of course it doesn't stop then doing things individually, but Walsh was with them in Tenerife and he said there was no medical staff with them. He was with them at the Giro and apparently the Tour as well. We'd sure here about it if there was anything funny going on. This is the same Walsh who helped nail Lance.
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Froome gets the gap on Contador and gets accused. Perhaps we should look as to why Contador's not performing like he was. Everyone loves his panache when he's winning, but he's a convicted doper himself.
I would rather riders use a powermeter than dope if it keeps them below the red. However, I think it's time Sky showed the numbers. Maybe then some of the vitriol on here will stop.
Froome said his results will still stand the test of time, which is a lot different to Lance and Bjarne saying 'I've never failed a dope test'.
"PRO" Cycling Discussion
Moderators: robbosmans, Moderator Team
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
-
prendrefeu
- Posts: 8580
- Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
- Location: Glendale / Los Angeles, California
- Contact:
Good points, KB.
No sarcasm, genuine question:
If Christopher Froome is 'clean as a whistle', does his performance make him potentially the greatest climber ever?
Just looking at this time up Ventoux, after the longest stage in the modern era of the Tour leading up to the famous climb, he is putting himself among names that are associated with performance-enhancing drugs or doping of some sort, yet he would be the only clean rider among them. It seems as if - literally - he has no peers at the moment. At least none that are even close to his capabilities.
He's only 28 years of age right now. He shows a lot of potential: excellent TTer, best climber in the peloton. Could he become the Roger Federer of grand tours?
Again, this is going on the premise that he is absolutely clean of any performance enhancing drugs or methods of doping.
No sarcasm, genuine question:
If Christopher Froome is 'clean as a whistle', does his performance make him potentially the greatest climber ever?
Just looking at this time up Ventoux, after the longest stage in the modern era of the Tour leading up to the famous climb, he is putting himself among names that are associated with performance-enhancing drugs or doping of some sort, yet he would be the only clean rider among them. It seems as if - literally - he has no peers at the moment. At least none that are even close to his capabilities.
He's only 28 years of age right now. He shows a lot of potential: excellent TTer, best climber in the peloton. Could he become the Roger Federer of grand tours?
Again, this is going on the premise that he is absolutely clean of any performance enhancing drugs or methods of doping.
Exp001 || Other projects in the works.
Pharmstrong wrote:If WADA independently verified Sky/Froome as clean, do you think it would shut you guys up, or would we then just get conspiracies of an Uncle Murdoch payoff?
So you don't think Sky or any other team could manipulate the data prior to giving it to WADA?
KB wrote:I would rather riders use a powermeter than dope if it keeps them below the red.
Why does it have to be either? Why not no pm and no doping?
KB wrote:Maybe then some of the vitriol on here will stop.
What vitriol? Maybe some of the ignorance on here will stop. How many times do we need to see this same pattern of events take place, same superhuman strength shown on the bike, same exact outcome? Fool me once, shame on you. But you won't fool me twice. Keep telling yourself "This time it is different. I Just know it."
KB wrote:Froome said his results will still stand the test of time, which is a lot different to Lance and Bjarne saying 'I've never failed a dope test'.
Cause he is on the good shit and knows/thinks he won't get caught. Think genetic doping which would require a muscle biopsy to diagnose as blood or urine test couldn't find it. The dude went from nobody to superhuman in just the span of a year (2007-2009 nada, 2010 couldn't do anything in Giro to podium in 2011 Vuleta). Doesn't pass the sniff test. When I smell BS, it is usually because there is some BS going on.
Last edited by Ahillock on Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
nathanong87
- Resident master of GIF
- Posts: 3405
- Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:44 am
- Contact:
Everyone wants a clean sport, and it would be nice if we could celebrate Froome’s attacking spirit – and Team Saxo-Tinkoff’s panache when riding to SaintAmand-Montrond, and Cav’s when he hand-slung to the echelon that was forming in the same stage – and trust in the performances.
forget the parts not in bold, but has anyone else heard about this alleged hand sling. In interviews after cav said he told quietofski to move over and he sprinted up the echelon with an effort considered as 'sprint of the day'. Is hand slinging illegal first of all? and i just like holding onto cars etc, i doubt cav would not include that information knowing (or not knowing) if television broadcasts would have caught that act. /not doping topic
forget the parts not in bold, but has anyone else heard about this alleged hand sling. In interviews after cav said he told quietofski to move over and he sprinted up the echelon with an effort considered as 'sprint of the day'. Is hand slinging illegal first of all? and i just like holding onto cars etc, i doubt cav would not include that information knowing (or not knowing) if television broadcasts would have caught that act. /not doping topic
Jordan was most likely using steroids. He increased his body mass and vertical by pretty ridiculous amounts over his career and his recovery during the playoffs was far better than anyone of his time.
You can't road race by numbers, but its cute people think that. Go do some actual races and try it.
I bet Sky is on something, but its not illegal and probably not pharmacological and their edge comes from properly manipulating it. Think of it this way:
-People know that training at altitude can stimulate red blood cell production. People also know that it can temporarily lower power output. Training in the mountains also involves a very specific neuromuscular type of effort.
-Sky know everything that is required to win a stage race in terms of power output, nutrition, what kind of efforts to train for, and how to monitor rider's progress.
-Most other teams just go to altitude once or twice a year and ride there.
So if its something as simple as an altitude camp perhaps Sky have figured out the key relationship between the altitude effect and race performance. Research on the affects of altitude vary in prescription, but perhaps Sky has figured out the precise timing and type of training to give them even a 5% edge on gains that come from altitude.
Sky also has a lot of riders that lose a lot of weight/mass quickly. Preliminary research on the function of ketosis and carbohydrate restriction on aerobic metabolism and gene expression are really interesting. Even riding fasted in a slightly depleted state has shown to have profound affects on gene expression and adaptation. Maybe, with their absurd budget, they have access to medical professionals that can supervise this type of training so they can do it right up to the red line where they could potentially underfuel/under recover. Hell, I remember Wiggins giving an example of a ketogenic diet he used to follow in the winter, maybe its linked?
To me if all of these things are combined well and used efficiently than there already is an edge there. Compound that with a staff that knows how to plan and control every one of these variables during the year and you have a higher chance of success. I'd like to believe that that's it for now, but maybe there is some other designer substance as well who knows, but I'm not solidly convinced yet because I feel that the team would be more than a one trick pony. They have essentially 1 approach- get really good at climbing at a steady output and time trialling at a steady output for stage races.
Remember how Mapei used to rip apart the classics doped to the gills? Where are Sky's classics results? They have results here and there but by and large they do one thing and do it really well. On the other hand you have a team like BMC where they aren't assembling teams until the last minute, riders don't know if they're riding a GT until a mont in advance, and the team functions like shit together. To me that says a lot about their performance advantages.
You can't road race by numbers, but its cute people think that. Go do some actual races and try it.
I bet Sky is on something, but its not illegal and probably not pharmacological and their edge comes from properly manipulating it. Think of it this way:
-People know that training at altitude can stimulate red blood cell production. People also know that it can temporarily lower power output. Training in the mountains also involves a very specific neuromuscular type of effort.
-Sky know everything that is required to win a stage race in terms of power output, nutrition, what kind of efforts to train for, and how to monitor rider's progress.
-Most other teams just go to altitude once or twice a year and ride there.
So if its something as simple as an altitude camp perhaps Sky have figured out the key relationship between the altitude effect and race performance. Research on the affects of altitude vary in prescription, but perhaps Sky has figured out the precise timing and type of training to give them even a 5% edge on gains that come from altitude.
Sky also has a lot of riders that lose a lot of weight/mass quickly. Preliminary research on the function of ketosis and carbohydrate restriction on aerobic metabolism and gene expression are really interesting. Even riding fasted in a slightly depleted state has shown to have profound affects on gene expression and adaptation. Maybe, with their absurd budget, they have access to medical professionals that can supervise this type of training so they can do it right up to the red line where they could potentially underfuel/under recover. Hell, I remember Wiggins giving an example of a ketogenic diet he used to follow in the winter, maybe its linked?
To me if all of these things are combined well and used efficiently than there already is an edge there. Compound that with a staff that knows how to plan and control every one of these variables during the year and you have a higher chance of success. I'd like to believe that that's it for now, but maybe there is some other designer substance as well who knows, but I'm not solidly convinced yet because I feel that the team would be more than a one trick pony. They have essentially 1 approach- get really good at climbing at a steady output and time trialling at a steady output for stage races.
Remember how Mapei used to rip apart the classics doped to the gills? Where are Sky's classics results? They have results here and there but by and large they do one thing and do it really well. On the other hand you have a team like BMC where they aren't assembling teams until the last minute, riders don't know if they're riding a GT until a mont in advance, and the team functions like shit together. To me that says a lot about their performance advantages.
-
prendrefeu
- Posts: 8580
- Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
- Location: Glendale / Los Angeles, California
- Contact:
Wait, wut?
You started off with stating "You can't road race by numbers, but its cute people think that. Go do some actual races and try it."
Then go about stating: "get really good at climbing at a steady output and time trialling at a steady output for stage races."
And how do you measure that steady output during the race?
The whole reason the head-units are banned in track is to avoid the ability of a racer to go by... yes.... "steady output"
And even in last year's Tour we head video interviews with non-Sky racers who referred to reading power-outputs during the stages and, to paraphrase a Chris Horner quote (from one of the interviews) - "They were just putting out a steady 420w the whole climb!" (something like that)
So... yeah, even other racers are citing riding by the numbers.
You started off with stating "You can't road race by numbers, but its cute people think that. Go do some actual races and try it."
Then go about stating: "get really good at climbing at a steady output and time trialling at a steady output for stage races."
And how do you measure that steady output during the race?
The whole reason the head-units are banned in track is to avoid the ability of a racer to go by... yes.... "steady output"
And even in last year's Tour we head video interviews with non-Sky racers who referred to reading power-outputs during the stages and, to paraphrase a Chris Horner quote (from one of the interviews) - "They were just putting out a steady 420w the whole climb!" (something like that)
So... yeah, even other racers are citing riding by the numbers.
Exp001 || Other projects in the works.
KWalker wrote:
I bet Sky is on something, but its not illegal and probably not pharmacological and their edge comes from properly manipulating it. Think of it this way:
-People know that training at altitude can stimulate red blood cell production. People also know that it can temporarily lower power output. Training in the mountains also involves a very specific neuromuscular type of effort.
-Sky know everything that is required to win a stage race in terms of power output, nutrition, what kind of efforts to train for, and how to monitor rider's progress.
-Most other teams just go to altitude once or twice a year and ride there.
Man oh man, where have I heard this before? Oh year, I remember the same arguments being used for US Postal. They just had more funding, more research, more experience, best equipment, best nutrition experts, best this and best that. Same tune and song.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."
-
prendrefeu
- Posts: 8580
- Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
- Location: Glendale / Los Angeles, California
- Contact:
Nibali: "Maybe we should ban power output numbers instead of radios"
Yes, taken from the 2012 TdF.
It's cute that people think that... oh, wait, Nibali is a pro.
Yes, taken from the 2012 TdF.
It's cute that people think that... oh, wait, Nibali is a pro.
Exp001 || Other projects in the works.
-
HammerTime2
- Posts: 5814
- Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
- Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed
Hear, hear!! Riders should only gain competitive advantage the old-fashioned way ... with PEDs.prendrefeu wrote:The logic behind this concept is the same as it is used for the track rule: to avoid riders measuring their efforts with live power feedback as a means for competitive advantage.
Your argument is like not certifying the Titanic for its first passenger voyage on account of not liking the color of the lifeboats.
Edit: In response to prendrefeu's request below, the point is paying attention to and adjudicating based on what really matters in the scheme of things.
Last edited by HammerTime2 on Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
prendrefeu
- Posts: 8580
- Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
- Location: Glendale / Los Angeles, California
- Contact:
Your counter is a bit vague, HT2, could you provide a metaphor that has a better correlation?
edit: now that HT2 clarified his statement...
So what does really matter in all of this discussion, HT2? Indulge us.
I don't want PEDs or other methods of doping.
I don't want live power-meter data reading.
I do want to see tactics and training be effective in racing without those aforementioned aspects.
What am I not seeing?
edit: now that HT2 clarified his statement...
So what does really matter in all of this discussion, HT2? Indulge us.
I don't want PEDs or other methods of doping.
I don't want live power-meter data reading.
I do want to see tactics and training be effective in racing without those aforementioned aspects.
What am I not seeing?
Last edited by prendrefeu on Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Exp001 || Other projects in the works.
Prend - I don't know. I'm not saying he's anything, I'm just giving him the benefit of the doubt. As for him been the best climber ever; no. Bahamontes, Gaul and Van Impe immediately spring to mind, same with Pantani. The next pure climber for me is Quintana. He's only 23 and rode the stage dumb IMO. If he'd have shadowed Froome, then I think he could have won. His potential problem, like with most pure climbers, is the TT. But he's got plenty of time to improve.
As for the longest stage, that doesn't mean anything. Yesterday's stage was an hour ahead of schedule according to the reports I heard, but apparently they had a back wind, which makes any stage easier. The best example is the other day with the crosswinds, which wreaked havoc. If there had been a headwind and Froome did that time, then yes there would be a big question mark; but he had an armchair ride for most of the Ventoux.
I'll be happier when Sky hand over all their data and according to Eurosport they are about to give it to WADA, although no matter what they do, they'll still get accused. Given how skinny Froome is, I'm not that surprised he's such a good climber. If I had a question mark against him it would be how good he is at the TT.
As for the longest stage, that doesn't mean anything. Yesterday's stage was an hour ahead of schedule according to the reports I heard, but apparently they had a back wind, which makes any stage easier. The best example is the other day with the crosswinds, which wreaked havoc. If there had been a headwind and Froome did that time, then yes there would be a big question mark; but he had an armchair ride for most of the Ventoux.
I'll be happier when Sky hand over all their data and according to Eurosport they are about to give it to WADA, although no matter what they do, they'll still get accused. Given how skinny Froome is, I'm not that surprised he's such a good climber. If I had a question mark against him it would be how good he is at the TT.
Ahillock wrote:KB wrote:Froome said his results will still stand the test of time, which is a lot different to Lance and Bjarne saying 'I've never failed a dope test'.
Cause he is on the good shit and knows/thinks he won't get caught. Think genetic doping which would require a muscle biopsy to diagnose as blood or urine test couldn't find it. The dude went from nobody to superhuman in just the span of a year (2007-2009 nada, 2010 couldn't do anything in Giro to podium in 2011 Vuleta). Doesn't pass the sniff test. When I smell BS, it is usually because there is some BS going on.
Seeing as you're so well informed, perhaps you can tell us what Froome's on. But you can't. it's just your subjective opinion, same as mine, same as everyone else.
Also, if we're talking about riders doing nada and then winning the Tour, perhaps you should look at Indurain; took him a lot of goes before he won it. Very few riders win the Tour at their first attempt, and the one's that do are the greats.
KB wrote:If I had a question mark against him it would be how good he is at the TT.
??? As the saying goes, a good climber is a pacing plan and a bike fit from being good at TT.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
-
prendrefeu
- Posts: 8580
- Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
- Location: Glendale / Los Angeles, California
- Contact:
For those of you who can read a lil' French: http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-rout ... lan/385983
Contador still gunning for the top spot in Paris.
Contador still gunning for the top spot in Paris.
Exp001 || Other projects in the works.
