Garmin's David Millar defends Sky's Chris Froome on Tour de France doping questions

Decster wrote:

So many want to look for excuses to explain a guy who was not going to get a new contract suddenly explodes to 2nd on the 3rd biggest race in the calendar. A blood disease that miraclously only needs to be treated in the off season and never when he needs to ride a GT. That he was climbing sideways before and got kicked of il Giro for hanging on to cars on a climb all point to a climbing talent.

But the idea the Sky train harder than everyone else is true, just like Armstrong, ...."busting his ass 6 hours a day on his bike, what are you on?"

The UCI have not changed, still control dope testing, the ASO fired the guy who wanted to clean up the sport and appoint Prudhommme, all the other teams are full of dope enablers and Sky are winning on bread and water.

So many fall for the tricks that history has shown to be nothing more than smokescreens.

Dont buy too much Sky gear otherwise it will be hanging beside your USPS, Disco, Astana, Radshack gear pretty soon.

So what you are saying is that the whole of the Sky squad is doped up to the eye balls even though the team was set up on a profoundly ant-doping platform. You make these allegations on the basis of some cherry picking of results without any real evidence. Gossip and anecdote do not make a case unless you are a fake moon landing / 9/11 truther loon.

stumps wrote:

Question marks ? only in some delusional minds.

Feel free to quote, reply, criticise all you want.

lol I know you have no time for anyone else's opinion (it seems it's a shame for you, you can't "police" the internet).

northstar wrote:

That's what concerns me.

And you should be free to be concerned. i'd note froome's happiness to respond to doping questions and assert that he's clean, in marked contrast to armstrong, and even wiggins. and if i was team sky, i wouldn't be releasing the riders' data either, certainly not when the tour is in progress. i can't see how it'll help anyone other than the conspiracy theorists and the other teams, personally.

northstar wrote:

The delusion continues

I think it's right to be sceptical about a performance that seems to good to be true; after all, we've learned that to good to be true usually means not true. I'm not convinced i've seen one though. Froome was protected by Porte and Kiryenka on stage 8 to such an extent that the former lost over 17 minutes the next day, and the latter was eliminated: they worked so hard to put him where he was that they had nothing left, at all. no wonder he was fresh. Kennaugh, who put a massive shift in, lost 22 minutes too, although he did end up in a hedge at one point.

had quintana not danced off the front on the Pailheres and had to push on alone on the descent i've no doubt he would have contested the stage win with froome. over the two stages team sky's performance looks a lot more human than movistar's, who had three in the front group on sunday and three more not far behind. in any case, it's ridiculous to make an assertion of doping based on one stage in a three-week race. armstrong won because his team could lead him up the hills day after long day. Do we see that with sky? not so far, they've been pretty fallible. froome himself is in spectacular form, but he has been all year and it's still a long way to paris.

a blind assertion that froome isn't doping isn't really that useful. based on what? and similarly, a blind assertion that he is doesn't help either.

This is a useful and informing read: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/froomes-first-mountain-performan...

stumps wrote:

In sports you do get people who are naturally gifted and dont need drugs to compete at the highest level, Messi, Ronaldo in football, Usain Bolt, Mo Farah so why not Froome in cycling, and what about Evans winning at the age of 34 ?

I would not be tempted to hold out any name of our current sporting heroes as non-dopers, even those of a skills based bias. After all the suggestion is that either Real or Barcelona have strong links with Fuentes. I would also not look at Bolt (freakishly tall for a sprinter, strange sprinting style) or Farah (disappears to Kenya - where there are links to EPO doping).

The problem is that we are talking elite sportsmen whom have worked very hard to get noticed. What we see in many many sports is young athletes coming through, but not really competing with the pro-level. Then suddenly a jump to a 'new level' when they join a pro-team, or join the full squad. The human body is capable of dealing with a certain work load, but will break down under continued stress - the correlation is that the work load increase in going pro/performance improvement is due to extra-corporeal assistance (drugs).

Let us be frank. The demands of high level sport are so stressful that in order to get your body to produce a high hematocrit (we're talking periodization) you have to push your body to breaking point. The body compensates in the period of rest before competition and then improves to a new personal best, this is a short period phenomenon. Which is why athletes cannot carry this level through a 3 week race.

But let us look at Froome. He performs averagely, if not poorly for a season, for Sky and then on threat of being let go makes a rapid improvement in ability. And consistently maintains it. Does this not remind anyone of Mr Millar's story of coercion into drug use?

I think there is a fundamental lack of understanding of how exercise and training affects the body, and what is possible. Humans peak athletically in the early to mid-twenties (in terms of power), and thirties in terms of endurance. Endurance is a factor in cycling, but what this means is that you can consistently maintain a performance, but not that you maximise a performance. So the potential of young athletes (20-24) is effectively them at their maximum performance (all things being equal - training at their peak), they may change the style of their performance as they age, but not really much more. What we see is massive step changes in these athletes - taking it to a 'new' level. This is effectively the dope.

Not to pour water on events this weekend - but I did note how certain ex-professionals were impressed by the volume of training by certain tennis players. This in a sport which does virtually no blood tests, and has a growing reputation for steroid abuse....the signs are all there and the no one is in a hurry to sort this out.

BUT - before I go on, I did like watching the stages this weekend. I liked it most that Richie Porte showed a very human performance. He gets my +1 for it. I enjoy the sport, but I keep my eyes open. There are very real ways of being able to show that you are clean, but I don't see anyone doing it.

"There are very real ways of being able to show that you are clean, but I don't see anyone doing it." Colin Peyresourde

Please provide examples of these "...very real ways...".

Sorry Decster, it could also mean that he went away, thought about his weaknesses, worked hard on them and came back better. Agreed, it could mean doping but i dont think so in this instance.

Decster wrote:

Saint Millar, how can you defend a guy who beats riders proven to have doped on the same climb? This sport is never gonna learn, especially not with pathetic apologists like Millar stating rubbish like this!

Even Vaughter's couldn't defend Froome and his reply when asked abotu Froome's win was 'I dont know.

Froome a guy who was so bad before the Vuelta'11 Sky were going to let him go then bang, miracle 2nd place and now on his way to a TdF victory.

In this sport that only means one thing.

If you want to think so negatively about the sport and what some teams are doing, why follow it ? Froome was second in the TDF last year and wasn't bad in the Vuelta. Froome like the Moviestar rider in stage 8 of this TDF is a very good climber (their place of birth backs that).

The following saying is perfect for some TDF/Cycling fans emotions towards Team Sky, "If you want to make enemies, try to change something".

Team Sky just did good planning and then perfect execution, you can't knock them for that.

mr-88 wrote:

Decster wrote:

Froome a guy who was so bad before the Vuelta'11 Sky were going to let him go then bang, miracle 2nd place and now on his way to a TdF victory.

In this sport that only means one thing.

If you want to think so negatively about the sport and what some teams are doing, why follow it ? Froome was second in the TDF last year and wasn't bad in the Vuelta. Froome like the Moviestar rider in stage 8 of this TDF is a very good climber (their place of birth backs that).

The following saying is perfect for some TDF/Cycling fans emotions towards Team Sky, "If you want to make enemies, try to change something".

Team Sky just did good planning and then perfect execution, you can't knock them for that.

Froomes record shows someone getting progressively better. Not, as Decster would suggest, someone who suddenly explodes onto the scene from nowhere, indicative of artificially enhanced performance.

If the Sky team were doping then they (Porte, in particular) would have been able to keep with the main group on the climbs yesterday, instead of dropping back after giving it their all the previous day.

I think with people like Decster, they will always bleat away.

the Movi(e)star rider you are really struggle to write about is Quintana?

Do you know any teams or riders in this competition?

Decster wrote:

Froome a guy who was so bad before the Vuelta'11 Sky were going to let him go then bang, miracle 2nd place and now on his way to a TdF victory.

In this sport that only means one thing.

Froome had a tropical disease - Bilharzia. Which is a water borne parasitic infliction. Parasitic meaning something that lives off a host using the hosts resources to sustain and replicate itself. That could (yes, could but not certainly does) explain a previous lack of performance.

Puncheur-David wrote:

Decster wrote:

Froome a guy who was so bad before the Vuelta'11 Sky were going to let him go then bang, miracle 2nd place and now on his way to a TdF victory.

In this sport that only means one thing.

Froome had a tropical disease - Bilharzia. Which is a water borne parasitic infliction. Parasitic meaning something that lives off a host using the hosts resources to sustain and replicate itself. That could (yes, could but not certainly does) explain a previous lack of performance.

This is an explanation for 2010, but not 2007, 2008 & 2009 as a comparative, when he was at other pro-teams. The thing that I find amusing with all of this is that they always say 'it's our preparation and training - we have some new techniques which we use and we have got excellent results'. If this was the case, don't you think that the exponent of this training program would be keen to take it and sell it on to anyone with the cash (i.e. someone would take it to their competitors asap)?

And wouldn't these 'training' gains be sold to the wider general public in the form of a book or something once they were superseded by the 'next advancement' in training?

Basically, if anyone says this, read: 'we are using an exotic range of drugs, and our program is tailored to avoid the modern anti-dope tests so we are seeing excellent results!' If someone says the athlete has a very intensive training regime, it probably means that they have terrific steroids.