French sports newspaper l’Equipe has this morning published an analysis of Chris Froome’s power data from 18 climbs over the last two years.
The headline finding from l’Equipe’s expert, Fred Grappe is that Froome’s power data for the last two years is consistent, and that he has an exceptionally high five-minute maximum power output, which gives him an advantage over other riders.
Grappe draws four other conclusions from the data, which covers the period from the 2011 Tour of Spain to Sunday's Tour de France stage on Mont Vontoux: Froome’s power curve, his ability to generate power versus time, is normal and his rides in this Tour are consistent with the data; his VO2 max must be close to the known physiological limits, though Team Sky say it has never been measured; his weight has been stable for the las two years; and he mus have excellent powers of recovery.
L’Equipe, which is owned by Amaury Sports Organisation, the same company that owns and runs the Tour de France, approached Sky after team principal Sir Dave Brailsford suggested on Monday that the team would be willing to submit its data to the World Anti-Doping Agency.
Fred Grappe, L’Equipe’s expert is a doctor of biomechanics and physiology, and sports coach to the FdJ.fr team. He has long been one of the French sport press’s go-to guys for physiological commentary but is seen by some as too much of a cycling insider to be fully impartial.
Submitting data to anti-doping agencies
On Twitter this morning Team Sky Head of Business Operations Fran Millar, said that the World Anti-Doping Agency has told the team that it can’t help with analysing their riders’ data. The squad is hoping UK Anti-Doping will get involved.
According to The Guardian, UK Anti-Doping will welcome Team Sky’s offer to share their performance data but is likely to tell Sky that it can’t award a “kite mark” or definitively rule that any team or rider is clean. “It’s not what we’re there to do,” said the paper’s source.
As a UK-registered team, Sky comes under UK Anti-Doping's jurisdiction and is therefore already required to share with the agency anything that might help in the fight against doping.
However, it seems this has not previously included detailed rider performance data.
UK Anti-Doping’s chief executive Andy Parkinson told The Guardian it was inevitable that this year’s Tour would be the subject of intense focus in the wake of the United States Anti-Doping Agency stripping Lance Armstrong of his seven Tour wins.
“There are many tools available to anti-doping authorities, including the use and analysis of all types of data,” Parkinson said.
“UKAD has regularly communicated the need for those in sport to share all relevant intelligence with those working to protect clean sport. Being the first Tour since the Usada decision there is an obvious need for teams to be as transparent as possible.”
The agency would have to analyse Sky’s performance data before deciding how relevant it is. If all teams and sports were to submit performance and physiological data for all their athletes it would create what the paper drily calls a “resource issue”.
58 thoughts on “L’Equipe analyses Froome’s climbing data, finds it ‘normal’ and ‘consistent’”
I thought it was odd that Sky
I thought it was odd that Sky wouldn’t have measured his vo2 max, but apparently not. JV said on twitter it’s not something he’s bothered about for his riders either; “all a bit 1985” we’re his words I think.
Shame WADA wont get involved
Shame WADA wont get involved it would shut up all the doubters, well at least for a while.
Good piece by L’Equippe though.
Where’s Decster to accuse
Where’s Decster to accuse everyone of a cover up? C’mon Decster, there’s got to be a conspiracy here somewhere – maybe Sky gave Fred Grappe a lifetime subscription to the movie channel to pay him off? 😉
What bollocks are you going to come up with now?
l’Equipe is actually a very good article.
crazy-legs wrote:Where’s
Well, EVERYONE knows that it was Fred Grappe on the grassy knoll, shooting Lord Lucan at the 1977 Grand National, in the days before power meters.
AND his middle names are probably Edgar Motoman McDopenstein. Coincidence? I THINK NOT 👿
By the way, everyone who disagrees with me is a hopelessly naive idiot, and probably also part of the conspiracy.
Give him a break, afterall he
Give him a break, afterall he must be exhausted after his overnight move to the other side of the world plus huge bike upgrades – well, according to his profile.
I wouldn’t bother guys. Evidence points to a troll.
“maybe Sky gave Fred Grappe a
“maybe Sky gave Fred Grappe a lifetime subscription to the movie channel to pay him off?”
top marks, enjoyed that a lot!
What a surprise that WADA
What a surprise that WADA does not want to get involved with declaring a rider ‘clean’. They are in business, and it is a big business with big money, for them to find cheats. They do not want clean riders everywhere as that would put them out of business! No jobs, no blazers, no fat paychecks. Conflict of interest or what?
Not doing anything to make it better just keeping things the way they are.
‘Excellent powers of
‘Excellent powers of recovery’ like the Wolverine!
Froome seems to have got a bit better whilst a whole lot of others have gone backwards. 😕 Says more about them than him.
“Edgar Motoman McDopenstein”
“Edgar Motoman McDopenstein” – top marks!
People come along every
People come along every decade or so who are more freakishly physiologically able than other physiological freaks in every sport. They had the cream of the genes. The 1 in 10 milion best of everything.
Great cyclists require amazing natural abilities, plus the supernatural ability to train hard, eat better and make more sacrifices than anyone else.
It makes for a very very rare form of perfection indeed. But all natural. People talk about his data being in ‘normal’ parameters. But was is normal? Who decides it? Surely amazing natural performances require beyond-normal?
Froome looks likes the Ultimate Freak. The Best Freak.
aslongasicycle wrote:People
Look at Usain Bolt, he doesn’t train ‘really’ hard and is easily the fastest sprinter, why because of his freakishly long legs. Whatever those little snails did to Froome is hasn’t harmed him. Fingers crossed for posterity.
Hopefully Murdoch will be in jail where he deserves to be and/or dead in ten years time.
bikeboy76
I don’t believe in Bolt. As much as I find his public persona charming and engaging I wouldn’t trust a Jamaican sprinter any further than I could throw him. The long legs and different body type suggests a new way of doping, not that he is genetic outlier. Isn’t it interesting that the only other person to run anywhere near as fast as him is also his training partner? I don’t think that is a coincidence.
The reason the UCI put the limit on hematocrit at 50 back in the 90s was that no human being has ever had a hematocrit that high. It was an arbitrary limit set to allow for an outlier. What happened is that people boosted their bloods to that level to ensure they maximised their performances. We exist in a time when pharmaceuticals are creating hormones (such as EPO) which mirror our exist hormones, and there are new chemicals being produced all the time which the testers have not developed a test for. It’s very difficult for the anti-dopers to detect these, except to say that the hormones (or the product of hormones in the case of EPO) exceed certain levels, or that other markers are unrealistic. The problem is defining what is normal, as I think someone else said, and so can it be proven without doubt – this was effectively LA argument – there was no evidence that could show, without doubt, that he did dope and therefore was able to boss the show.
Cycling has not changed markedly since then and the only dopers they seem to catch are also rans…..if you dope, it’s not to finish ‘well’, but to place. I think that the world of sport is closing ranks at the moment to save cycling and I can understand that. Froome does not appear to be an egotist, not arrogant and I appreciate his effort. I don’t think that if he is doping he is the only one. It’s just a minefield of the science being ahead of the anti-doping – and until one matches the other you’ll always have it.
aslongasicycle wrote:People
This isn’t a particularly great understanding of genetics. People talk about genetic outliers. They are possible, but the variance (when it comes to elite athletes) is not particularly great. Unfortunately, because we humans are pretty good at gene swapping (especially in the modern age) we don’t really create extremes, which you might otherwise do it you were a cut off community.
Another way of looking at it, is that in order to get an extreme being you need generations of iterations which lead to body adaptations. Good genes when it comes to sport is a bit of an anathema.
A cynic might point out that Froome’s beneficial abilities are consistent with steroid abuse.
Personally WADA and UKADA are not saying anything here which is not politically structured. Basically, they are saying Froome and Sky are an ‘open book’ when it comes to doping. The final chapter has yet to be written…..I’m not sure the good doctor at L’Equipe is saying much either.
Watch this space…….
that sky are happy to share
that sky are happy to share so much data suggests to me they are clean. Would you want to be in the **** storm in 5-10 years time when tests have evolved and the drugs are found?
Look at the law suits flyinh round lance now, do you think Murdoch wouldn’t sue for his money if Sky are found to have been cheating?
The tests may not be there now, but they will be. Look at the LA era, it is tests now that are highlighting how bad the problem was.
mrmo wrote:that sky are happy
I happen to agree with much of what you say, apart from the Murdoch bit. Neither father or son have an scruples whatsoever. Ask Lord Leveson.
arrieredupeleton wrote:mrmo
I happen to agree with much of what you say, apart from the Murdoch bit. Neither father or son have an scruples whatsoever. Ask Lord Leveson.— mrmo
I’m not sure the suggestion was that the Murdoch clan are whiter than white
Maybe more like they are vindictive b*st*rds who would not take kindly to being screwed over
mad_scot_rider wrote:
Maybe
This, not just Murdoch either, rather the whole of News International etc. They have put a lot of money into cycling, think about the BC team as well as Sky, i believe that if the publicity turned bad they would screw everyone they could to get their money back.
Actually I have it on good
Actually I have it on good authority that Sky gave Fred Grappe some of their Rapha team kit. (Bibshorts and cap).
He had turned down the film subscription as he is awaiting Decsters novel on doping being published.
Any proof that Big Mig ever
Any proof that Big Mig ever doped? (genuine question, not seen anything on it personally)
Super Domestique wrote:Any
Indurain tested positive at the 1994 Tour de l’Oise. Salbutamol was banned in France at the time but had not yet found its way onto the UCI’s banned list. Indurain was not sanctioned.
Dutch broadcaster NOS quoted Italian investigator Sandro Donati who claimed that Banesto riders including Indurain were involved with Dr Conconi and another source corroborated the story.
Decster wrote:Super
Thank you.
anyone care to explain the
anyone care to explain the ‘huge gains’ for Alpe D’huez from.
2008 | Chris Froome: 51 min 13 sec.
2013 | Chris Froome: 40 min 56 sec.
Grappe specifically tweeted that he doesn’t pass judgment on whether Froome is clean or not. He certainly does NOT say he thinks Froome is clean
Decster wrote:anyone care to
Well he was 22, in a pants team, not in yellow, probably not going full gas and lots of other unknowable stuff.
It’s not a worthy comparison.
aslongasicycle wrote:Decster
Well he was 22, in a pants team, not in yellow, probably not going full gas and lots of other unknowable stuff.
It’s not a worthy comparison.— Decster
So lets not try hard becuase the team are rank amateurs and Froome didn’t want to show his talents on the biggest stage and a famous mountain to boot.
He was 22, most who were great GT talents showed early. Froome has destroyed everyone. He wasn’t showing that at 22.
Decster wrote:most who were
oh well that proves it then. that’s not woolly at all.
You can add Bilharzia to that
You can add Bilharzia to that list only diagnosed and treated when he joined SKY
In case some fans of Froome
In case some fans of Froome think Grappe and L’Equipe cannot be wrong, well L’Equipe have a vested interest in the Le Tour and well Grappe thought Armstrong was clean in 2001
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/2001/feb01/feb09news.shtml
Well done Brailsford for finding a guy who would get it wrong again.
As for Brailsford suggesting WADA, he would know that WADA would never ever do such as thing as look at figures and pass a rider as clean. UKAD have come out said similar saying they do not issue ‘Kite marks’ for riders.
For those that can see, Sky have failed to prove anything but create more doubts about their team and riders.
Oh that’s an excellent find,
Oh that’s an excellent find, Decster. Chapeau. 😉
Alpe d’Huez isn’t a
Alpe d’Huez isn’t a laboratory and the tour de france isn’t a controlled experiment, so comparing two performances five years apart doesn’t tell us much. variables include training regime and racing schedule leading up to the stage, miles ridden in the season, position of the climb in the race, length and difficulty of the stage, position of the rider in the race, role of the rider in the race, team orders during the stage, weather, whether the rider was having a good day or a bad one, etc, etc, etc.
Grappe certainly doesn’t say Froome is clean. but at least he’s being useful in the debate, decster. you should try it. just saying ‘difference between two numbers equals doping’ doesn’t really help anyone.
Dave Atkinson wrote:Alpe
I agree that you can’t compare a performance from one year to the next where the position of the rider has changed (i.e. domestique to GC rider). The way you ride the mountain changes massively. But the change from anonymous domestique in a team with no discernable GC rider to GC rider is quite a leap.
In the wake of the Armstrong scandal we are seeing that there is no political will to catch dopers to save the sport from further issues. It also appears that the anti-doping groups are still lagging behind the dopers (if we think that Frank Schleck’s positive was a one off, and that it is full story, it is not. He just got hit for a masking agent, so the full depth of how he was doping and what he was doping on remains a mystery). As a result I do not foresee any scandals coming out if this tour as a result. So I guess we can all just get on and enjoy the competition.
Of course the dead bodies may rise up from the lake sometime in the future.
Dave, you are on the side of
Dave, you are on the side of Sky as you make money from their success indirectly.
Would you bite the hand the feeds you?
This a cycling site, not a journalistic one so i dont expect you to be balanced. Also based in UK with its horrendous libel laws you have to be careful.
So we can all accept Grappe is a credible analyst, the guy who got it so wrong on Armstrong?
I am a massive fan of the sport of cycling. I have watched since the early 80’s. I reckon i can be a decent judge of what I am seeing on a bike on a mountain. If others dont, grand.
Froome is not clean imo.
I will leave Road.cc to its sky love fest. That people have not learned from the past is a human trait, so i am not surprised in a UK website now refusing to see one of its own doping.
May the road rise with y’all.
Why do people still get so
Why do people still get so beat up about who is or isnt doping. All professional sport has lost credibility for cheating or one sort or another and will continue to do so with so much fame and fortune up for grabs. It is what it is. Treat it as fiction and if you are entertained by what you are watching then job done.
Decster wrote:Dave, you are
i’m not really on the side of anyone, but if there’s going to be a debate, which is inevitable, then i’d prefer it was an informed debate rather than just people shouting numbers at each other.
i asked you before what you think sky can do to prove they’re clean, and you didn’t offer any ideas. the reason for this is fairly clear: there’s nothing that they could say that would convince you. it must be great to be so sure of yourself, just like the fanboys are, but most of us occupy some part of the middle ground. personally i’d like them to be clean. i’m not sure that they are, and i’m not sure that they’re not.
i’ve been watching cycling for a long time too. that doesn’t make me an expert in physiology, or nutritional science, or team psychology, or anything else. get over yourself.
i’ve heard plenty of people saying that “it’s just like with armstrong” and that “people have not learned from the past”; those people seem to be conveniently forgetting many aspects of what the past was like in order to make it suit their agenda. it’s easy to say in restrospect that when Grappe wrote what he did in 2001 that everyone thought that Armstrong was doping, but they didn’t. Maybe he’s learned from that mistake and is more cautious these days. maybe he’s not. again, there is doubt. there will always be doubt.
if the past has told us anything with certainty it’s that we can’t know in the now what’s really going on in the now. so clearly the safest position is the one you take: everyone’s doping. you’ll be right on some, wrong on others. but it doesn’t really help the debate, and it doesn’t help us to think of ways to make the sport more transparent. I’d suggest that Sky are at least trying to do that. People asked them to release Froome’s data for independent analysis, and they did. but it was the ‘wrong’ independent analysis.
so, again: what do sky, or any other team for that matter, need to do? what’s the thing they should be doing for utmost transparency? what are your ideas? all i see from you is dogmatic toeing of the line, same as the fanboys.
Dave Atkinson wrote:Decster
i’m not really on the side of anyone, but if there’s going to be a debate, which is inevitable, then i’d prefer it was an informed debate rather than just people shouting numbers at each other.
i asked you before what you think sky can do to prove they’re clean, and you didn’t offer any ideas. the reason for this is fairly clear: there’s nothing that they could say that would convince you. it must be great to be so sure of yourself, just like the fanboys are, but most of us occupy some part of the middle ground. personally i’d like them to be clean. i’m not sure that they are, and i’m not sure that they’re not.
i’ve been watching cycling for a long time too. that doesn’t make me an expert in physiology, or nutritional science, or team psychology, or anything else. get over yourself.
i’ve heard plenty of people saying that “it’s just like with armstrong” and that “people have not learned from the past”; those people seem to be conveniently forgetting many aspects of what the past was like in order to make it suit their agenda. it’s easy to say in restrospect that when Grappe wrote what he did in 2001 that everyone thought that Armstrong was doping, but they didn’t. Maybe he’s learned from that mistake and is more cautious these days. maybe he’s not. again, there is doubt. there will always be doubt.
if the past has told us anything with certainty it’s that we can’t know in the now what’s really going on in the now. so clearly the safest position is the one you take: everyone’s doping. you’ll be right on some, wrong on others. but it doesn’t really help the debate, and it doesn’t help us to think of ways to make the sport more transparent. I’d suggest that Sky are at least trying to do that. People asked them to release Froome’s data for independent analysis, and they did. but it was the ‘wrong’ independent analysis.
so, again: what do sky, or any other team for that matter, need to do? what’s the thing they should be doing for utmost transparency? what are your ideas? all i see from you is dogmatic toeing of the line, same as the fanboys.— Decster
How about the fully explain how they came to hire a doping doctor?
Why dont they explain fully why Wiggins didn’t want Kimmage on the bus during the 2010 TdF?
Why did they only release Froome’s data since La Vuelta’11, what is the difference before the meteoric rise?
Why did they draw up a ‘tome’ of anti dopoing and transparency for their team and then ignore it?
Why did they ask Grappe to view Froome’s data? Why not someone who didn’t make a huge faux pas in calling Armstrong clean?
What did they present to the ASO before last years TdF?
How come they can beat the dopers and doping teams when blood testing is down, UCI is unchanged and UCI is still in charge of anti doping?
Where and when did the dopers give up the doping so that Sky can beat them?
Where and when did the doping teams get rid of their doping doctors so Sky can beat them?
What did they do to Froome to make him climb better than anyone and be the best TT at the TdF?
So many questions, that if Sky started answering honestly and not with weak excuses, like hiring Leinders was an oversight yet this team tells everyone they pay more attention to the small details than anyoe else, I might start not questioning the amazing performances of ex Grupetto riders like Wiggins and Froome.
If they were so intent on studying the details they would’ve known Grappee would be the wrong guy to analyse as he made the mistake in 2001, so why not get someone who was above questioning, why not all the data since Froome joined Sky. Too many questions are left unanswered by Sky and when they say they are answering these questions they go and do something that creates more questions and therein the doubts.
Too many answers coming out of Sky are too similar to USPS. Sky train harder than anyone else! How do they know? In order to train harder requires doping!
So I take the history of the sport, which is black with a few white spots and look at what is happening now with what has changed, very little, and I think what Ullrich said “if you can’t add 1 + 1 then I can’t help you”, sadly still applies.
Calm down Dears
It is a bike
Calm down Dears
It is a bike race after all, I am as passionate as the next person to see clean racing and performance data will aid in catching cheats.
I reiterate will aid, it does not prove doping or clean riding it can be indicator of something suspicious but a negative does not prove a positive or visa versa. I am as interested in VoMax, Lactate tolerance and recovery data (which I have not seen) as I am in power output. The current SRAM data obsession places us all at risk of being blinded by watts.
Finally clean riding does not mean more equal performances potentially the reverse may be true as genetic differences between riders are not camouflaged (compensated?) by artificial means. Should we therefore genetically test potential racers to ensure they fall within one or two standard deviations of whatever the norm genetic makeup of a human is before issuing them a racing licence.
Jamaica running is highly
Jamaica running is highly suspect. They’re a tiny country and relatively poor, yet they took 3/4 of the men and women’s sprint medals. Then we get fed lots of guff about their slave genes – as if the exact same genes aren’t also spread about the Caribbean, USA, UK, France – never mind West Africa – and in *much* greater numbers!
Imagine if Irish (Ireland having about same population) runners almost got a clean sweep of sprint medals, and you were told it was because of the Celtic genes and surviving the Irish famine! You’d burst your bollocks laughing and mentally file them with Michelle Bruin.
The one advantage Jamaica has is that it hasn’t any real functioning anti-doping authority!
@paul j
your forgetting one
@paul j
your forgetting one detail, why do working class people make good footballers, middle class rugby players etc.
Opportunity,
I am not commenting on doping in athletics, which i believe is rife, more that if you want to improve your life you look at those around you and follow others. Jamacia has a history of athletics, it is inevitable others will see this and believe they can do it as well.
Look at the boom in road and track cycling in the UK currently, there has been success, people see this, people try and emulate it. The more participants, the more chance of finding the best.
As for doping in this years tour, i look at Movistar and wonder.
@mrmo: Are you saying runners
@mrmo: Are you saying runners in the US, France, UK, the rest of the Caribbean do not have opportunities to become runners? That’s just rubbish. Even if there were a degree of truth to that, and even if, say, only 1/4 of those with West African genes outside of Jamaica got into sprinting, then those non-Jamaican sprinters would still out-number the Jamaicans by several orders of magnitude.
While it’s more than possible for any country to come up with *the* best sprinter, it’s just statistically highly, *highly* improbable that such a small country would produce *so many* top sprinters, and concentrated over the last decade or so (just when anti-doping in the countries with the largest numbers of west african sprinter genes got tough on doping, after their own scandals – funny that).
There’s doubt, and there’s several standard deviations… (I havn’t worked out exactly how many though, wouldn’t be surprised if it’s between 3 and 5 😉 ).
Earlier someone commented
Earlier someone commented that Heamatocrit level was set at 50 by the UCI “because no-one has a level beyond that”. Yes they do, and several riders had to prove by testing tat their natural levels were in the 51-54 range. The 50 “health limit” was there because there was no relaiable EPO test at the time. NOw there is.
By the way, at a recent blood test my own level averaged 47 – quite high, you might think, for someone who won’t see 50 again. But entirely natural.
The point being that any single piece of data can be used to “prove” anything you want, which is how some trolls seem to operate. I’ll stick with proper contextural analysis by proper scientists, thanks, not the ramblings of those who know little and analyse to their own satisfaction, then spread their rubbish via the internet.
doc wrote:Earlier someone
You are indeed correct DOC.
As a ‘scientist’ I have to analyse trends of semiconductor manufacturing tools on a daily basis. UP/DOWN to production decisions are very important (due to the astronomical cost/repercussions involved)…and that data ‘interpretation’ can be (subjective)…..let’s say marginal….however, if one chose to manipulate the data into representing ones desire it is so easily done.
Even those familiar with DOE (design of experiments) analysis can confirm that you can make data show whatever you want. That’s why most will often redo the experiment to see if the data/experiment is repeatable.. that is all Sky have to do here… let someone else see the data…and I am in favour of that.
Do I think Froome has/is doping?
Personally – NO, I don’t.
He has come into his form…and by all accounts has worked damn hard to do it.
Let the skeptics rant, if in another 5- 10 years it has been proven otherwise, then I can guarantee that he is/was not the only one….from this newer ‘dope free’ era….it just means that everyone has become more sophisticated at masking the ‘added 10%’ va va voom…
I’m very sceptical about
I’m very sceptical about whether the doping culture has really changed, and it is correct to take a critical look at the performance of any pro rider.
However, in Armstrong’s case, there was significant circumstantial evidence (corroborated by first hand witness statements) floating around for years before he was caught, so there was good reason to suspect him of cheating.
I don’t see anything like this associated with Froome at the moment. So he could be cheating, but in the absence of any specific evidence, it’s just a suspicion. Saying “he trained in Tenerife” or “he climbed a hill on a different day in different conditions after riding a different stage in a time similar to someone who once cheated” is pretty thin stuff…
Cripes does this mean every
Cripes does this mean every yellow jersey winner cheats? Sir Wiggo too?!?
Wonder if the press are going
Wonder if the press are going after today’s winner for doping because of his “miraculous” winning margin over the GC contenders when he is so far off the pace overall! :/ :/ :/
Decster you are full of
Decster you are full of crap!!
If Froome is such a supremely
If Froome is such a supremely naturally gifted athlete as we are led to believe then why didn’t he show any signs of this before working with Leinders at Sky?
You’d expect him to be off doing a Quintana long long ago.
Ingenious to get Fred Grappe to analyse the figures – he’s the right man for the job and knows which way his bread is buttered.
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/2001/feb01/feb09news.shtml
Veronique wrote:If Froome is
This has been covered time and again. To even get your name put forward for a pro team you have to be a brilliant rider. Its then down to your commitment, training environment, coaches and coaching programme to get the best out of you.
There will probably be a considerable amount of pro riders, who, given the chances Froome has had, would be a far better rider and possibly GT rider.
Age has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
@paul J what i am saying is
@paul J what i am saying is that people go to athletics, In the UK if your reasonably fit and want to make some money become a footballer.
So yes there is plenty of opportunity for US, French Brits, etc. it is more where the gifted find themselves going.
As for whether they are doping, not convinced they are not TBH, athletics is a mess, US athletics is particularly bad according to the stories floating around.
Doping or not the Jamacain sprinters are good, you don’t get to where they are without some natural ability
Quote:If Froome is such a
The Tour is different – to finish a Tour as a genuine GC contender, you have to be older, have “served in the ranks” as a domestique. Look back through history, by the end the White Jersey is always way down on Yellow in terms of time.
You don’t just come along at 22 and win the Tour, it takes a few years of rding it to develop as a GC contender. I reckon Geraint Thomas wil be up there in a year or two, that should be great to see.
Considering his performance
Considering his performance day in and day out – its freakish. There is no way he’s clean. Its not believable.
So what if his data is constant. I reckon Armstrong was relatively constant and he was doping. I may be wrong but its not believable.
Ciaran Patrick
So the whole of the GC challengers are not clean ? They have also been consistent day in day out.
Also what about nearly blowing up on Alpe d’Huez! or being distanced in the earlier flat stage by Saxo. Not the sign of a man high on some super drug.
Decster,
1: Leinders was
Decster,
1: Leinders was hired by Sky on a freelance basis after the death of Gonzalez during the 2010 Vuelta and the accusations did not come to light until after this.
2: Wiggins does not like Kimmage – simples !
3: They gave the data to the L’Equippe to analyse after L’Equippe approached them NOT the other way round. They cant be held responsible for who then discusses it can they ?
4: You obviously assume that EVERYONE is still doping but Sky have a “super dope” which no other team has and which they only give to their team leader. Correct ?
5: Your next 2 points contradict themselves with the previous one. Make your mind up ARE the other teams doping or not ??
6: Its called training, commitment and natural ability.
(for instance – i was a decent rugby player who played on a saturday but very rarely trained. Our club got a new coach and i was employed by the Police. Both gave me added confidence and a training regime resulting in me playing rugby at county level.)
Finally where do you get the idea that to train harder you need to dope. FFS this getting bloody repetitive with you without you giving any proof whatsoever about the multitude of allegations your throwing about.
stumps wrote:Decster,
1:
So you swallowed that! Why would they need a guy who specialises in doping riders as a doctor, especially after saying they would not hire any Doctors from cycling. That they didn’t know about Leinders past is pure lies from Sky. Rasmussen and Rabo were off the TdF when Leinders was their doctor. Pro cycling is a very small community, not hard to find out someones past.
So. Why did Brailsford not put his foot down and say it is for the good of transparency, the good of the team and the good of the sport?
Again an unlikely story. That Brailsford, the so called master of attention to detail, although he never bothered to check Leinder’s past, wouldn’t enquire to who they wished to analyse the data? Again what is with Sky, they are either attention to details freaks or they are liars.
I have not seen anything to make me believe the sport has changed since Armstrong stopped. The same people control the sport then and now.Blood tests are down. UCI control the results of tests. McQuaid tried to hide Contador’s positive till a German reporter was leaked the information. When did McQuaid become the the head of a sport that suddenly clean up its act so natural talented riders can beat dopers?
The sport is full of contradiction, deceit, dopers and cheaters and i wish someone would come and clean it up. I wish Sky were doing this naturally but I just dont see how that is possible with what we know about the people who run the sport, the other teams and their histories.
And only Sky can do it and only riders on Sky can do it? USPS said the same thing, Lance was on his bike 6 hours a day, what are you on? No doubt Sky are on their bikes for 7.
Is there where i put in my personal ancedote? 😉
Who needs proof in a sport that has not changed since Hein Verbruggen wa running it like his personal fiefdom. Unless you can prove it has changed.
We know the sport was dirty all the way up to the UCI. Now when did it change? Armstrong came back in 2009, McQuaid welcomed him back with open arms and so did Wiggins. ASO aswell were happy to see Armsrong, they even got rid of Patrice Clerc for Lance. So where did McQuaid clean up the sport? McQuaid has taken over Hein’s place at the head of the table.
Here endeth the lesson Monsieur Stumps. :B
Decster wrote:Who needs proof
So you want proof Sky AREN’T doping. Proof of a negative; sounds a lot like someone asking an atheist to proof God doesn’t exist. I would love to tell you exactly why Kimmage would not be welcome but I am not sure you actually care anymore about the debate and just want to propagate you viewpoint. IF there is any proof, people will come down on Sky like a Vogon Constructor Fleet.
However firmly you believe what you say it isn’t fact and pomposity won’t make it true. If you are right, one day we may all be sorry, but for now I hope you choke when Froome steps up onto that podium tomorrow.
bikeboy76 wrote:Decster
So you want proof Sky AREN’T doping. Proof of a negative; sounds a lot like someone asking an atheist to proof God doesn’t exist. I would love to tell you exactly why Kimmage would not be welcome but I am not sure you actually care anymore about the debate and just want to propagate you viewpoint. IF there is any proof, people will come down on Sky like a Vogon Constructor Fleet.
However firmly you believe what you say it isn’t fact and pomposity won’t make it true. If you are right, one day we may all be sorry, but for now I hope you choke when Froome steps up onto that podium tomorrow.— Decster
These arguments were repeated ad nauseum by Armstrong’s fans.
I wont choke, as i wont be watching the most boring stage of the race.
The history of the sport will no doubt prove me right, I hope i am wrong. Who did Froome beat, Movistar whose star rider was a client of Fuentes, Contador and Purito if Katusha who were refused a World Tour licence due to allegeded doping issues and who have had 2 riders test positive for EPO never mind those running the team.
So Froome beat the dopers and all on bread and water? Pomposity is to beleive that
The only hope I see is if the blood in Quintana’s veins flows true and honest but even then I have doubts.
Decster is full of crap
Decster is full of crap Stumps!! he knows everything about everything, he is more qualified than anyone in the world doping agency or the UCI, you cannot have a constructive conversation with someone like him! if you showed him something black and something white, he’d swear its grey!!
Decster, in the slightly
Decster, in the slightly altered words of the famous Bjørge Lillelien:
“our boys gave you a hell of a beating”
now go and spout off to someone who actually gives a flying fcuk about what you say.
You didn’t watch it but are
You didn’t watch it but are so happy to talk about it? What a shame, it was a fantastic show. If you are damning Quintana already then you shouldn’t bother watching any cycling for the next 10 years. ‘Bread and water’?; the only inconsistencies that need to be explained are the stupid assertions you have made on this forum.
“This is one yellow jersey that will stand the test of time” – Chris Froome.
Goodbye, Decster.
‘and Cadel Evans’
‘and Cadel Evans’
:O