Doping Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Belnakor said:
I don't think he was in as much difficulty as he made out. Remember he'd already dropped Contador and ended up beating him by over a minute. Certainly the side show where he sent Porte back for food was totally unnecessary.
Click to expand...

What does he gain from doing that? If he wanted to fool anyone he just needed to put on a grimace and limit his losses, sending Porte back for food would be totally unnecessary in terms of how it "looks". In all honesty all he has to do to fool most is not win the stage, if he crossed 2 seconds behind Ribold it looks the same as if he crosses 10 minutes after him to most people (think Lance up the Ventoux). I think he looked genuinely stressed (physically) and in my short time riding i can honestly say sometimes an energy gel when you are bonked really can give you the extra boost you need to finish.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Belnakor said:
I don't think he was in as much difficulty as he made out. Remember he'd already dropped Contador and ended up beating him by over a minute. Certainly the side show where he sent Porte back for food was totally unnecessary.
Click to expand...

There's a reason why he sent Porte back which, if you knew the rules, you would understand.

As for your comments re "food", once again, you're just showing your ignorance, both re nutrition on the bike and in doing these kinds of climbs.

Keep digging.
 
Stage 15 of the 1999 Tour, Armstrong ran out of food and lost time to Virenque, Zulle and Escartin.

He did the same in 2000, went through the feeding station and arrogantly didn't take any food, and ended up losing 1:30 to Ullrich on Stage 16

Clearly Lance is a major inspiration for Froome. ;)
 
Sterge10 said:
So everyone is saying Froome magically came good in 2011 and this is when the guy started his analysis of course there will be no change
Click to expand...

I would suggest that you (along with many) have missed the point of the exercise.

The suggestion by Antoine Vayer (and a few others, but he's the ringleader) has been that Froome's performances are not possible without doping. Vayer - even though he has no real background in sports science, and is basically just a phys ed lecturer at a teachers' college - uses a technique based on approximations drawn from timings he gets from the TV broadcast, and known info (distances etc.). One of the problems with this is of course that these figures are approximate, and the only way to really tell what power a rider is putting out is to have access to the actual SRM output, rider's weight etc.

So L'Equipe (no lovers of doping cyclists, except perhaps if they're French) and through them, Grappe were given the actual data to verify if Froome's performances were "possible", and if so, under what circumstances. His conclusions are now in the Public Domain.

Grappe was never looking for evidence of doping per se - that's the job of UCI, WADA, AFLD etc. - and wouldn't have found it in Power data in any case (which he acknowledges). Having access to data from 2010 or earlier doesn't change anything in his analysis or his conclusions.
 
bing181 said:
I would suggest that you (along with many) have missed the point of the exercise.

The suggestion by Antoine Vayer (and a few others, but he's the ringleader) has been that Froome's performances are not possible without doping. Vayer - even though he has no real background in sports science, and is basically just a phys ed lecturer at a teachers' college - uses a technique based on approximations drawn from timings he gets from the TV broadcast, and known info (distances etc.). One of the problems with this is of course that these figures are approximate, and the only way to really tell what power a rider is putting out is to have access to the actual SRM output, rider's weight etc.

So L'Equipe (no lovers of doping cyclists, except perhaps if they're French) and through them, Grappe were given the actual data to verify if Froome's performances were "possible", and if so, under what circumstances. His conclusions are now in the Public Domain.

Grappe was never looking for evidence of doping per se - that's the job of UCI, WADA, AFLD etc. - and wouldn't have found it in Power data in any case (which he acknowledges). Having access to data from 2010 or earlier doesn't change anything in his analysis or his conclusions.
Click to expand...

Ok so his figures are possible if his Vo2 max levels are at the peak of human possibilities despite 'conveniently' never being tested by sky and his ability to recover and back up day after day is almost superhuman.

So either he is doping to achieve this or he is the single greatest athlete ever.
 
Sterge10 said:
Ok so his figures are possible if his Vo2 max levels are at the peak of human possibilities despite 'conveniently' never being tested by sky and his ability to recover and back up day after day is almost superhuman.

So either he is doping to achieve this or he is the single greatest athlete ever.
Click to expand...
This is what is amazing me. Even though I've not followed cycling very closely, I've never heard of someone who has not lost any time at all on any stage to his competitors (excl. the echelon stage)
 
bing181 said:
There's no TUE. He's not taking any medication. For the parasitic infection, he has a check up every 6 months (last in January), when he takes a course of Biltricide.
Click to expand...


Just on this, you should have a read of this thread on CN forums. Seeing as you have an answer for everything, can you explain why CF needs bi-annual treatments when it is a single treatment infection, which requires a single day treatment?

The inconsistencies in the timeline of this infection is quite funny too. Story jumps all over the place.
 
alfy! said:
http://journalvelo.com/breaking/google-translate-version-of-lequipe-article-on-froome-data/
Click to expand...


This is Fredde Grappe on Lance btw ;)

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/2001/feb01/feb09news.shtml

La Francaise des Jeux trainer, Frédéric Grappe, has come out in support of Lance Armstrong, after doping accusations have been leveled at him and the U.S. Postal team. In an in depth interview with L'Equipe, Grappe said that Armstrong's results have come through hard work and not hard drugs, despite the climate of suspicion that still surrounds cycling (especially in France) at the moment.

Grappe started by saying that to fight doping in general, the role of a good trainer is paramount. They must be able to set a program that will not over-tax their riders but keep them in top shape for a certain competition period. Some top riders already do this, although they are subsequently criticised by fans for not riding the whole season at their best. Not everyone can be an Eddy Merckx.

"A great many riders spend their time during the week at home unsupervised," said Grappe. "The trade is so difficult that sometimes they are mentally quite low, in a state of weakness. In these moments of great loneliness one could suppose that a very influential person could propose things to a rider. I know this for a fact...I do not blame the riders, but the system because it would only take a few things to change it."

Grappe believes that doctors are given too much status by the FFC and the UCI, compared with trainers such as himself who know the riders. "It is necessary to work from the base and to develop riders with quality supervision from teams...to offer the riders a true 'alternative' to doping."
Click to expand...

He has come out on Twitter saying that anything is inconclusive until we get pre-2011 data though.
 
Sterge10 said:
Ok so his figures are possible if his Vo2 max levels are at the peak of human possibilities despite 'conveniently' never being tested by sky and his ability to recover and back up day after day is almost superhuman.

So either he is doping to achieve this or he is the single greatest athlete ever.
Click to expand...

Grappe never made or makes any of those claims, as you well know. In fact, in an earlier analysis, and as part of a general discussion, he refers to the mythic 90 ml/kg/min as being "nothing inhuman" ("n'a rien d'inhumain").

He also says (translations fairly straightforward I would have thought):

"j’estime que le PPR de Froome est valide pour un athlète possédant une VO2max comprise entre 85 et 90 ml/min/kg."

and, through comparing him to other riders:

"... celle de Froome serait de 84-86 ml/min/kg."

and

"la VO2 reste dans une norme extrêmement élevée mais valide." (... within a range extremely high but valid.)

By definition, to win the TDF you need a physiological profile at the very upper limit of what's possible, nothing surprising there. Indurain, (88 ml/kg/min) Hinault,(90 ml/kg/min) and especially LeMond (92.5 ml/kg/min), all have some of the highest VO2 Max scores ever recorded. Armstrong, with a 5 - 8% boost through EPO etc. to his already very high 84 ml/kg/min would have been in that range as well. Froome might be exceptional compared to you or I, but he's not exceptional compared to other Tour winners or the truly elite performers in other (endurance) sports.
 
bing181 said:
Grappe never made or makes any of those claims, as you well know. In fact, in an earlier analysis, and as part of a general discussion, he refers to the mythic 90 ml/kg/min as being "nothing inhuman" ("n'a rien d'inhumain").

He also says (translations fairly straightforward I would have thought):

"j’estime que le PPR de Froome est valide pour un athlète possédant une VO2max comprise entre 85 et 90 ml/min/kg."

and, through comparing him to other riders:

"... celle de Froome serait de 84-86 ml/min/kg."

and

"la VO2 reste dans une norme extrêmement élevée mais valide." (... within a range extremely high but valid.)

By definition, to win the TDF you need a physiological profile at the very upper limit of what's possible, nothing surprising there. Indurain, (88 ml/kg/min) Hinault,(90 ml/kg/min) and especially LeMond (92.5 ml/kg/min), all have some of the highest VO2 Max scores ever recorded. Armstrong, with a 5 - 8% boost through EPO etc. to his already very high 84 ml/kg/min would have been in that range as well. Froome might be exceptional compared to you or I, but he's not exceptional compared to other Tour winners or the truly elite performers in other (endurance) sports.
Click to expand...


So what you're saying is that despite setting records for most of the climbs so far and apparently being completely clean as well as winning an itt and second in the other one froome is nothing special........
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

bing181 said:
There's a reason why he sent Porte back which, if you knew the rules, you would understand.

As for your comments re "food", once again, you're just showing your ignorance, both re nutrition on the bike and in doing these kinds of climbs.

Keep digging.
Click to expand...

If you don't mind, can you explain this? Why was Porte sent back, and what do you mean by the second point?
 
Jab said:
If you don't mind, can you explain this? Why was Porte sent back, and what do you mean by the second point?
Click to expand...

So the clown froome if the race officials decided to throw the book at someone they could blame Porte and have him take the fall since froome never technically accepted anything from the car
 
I don't believe the performance of Porte.

Looked like he was riding up mountains with ease after Froome had to take off to chase the attacks.

I reckon he held back which is crazy.

The only rider out of the whole tour that hardly broke a sweat.
 
There was a big article in today's Sunday Times in England by David Walsh. Obviously he was probably Armstrong's greatest media adversary and hounded him for years, even losing a libel case for an article in the Sunday Times.

The gist of his piece is that he believed that Armstrong was doping but he doesn't believe that Froome is or has. He was given access to the Sky team earlier this year, and from memory he went in pretty sceptical, but everything that he has seen has led him to this opinion.

Whether you agree or not I think, due to his previous campaigning, that his opinion has earned some weight.
 
Five fastest Tour de France
1. 2005: 41.654 Kph
2. 2003: 40.940 Kph
3. 2006: 40.784 Kph
4. 2004: 40.553 Kph
5. 2013: 40.545 Kph

Would have thought being not many TT Km and a fairly mountainous route the average speed would be down.
 
Dipper said:
There was a big article in today's Sunday Times in England by David Walsh. Obviously he was probably Armstrong's greatest media adversary and hounded him for years, even losing a libel case for an article in the Sunday Times.

The gist of his piece is that he believed that Armstrong was doping but he doesn't believe that Froome is or has. He was given access to the Sky team earlier this year, and from memory he went in pretty sceptical, but everything that he has seen has led him to this opinion.

Whether you agree or not I think, due to his previous campaigning, that his opinion has earned some weight.
Click to expand...


many folks are same. Greg Le Mond was one of Armstrong's biggest accusers. Supports Froome too.
 
ben_1301 said:
Five fastest Tour de France
1. 2005: 41.654 Kph
2. 2003: 40.940 Kph
3. 2006: 40.784 Kph
4. 2004: 40.553 Kph
5. 2013: 40.545 Kph

Would have thought being not many TT Km and a fairly mountainous route the average speed would be down.
Click to expand...


many stages ran ahead of schedule this year....on the flat and in the mountains.

the other teams drove the race in the mountains much more than SKY did too. once Froome attained his lead, it was Movistar & Saxo trying to prevent each others GC leaders from gaining time a lot of the time.
 
mcgarnacle said:
many folks are same. Greg Le Mond was one of Armstrong's biggest accusers. Supports Froome too.
Click to expand...


He's not in full support of him. He's been taken out of context a bit, but he has also said that nothing can be proven until power data is released (or something to that effect)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top