Doping Thread

[dmc333]

Marginal gains, people.

 

[Smedts_2]

For you guys who only follow cycling for the month of July

2011: At the tour to work for wiggins, who crashes out, finishes 31st anyway after waiting for wiggo and ruining any chance of a high gc finish.

2012: Back to the track to win gold at olympics, climbing and road form put back in the box.

2013: Finally road focused for good. Wins after attacking up corkscrew climb in tour down under. Crashed, alot, at the classics. Returns to finish 2nd at Bayern-Rundfahrt. Finishes 15th overall at the dauphine after working for froome. Finishes the tour despite fracturing his pelvis on the opening stage.

2014: Leading paris-nice before crashing out. Wins Bayern-Rundfahrt. Supports Froome, then porte at the tour. Ends up riding in breakaways to get stage wins, finishes 22nd overall anyway. Wins gold at commonwealth games RR.

2015: Wins volta ao algarve ahead of Porte. Finishes 5th overall in paris-nice, a race he should have won but crashed on a descent. Almost won tour of Suisse but lost by five seconds after the final TT. Rides high in le Tour everyone is surprised because "he's not a climber!" and no-one seems to remember just how good he was when fit and focused on the road.

I can read all of that and even look past the "if you think G is doping then you only watch cycling 3 weeks a year" slight. But I am 100% confident that you are wrong.

 

[bing181]

... in a team that has a questionable history.

The team only has a questionable history on forums like this.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Unfortunately for Le Tour, the conga line of drug cheats that have plagued the sport for the last 15 years has really hurt the image to the point that no one believes extraordinary results. I have watched the race and it does appear Froome is a class above everyone else, however I can see where they are getting the idea of some extra assistance in the way of doping from. The team of Sky always seems to be well up front out numbering every other team and Froome just seems to be able to back up over and over again each day which seems to be just physically impossible. Anyways Le Tour needs to pray he is clean because I'm not sure they can handle another major cheating scandal.

 

[Belnakor]

Anyways Le Tour needs to pray he is clean because I'm not sure they can handle another major cheating scandal.

I think we can all accept that the riders are doping. Thats just a given. You have people getting pinged for EPO who were on the back of the pelaton

what we don't like is blatant cheating like Froome is doing where he *clearly* has an advantage over other people. If the playing field is leveled then really thats fine (and a reality).

for example i don't mind Contador. Yes he is doping but it is not outrageous, he has a past history of great results, great rider who takes risks. Froome is just a machine who is winning on the back of the juice he is on.

 

[Papa Juggs]

Froome's skinny appearance matches what the new wonder drugs are supposed to be doing.

Creating cyclists that are 5kg lighter than the previous generation yet with the same power output which means more watts per kilo.

A saw a vid clip where one guy was saying guys this weight should be sick and not even able to ride a bike.

He has also been abusing the shit out of TUEs for steroids for years.

You know which riders don't dope? The French guys. This is why they suck but they can hold their heads high.

 

[Belnakor]

Froome's skinny appearance matches what the new wonder drugs are supposed to be doing.

Creating cyclists that are 5kg lighter than the previous generation yet with the same power output which means more watts per kilo.

A saw a vid clip where one guy was saying guys this weight should be sick and not even able to ride a bike.

He has also been abusing the shit out of TUEs for steroids for years.

You know which riders don't dope? The French guys. This is why they suck but they can hold their heads high.

The french guys are still doping mate just probably only during training which is fair enough.

Yup the new wave is all around insanely low BF% + not losing muscle. Pretty much what Essendon were trying to do with AOD.

 

[sblack]

The team only has a questionable history on forums like this.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jan/22/geert-leinders-life-ban-team-sky-doctor

 

[bing181]

Good analysis by someone on the inside who knows what he's talking about.

(In French, but biggest impediment to reading it is that you have to have an open mind.)

http://www.eurosport.fr/cyclisme/to...ire-si-froome-est-dope_sto4829127/story.shtml

 

[bing181]

You have people getting pinged for EPO who were on the back of the pelaton

Like who? One person pinged this year - for Cocaine.

Ridiculous, unsubstantiated claims.

Joke.

 

[sblack]

Good analysis by someone on the inside who knows what he's talking about.

(In French, but biggest impediment to reading it is that you have to have an open mind.)

http://www.eurosport.fr/cyclisme/to...ire-si-froome-est-dope_sto4829127/story.shtml

If you looked up Ross Tucker who I mentioned to you before, he pretty much says the same thing about the numbers. But clearly you don't have an open mind

 

[bing181]

If you looked up Ross Tucker who I mentioned to you before, he pretty much says the same thing about the numbers.

No he doesn't, and I know who Tucker is. Someone who has never worked professionally in cycling, and whose analysis is limited to exercise physiology. Still, even he says that there's nothing in Froome's figures that is a priori suspect or proof of anything. As you know.

Froome: Better budget, better research, better data, better coaches, better training, better preparation, better programs, better support, better equipment, better recovery, better ideas. Half a percent here, half a percent there.

Marginal gains.

 

[sblack]

lol

Definitely better doctors though. Im sure he and Leinders got along great

 

[Smedts_2]

No he doesn't, and I know who Tucker is. Someone who has never worked professionally in cycling, and whose analysis is limited to exercise physiology. Still, even he says that there's nothing in Froome's figures that is a priori suspect or proof of anything. As you know.

Froome: Better budget, better research, better data, better coaches, better training, better preparation, better programs, better support, better equipment, better recovery, better ideas. Half a percent here, half a percent there.

Marginal gains.

You forgot "Kool Aid".

 

[sblack]

And better diets. No nutella etc

 

[sblack]

What do you say about Sir Davey saying Froome rode PDB at 5.78w/kg?

Despite this seemingly normal number, he put ~1:30 into Gesink, who just so happens to publish all his rides to the public via Strava. He rode it at 5.8w/kg.

So somehow, the mighty Froome rode with less power, but at the same time faster that someone with more power ... hmmm

 

[ben_1301]

What do you say about Sir Davey saying Froome rode PDB at 5.78w/kg?

Despite this seemingly normal number, he put ~1:30 into Gesink, who just so happens to publish all his rides to the public via Strava. He rode it at 5.8w/kg.

So somehow, the mighty Froome rode with less power, but at the same time faster that someone with more power ... hmmm

It was odd wasn't it! I mean why come out today and blatantly understate the numbers? Like people wouldn't pick up on it....
It's all irrelevant really, the numbers we needed to see where the ones from pre transformation in 2011 to the ones now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sblack]

Not to mention they used 67.5kg. Froome is not 67.5kg

 

[Belnakor]

Like who? One person pinged this year - for Cocaine.

Ridiculous, unsubstantiated claims.

Joke.

hey mate, just a side note i have some magic beans to sell. Top quality.

 

[Belnakor]

So somehow, the mighty Froome rode with less power, but at the same time faster that someone with more power ... hmmm

Wizard did it?

 

[bing181]

What do you say about Sir Davey saying Froome rode PDB at 5.78w/kg? Despite this seemingly normal number, he put ~1:30 into Gesink, who just so happens to publish all his rides to the public via Strava. He rode it at 5.8w/kg. So somehow, the mighty Froome rode with less power, but at the same time faster that someone with more power ... hmmm

Why not look at the actual facts of the situation.

The difference between, say 5.8 W/Kg and 6.1 W/Kg is less than 1%. Power meters, even the best ones, do not have that margin of accuracy, or even close to. The Stages cranks that Sky use are notoriously inaccurate, to the extent that many people were surprised that a pro cycling team would use them. I presume Gesink is using SRM, as is most of the peloton, and a Stages Watt is not the same as an SRM watt or a Powertap Watt. You also have to understand that the various apps that use/implement power information, have to convert the raw numbers - and lots of them - into useable data. That includes Strava. Each of them does it in their own way. At the very least, you would need to see Gesink's data displayed/converted in the same software that Sky are using (WKO I presume), and in an ideal world, from the same source/manufacturer (power meter). There's also the question of the 6% error in the readings due to the oval rings, which is at the upper level of the range of error. That's the figure that Sky claim to have measured, but the usual quoted figure is 4 -5%, and that difference alone would lift Froome's figures up the couple of percent needed to put them above Gesink's. Also, we're not even talking about exactly the same distance/climb, and certainly, the Strava segment doesn't correspond with Kerrison's - as Kerrison pointed out himself. If Kerrison included an easier 500m flat run-in at the bottom of the climb, that would pull Froome's overall average down. Finally W/kg doesn't tell the whole story, as that's the power delivered at the cranks, it's not necessarily the power delivered to the tyre/road interface. It's a mechanical system, and each bike/setup/component will be different - as Benoit Nave pointed out, it's more than feasible that there could be a 15 watt difference just in transference of power. The rider with the most watts isn't always the fastest, there are too many variables, and the differences we're seeing here are well within the range of all these variables.

i.e. you can't guarantee any of these figures, including Gesink's, to that level of accuracy, you could only do that in lab conditions.

BTW, it wasn't Brailsford talking about the figures, it was Kerrison.

 

[bing181]

David Walsh - Sunday Times chief sports writer:

"I've also spent a lot of time looking at the people around Chris Froome, looking at what's going on in Team Sky. We're now three years into the Froome story. At the three-year point into my investigation into Lance Armstrong I had six people in his team who told me he doped.

"I haven't had one person, who works with Sky now or who was sacked by Sky, who has given me anything to go on or investigate. In fairness to Chris Froome my conclusion has to be that I've seen nothing that indicates he dopes and I'm inclined to believe him when he says he doesn't. It doesn't mean I know, but I certainly believe his claims."

Walsh, who was a key journalist in uncovering Lance Armstrong's doping regime, was speaking on BBC Radio 5 live's Victoria Derbyshire programme.

 

[bing181]

hey mate, just a side note i have some magic beans to sell. Top quality.

No need for magic beans, facts will do.

 

[sblack]

First rebuttal I expected was the 6% due to the chain

Question bing181 Are you British/English?

 

[Sasquatch]

The difference between Froome and Armstrong is that Froome is likable and doesn't bully people. So of course no one is going to go and set out to take him down. That article was pointless.