I like to think Froome is clean, albeit his performances being equivalent to or better than the previous generation's proven dopers does raise eyebrows.
Even with doping factored in though there is something glorious about the Tour, alas I wish I got to watch more road racing but it's slim pickings over here. Even if riders aren't riding clean, the raw physicality of it is impressive as hell.
It does sound like I'm a bit down on things, but with Tyson Gay and Asafa Powell just testing positive, the former of which I instinctively felt would never dope, it is a bit of a kick in the teeth
I think that this argument of "he wins, ergo he dopes" is pretty weak. I've read the thread and I understand how insane that Ventoux climb was, but in and of itself I don't feel like it is evidence of doping. And I don't even particularly like Froome.
Also the rules are insane. Daily pisstests for riders in jersies, whereabouts, off-season controls, etc. It would be pretty unbelievable if this hulking beast of an antidoping effort is just failing to find it.
On July 15 2013 16:42 beef42 wrote: I think that this argument of "he wins, ergo he dopes" is pretty weak. I've read the thread and I understand how insane that Ventoux climb was, but in and of itself I don't feel like it is evidence of doping. And I don't even particularly like Froome.
Also the rules are insane. Daily pisstests for riders in jersies, whereabouts, off-season controls, etc. It would be pretty unbelievable if this hulking beast of an antidoping effort is just failing to find it.
not only the climb was insane but he did not seem to even be at 100% or something close to that. He was speaken to his manager and after his first attack he seemed like he was containing himself and was temporizing. Even zith that his time is ridiculous for a human, I can't even imagine what it would have been like if there were competition and if he climbed it at maximum pace the whole time.
On July 15 2013 16:42 beef42 wrote: I think that this argument of "he wins, ergo he dopes" is pretty weak. I've read the thread and I understand how insane that Ventoux climb was, but in and of itself I don't feel like it is evidence of doping. And I don't even particularly like Froome.
Also the rules are insane. Daily pisstests for riders in jersies, whereabouts, off-season controls, etc. It would be pretty unbelievable if this hulking beast of an antidoping effort is just failing to find it.
The rules are not enforced so it's totally pointless. Besides these rules existed when Armstrong was still running strong and it didn't catch him, neither did worked for Landis. Road and Track cycling are plagued with doping. There is no willingness to enforce these rules because the Tour de France (and other major Tours) is highly profitable. And as long as you can have a good storyline it doesn't matter that someone is sucking blood everyday.
On July 15 2013 16:42 beef42 wrote: I think that this argument of "he wins, ergo he dopes" is pretty weak. I've read the thread and I understand how insane that Ventoux climb was, but in and of itself I don't feel like it is evidence of doping. And I don't even particularly like Froome.
Also the rules are insane. Daily pisstests for riders in jersies, whereabouts, off-season controls, etc. It would be pretty unbelievable if this hulking beast of an antidoping effort is just failing to find it.
Of course he's innocent while there's no evidence but considering the past of cycling, you can't blame people for considering his climb as suspicious.
I saw the race live yesterday, it reminded me some.climbing of Pantani, Contador or Armstrong. Enough said.
I'm not sure what to think about it at the moment. His performance is in line with doped Armstrong. Furthermore, the length which he's above the competition just doesn't seem realisitic.
According to the ITV Podcast team yesterday Froome popped in to have oxygen before doing fulfilling his media obligations and receiving the various jerseys.
Is this kind of thing commonplace, or a privilege for the stage winner or what? As a layman it does rather illustrate quite how hard these guys have to push,
I cannot fathom that people still believe there is such a thing as a non cheating winnner of the Tour de France? cheating and the Tour de France has gone hand in hand since the very first edition of the Tour de France where you have stories of riders being helped during night time and having outside help to sabotage the other riders with thumbnails during the course and going on to feature team managers giving rival riders poisoned water bottles, you have the very first Tour de France doped rider dating back to the 1920's that would take multiple substances that included Cocain just to finish the race.
The entire point is that the newspaper that started the Tour de France, wanted a race thats so difficult that only one rider would ever finish it. The entire premise of the race is based around Cheating, cycling is secondary and it allways has been.. there has never been a 100% Clean rider (what i mean by that, is that whoever won the race.. did so with some amount of cheating in some form)
And regarding what Froome did yesterday, when Armstrong climbed the very same peek in 1999 he did so with an avage speed of 22.29 km/h at that time you have reports of reporters sitting together and calling it inhumane & superhuman (hinting at cheating, and thats only the 11th fastest time recorded) the year after he posted a 21.83 km/h avarage speed on the same peek.. froome? he posted a time of 21.86 km/h well within the spectrum of superhuman V02/max.
And for those wondering froome refused to release his numbers earlier this year, his watt output, V02/max and such and you only do that for one reason and thats because your going to be posting something thats beyond that at some point and you only do that while doped.
Ahh cool this is one event i know ill be able to buy a vast variety of drugs at.
rofl the reason why people are doping and gettign away with it is because there is more money in getting around regs than enforcing them. Regs are also reactive
On July 16 2013 02:07 Dybdal wrote: And for those wondering froome refused to release his numbers earlier this year, his watt output, V02/max and such and you only do that for one reason and thats because your going to be posting something thats beyond that at some point and you only do that while doped.
No you do it because terrible pseudo-scientists will take your results as evidence of doping when they aren't.
Dave Brailsford and team Sky are legit. Just like the British Cycling team is legit. All this nonsense has to stop. Sky will hand every single piece of data over that people want, and it still isn't enough. How many urine samples does it take? Follow him around if you like? They've said they would even allow that! We know Brailsford's methods are exceptional and give riders an extra edge - the GB cycling team is evidence of this.
And then there are always exceptional performers in Sport. It's not inconceivable that 10 years on training and equipment has improved enough that the outliers can almost touch pre-doping times. It's a shame Froome may have to wait as many as 10 years to get the credit he deserves.
On July 16 2013 02:07 Dybdal wrote: And for those wondering froome refused to release his numbers earlier this year, his watt output, V02/max and such and you only do that for one reason and thats because your going to be posting something thats beyond that at some point and you only do that while doped.
No you do it because terrible pseudo-scientists will take your results as evidence of doping when they aren't.
Dave Brailsford and team Sky are legit. Just like the British Cycling team is legit. All this nonsense has to stop. Sky will hand every single piece of data over that people want, and it still isn't enough. How many urine samples does it take? Follow him around if you like? They've said they would even allow that! We know Brailsford's methods are exceptional and give riders an extra edge - the GB cycling team is evidence of this.
And then there are always exceptional performers in Sport. It's not inconceivable that 10 years on training and equipment has improved enough that the outliers can almost touch pre-doping times. It's a shame Froome may have to wait as many as 10 years to get the credit he deserves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay48ZWkoeHU
They never released Froome V02/max this year, despite many people asking for it
Training and equipment only improved for Sky it seems
On July 16 2013 02:07 Dybdal wrote: And for those wondering froome refused to release his numbers earlier this year, his watt output, V02/max and such and you only do that for one reason and thats because your going to be posting something thats beyond that at some point and you only do that while doped.
No you do it because terrible pseudo-scientists will take your results as evidence of doping when they aren't.
Dave Brailsford and team Sky are legit. Just like the British Cycling team is legit. All this nonsense has to stop. Sky will hand every single piece of data over that people want, and it still isn't enough. How many urine samples does it take? Follow him around if you like? They've said they would even allow that! We know Brailsford's methods are exceptional and give riders an extra edge - the GB cycling team is evidence of this.
And then there are always exceptional performers in Sport. It's not inconceivable that 10 years on training and equipment has improved enough that the outliers can almost touch pre-doping times. It's a shame Froome may have to wait as many as 10 years to get the credit he deserves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay48ZWkoeHU
There are so many lies in this post.
1- How the fuck Leinders is legit? (Rabobanks and Chicken's former doping doctor) 2- Some swimming coach with dodgy history is also legit as well? 3- Froome was the worst cyclist in 2010 on the team, now he's beating dopers from 2002-2007 (Pre bio passport era) 4- Equipment does not matter on a climb, you mostly fight against gravity, not wind. 5- So this genius baldhead could not realize that Froome is the real deal until Angliru when your beloved sir couldnt climb at all? How can you explain this mastermind? 6- Froome only got into a wind tunnel this year, how do you explain this amazing scientific training? 7- Last year's sir is sucking big time right now, how can you explain that? (You can mention JTL as well) 8- The most talented rider from 2010, EBH is incapable of doing nothing at the moment. He was the best climber, best time trialist and the best sprinter of the team, suddenly he cant do jack shit. 9- You mention urine samples, I mention Lance and horde of dopers from 90's
I might add more questions or comments if necessary
On July 16 2013 02:23 MrTortoise wrote: Ahh cool this is one event i know ill be able to buy a vast variety of drugs at.
rofl the reason why people are doping and gettign away with it is because there is more money in getting around regs than enforcing them. Regs are also reactive
its kind of the same logical problem as piracy.
That's not exactly true. For example, the AFLD (french anti-doping agency) alone has a 10 million euros budget, that's far more than any cycling team can spend in doping. The thing is, it takes time to develop tests for the newest drugs. but it's only a matter of time, and every samples are kept nowadays.
On July 16 2013 02:07 Dybdal wrote: And for those wondering froome refused to release his numbers earlier this year, his watt output, V02/max and such and you only do that for one reason and thats because your going to be posting something thats beyond that at some point and you only do that while doped.
No you do it because terrible pseudo-scientists will take your results as evidence of doping when they aren't.
Dave Brailsford and team Sky are legit. Just like the British Cycling team is legit. All this nonsense has to stop. Sky will hand every single piece of data over that people want, and it still isn't enough. How many urine samples does it take? Follow him around if you like? They've said they would even allow that! We know Brailsford's methods are exceptional and give riders an extra edge - the GB cycling team is evidence of this.
And then there are always exceptional performers in Sport. It's not inconceivable that 10 years on training and equipment has improved enough that the outliers can almost touch pre-doping times. It's a shame Froome may have to wait as many as 10 years to get the credit he deserves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay48ZWkoeHU
Given the fact that many people in cycling are doping, would you say it is possible to beat everyone while not doping? Or do you simply deny that doping is going on in cycling?
Hard to say if Froome is doping, I'm worried he probably is. However Sky does seem to go to great lengths to show they are riding legitimately, they are quite open, have a doping critic with them and seem to bery helpful in making sure it's all fair. But I can't really judge if that's of any value. An other explanation that Sky is doing so well last years could also be better techonology. They train very rigorously on wattage and their riders have the Osymetric gears which theoretically give a fairly big advantage. Perhaps those improvements are the reason the best fair rider of now is doing about as good as the dopers of ten years back..
I hope so but I'm still a bit doubtful. I'm curious to see if soon everyone will be switching to the Osymetric gears though, the results so far seem astonishing.
I wonder if Froome sometimes isn't thinking, perhaps I should go a little less hard, just to avoid so many annoying questions. It is coming to the point that winning the tour by a landslide is being called a doper while winning by a small margin means you're a fantastic competitor
On July 16 2013 02:07 Dybdal wrote: And for those wondering froome refused to release his numbers earlier this year, his watt output, V02/max and such and you only do that for one reason and thats because your going to be posting something thats beyond that at some point and you only do that while doped.
No you do it because terrible pseudo-scientists will take your results as evidence of doping when they aren't.
Dave Brailsford and team Sky are legit. Just like the British Cycling team is legit. All this nonsense has to stop. Sky will hand every single piece of data over that people want, and it still isn't enough. How many urine samples does it take? Follow him around if you like? They've said they would even allow that! We know Brailsford's methods are exceptional and give riders an extra edge - the GB cycling team is evidence of this.
And then there are always exceptional performers in Sport. It's not inconceivable that 10 years on training and equipment has improved enough that the outliers can almost touch pre-doping times. It's a shame Froome may have to wait as many as 10 years to get the credit he deserves.
There are so many lies in this post.
1- How the fuck Leinders is legit? (Rabobanks and Chicken's former doping doctor) 2- Some swimming coach with dodgy history is also legit as well? 3-snip Froome was the worst cyclist in 2010 on the team, now he's beating dopers from 2002-2007 (Pre bio passport era) 4- Equipment does not matter on a climb, you mostly fight against gravity, not wind. 5- So this genius baldhead could not realize that Froome is the real deal until Angliru when your beloved sir couldnt climb at all? How can you explain this mastermind? 6- Froome only got into a wind tunnel this year, how do you explain this amazing scientific training? 7- Last year's sir is sucking big time right now, how can you explain that? (You can mention JTL as well) 8- The most talented rider from 2010, EBH is incapable of doing nothing at the moment. He was the best climber, best time trialist and the best sprinter of the team, suddenly he cant do jack shit. 9- You mention urine samples, I mention Lance and horde of dopers from 90's
I might add more questions or comments if necessary
What is the problem with saying Bailsford has been exceptional with his training methods when you look at his results? Is it because you are saying anything he has done well was down to him pushing drugs on his cyclists?