I'm going to go against the stream here, but was Froome's result yesterday really so unrealistic?
Sky standed out not because they were exceptionally well, but because the other favourites were excpetionally bad.
Froome takes 1'33" on Gesink, 2'04" on Adam Yates and Rolland, 2'22" on Gallopin, 3'09" on Valls, 3'19" on Pauwels and Barguill, 5'38" on Voeckler etc. Those were expected results. Pinot and Bardet obviously peaked too early, Van Garderen possibly as well (he never was that good of a climber anyways), Nibali has been out of form the whole year, Contador (and Uran) is still tired from the Giro, Rodriguez is getting old etc.
Froome was simply in form while his competitors weren't. Perhaps Quintana maybe, who's peaking on the third week and will take back some time of Froome. But I just think he's overrated and people expect too much from him, people act like he's the new Bahamontes or Ocaña or something.
fosforgasXIII wrote:
I'm going to go against the stream here, but was Froome's result yesterday really so unrealistic?
Sky standed out not because they were exceptionally well, but because the other favourites were excpetionally bad.
Froome takes 1'33" on Gesink, 2'04" on Adam Yates and Rolland, 2'22" on Gallopin, 3'09" on Valls, 3'19" on Pauwels and Barguill, 5'38" on Voeckler etc. Those were expected results. Pinot and Bardet obviously peaked too early, Van Garderen possibly as well (he never was that good of a climber anyways), Nibali has been out of form the whole year, Contador (and Uran) is still tired from the Giro, Rodriguez is getting old etc.
Froome was simply in form while his competitors weren't. Perhaps Quintana maybe, who's peaking on the third week and will take back some time of Froome. But I just think he's overrated and people expect too much from him, people act like he's the new Bahamontes or Ocaña or something.
He had a 6.1 W/kg for the 45 minute climb which is exceptionally high. He is either amazingly in form, or doping...
fosforgasXIII wrote:
I'm going to go against the stream here, but was Froome's result yesterday really so unrealistic?
Sky standed out not because they were exceptionally well, but because the other favourites were excpetionally bad.
Froome takes 1'33" on Gesink, 2'04" on Adam Yates and Rolland, 2'22" on Gallopin, 3'09" on Valls, 3'19" on Pauwels and Barguill, 5'38" on Voeckler etc. Those were expected results. Pinot and Bardet obviously peaked too early, Van Garderen possibly as well (he never was that good of a climber anyways), Nibali has been out of form the whole year, Contador (and Uran) is still tired from the Giro, Rodriguez is getting old etc.
Froome was simply in form while his competitors weren't. Perhaps Quintana maybe, who's peaking on the third week and will take back some time of Froome. But I just think he's overrated and people expect too much from him, people act like he's the new Bahamontes or Ocaña or something.
He had a 6.1 W/kg for the 45 minute climb which is exceptionally high. He is either amazingly in form, or doping...
Well if it's that simple, than the others finishing high must've been doping as well. It's not like Froome finished five minutes ahead of everybody.
I also find it weird how only armchair scientist can somehow realise that 6.1 W/kg is unrealistic and can conclude he's doped, and somehow the official anti-doping agencies can't. Either the numbers are wrong, the numbers are not relevant to checking for doping or the anti-doping agencies are corrupt/incompetent.
fosforgasXIII wrote:
I'm going to go against the stream here, but was Froome's result yesterday really so unrealistic?
Sky standed out not because they were exceptionally well, but because the other favourites were excpetionally bad.
Froome takes 1'33" on Gesink, 2'04" on Adam Yates and Rolland, 2'22" on Gallopin, 3'09" on Valls, 3'19" on Pauwels and Barguill, 5'38" on Voeckler etc. Those were expected results. Pinot and Bardet obviously peaked too early, Van Garderen possibly as well (he never was that good of a climber anyways), Nibali has been out of form the whole year, Contador (and Uran) is still tired from the Giro, Rodriguez is getting old etc.
Froome was simply in form while his competitors weren't. Perhaps Quintana maybe, who's peaking on the third week and will take back some time of Froome. But I just think he's overrated and people expect too much from him, people act like he's the new Bahamontes or Ocaña or something.
He had a 6.1 W/kg for the 45 minute climb which is exceptionally high. He is either amazingly in form, or doping...
Well if it's that simple, than the others finishing high must've been doping as well. It's not like Froome finished five minutes ahead of everybody.
I also find it weird how only armchair scientist can somehow realise that 6.1 W/kg is unrealistic and can conclude he's doped, and somehow the official anti-doping agencies can't. Either the numbers are wrong, the numbers are not relevant to checking for doping or the anti-doping agencies are corrupt/incompetent.
I dont think you understand how any of this works. The anti-doping agencies have to abide by the agreed upon protocol they cant just go we know you are doping you are banned. No matter if they know or not, it just doesnt work that way.
Btw; these calculations can differ a lot because there are a lot of unknowns. Some else made the calculations as well and came with a result of 5.72 W/kg.
Movistar wrote:
I dont think you understand how any of this works. The anti-doping agencies have to abide by the agreed upon protocol they cant just go we know you are doping you are banned. No matter if they know or not, it just doesnt work that way.
Well at least some who still respect "innocense until proven guilty".
Movistar wrote:
I dont think you understand how any of this works. The anti-doping agencies have to abide by the agreed upon protocol they cant just go we know you are doping you are banned. No matter if they know or not, it just doesnt work that way.
Well at least some who still respect "Innocent until proven guilty".
So you want the doping authority to do things they cant do and they when they dont do them you yell about innocent until proven guilty?
You can be as biased as you want and cheer for you whoever you want but dont act like you are putting people in their place about doping.
fosforgasXIII wrote:
Btw; these calculations can differ a lot because there are a lot of unknowns. Some else made the calculations as well and came with a result of 5.72 W/kg.
fosforgasXIII wrote:[/b
Well if it's that simple, than the others finishing high must've been doping as well. It's not like Froome finished five minutes ahead of everybody.
I also find it weird how only armchair scientist can somehow realise that 6.1 W/kg is unrealistic and can conclude he's doped, and somehow the official anti-doping agencies can't. Either the numbers are wrong, the numbers are not relevant to checking for doping or the anti-doping agencies are corrupt/incompetent.
On the first bolded part, yes the other contenders are certainly doping. On the second bolded part, the anti doping agencies are always going to be behind the game when it comes to catching doping in sports, it really comes down to money as they are underfunded to start with and if athletes and managers are willing to pay people like Michele Ferrari (who is a good scientist) and Jose Ibarguren Taus (Current Ettix "Doctor" ) big money to find away around the system then they are always going to be able to beat anti doping agencies.
Hells 500 Crew and 6 x Everester
Don Rd Launching Place
Melbourne Hill Rd Warrandyte
Colby Drive Belgrave South
William Rd The Patch
David Hill Rd Monbulk
Lakeside Drive Emerald https://www.everesting.cc/hall-of-fame/
I don't know how anyone can look at Sky and say that they are without a doubt doping, and I understand why it can't be said that they are without a doubt clean.
I think that they think they are not cheating. I also think that they are doing everything they can to give their riders an advantage over their rivals, and that could easily slip over the line that divides "doping" and "not doping", wherever that line is drawn.
Angus Osborne wrote:
I don't know how anyone can look at Sky and say that they are without a doubt doping, and I understand why it can't be said that they are without a doubt clean.
I think that they think they are not cheating. I also think that they are doing everything they can to give their riders an advantage over their rivals, and that could easily slip over the line that divides "doping" and "not doping", wherever that line is drawn.
The line is very clearly drawn so anyone who slips over the line is doing it on purpose, with all the money behind them they shouldn't make any mistakes. The way I look at it is that no the evidence is not clear cut but in most cases has it ever been clear cut? Look at race speeds, climbing times, power outputs, all season peaks. All of this has been creeping up again in the last few seasons so unless the peloton has found some out of this world new nutrition programs that they haven't been sharing then the peloton have perfected things like micro-dosing. The new clean generation of cycling unfortunately a myth
Hells 500 Crew and 6 x Everester
Don Rd Launching Place
Melbourne Hill Rd Warrandyte
Colby Drive Belgrave South
William Rd The Patch
David Hill Rd Monbulk
Lakeside Drive Emerald https://www.everesting.cc/hall-of-fame/
Naxela wrote:
I'm more worried about Froome as he never achived anything besides some minor African races until he attended his first big race which was the Vuelta and took the podium (No doubt he would've won if he didn't have to drag Wiggins around).
I don't trust Froome so not particularly looking to defend him, but that isn't really completely true. For a start, it was his 4th GT, and there are hints at a climbing ability with things like 32nd in Giro, 34th in Fleche Wallone, 3rd on the Mont Faron Tour de Med stage and Top 20 in that year's Romandie. Nothing to suggest he was about to do a Podium GT, sure, but it's not like he went straight from Africa to 2nd at the Vuelta!
Naxela wrote:
I'm more worried about Froome as he never achived anything besides some minor African races until he attended his first big race which was the Vuelta and took the podium (No doubt he would've won if he didn't have to drag Wiggins around).
I don't trust Froome so not particularly looking to defend him, but that isn't really completely true. For a start, it was his 4th GT, and there are hints at a climbing ability with things like 32nd in Giro, 34th in Fleche Wallone, 3rd on the Mont Faron Tour de Med stage and Top 20 in that year's Romandie. Nothing to suggest he was about to do a Podium GT, sure, but it's not like he went straight from Africa to 2nd at the Vuelta!
Meanwhile and additionally:
Naxela wrote:
Gor some reason i'm not questioning if Wiggins is clean or not, as he have had a pretty normal curve in development as a climber.
Wiggins went from the purest TTer you can find to a TdF podium in less than a year.
I know it's an easier transition than it looks like with weight loss etc etc facilitating the switch of focus, but I'd definitely not say Wiggins had a more natural development curve as a climber than Froome, at least if you're purely looking at the continuous increase in results (which is my definition of a "development curve" ).
Angus Osborne wrote:
I don't know how anyone can look at Sky and say that they are without a doubt doping, and I understand why it can't be said that they are without a doubt clean.
I think that they think they are not cheating. I also think that they are doing everything they can to give their riders an advantage over their rivals, and that could easily slip over the line that divides "doping" and "not doping", wherever that line is drawn.
The line is very clearly drawn so anyone who slips over the line is doing it on purpose, with all the money behind them they shouldn't make any mistakes. The way I look at it is that no the evidence is not clear cut but in most cases has it ever been clear cut? Look at race speeds, climbing times, power outputs, all season peaks. All of this has been creeping up again in the last few seasons so unless the peloton has found some out of this world new nutrition programs that they haven't been sharing then the peloton have perfected things like micro-dosing. The new clean generation of cycling unfortunately a myth
Race speeds, climbing times, power outputs... Is it really not possible that sports evolve. (i.e. Swimming/Athletics, always going on with breaking records) The material evolves, the training methods evolve, and so on. In the end it is possible to see that and getting up with the old doped times. I am not saying it really is, because I believe in all kind of sports there is doping, but atleast we could live in that dreamworld and just enjoy it.
Angus Osborne wrote:
I don't know how anyone can look at Sky and say that they are without a doubt doping, and I understand why it can't be said that they are without a doubt clean.
I think that they think they are not cheating. I also think that they are doing everything they can to give their riders an advantage over their rivals, and that could easily slip over the line that divides "doping" and "not doping", wherever that line is drawn.
When you get a shot before every day of racing you know you are doping.
We know how sports work that is how we know they are doing drugs.
You dont suddenly become as good as proven drug users without doing drugs. Why people want to cover their eyes is beyond me. I love watching the sport but hate the fact people love trying to prove their bullshit hero isnt doping when its obvious they are.
Angus Osborne wrote:
I don't know how anyone can look at Sky and say that they are without a doubt doping, and I understand why it can't be said that they are without a doubt clean.
I think that they think they are not cheating. I also think that they are doing everything they can to give their riders an advantage over their rivals, and that could easily slip over the line that divides "doping" and "not doping", wherever that line is drawn.
The line is very clearly drawn so anyone who slips over the line is doing it on purpose, with all the money behind them they shouldn't make any mistakes. The way I look at it is that no the evidence is not clear cut but in most cases has it ever been clear cut? Look at race speeds, climbing times, power outputs, all season peaks. All of this has been creeping up again in the last few seasons so unless the peloton has found some out of this world new nutrition programs that they haven't been sharing then the peloton have perfected things like micro-dosing. The new clean generation of cycling unfortunately a myth
Race speeds, climbing times, power outputs... Is it really not possible that sports evolve. (i.e. Swimming/Athletics, always going on with breaking records) The material evolves, the training methods evolve, and so on. In the end it is possible to see that and getting up with the old doped times. I am not saying it really is, because I believe in all kind of sports there is doping, but atleast we could live in that dreamworld and just enjoy it.
Swimming evolved because of a suit that was banned. Some records were reset. People still break them but not like anything we saw for a few years. Thanks for the bullshit example though.
What other athletics have records continued to be broken in? Sure some are but the ones in actually tested sports dont seem to be broken as fast as ones with drug problems.
Angus Osborne wrote:
I don't know how anyone can look at Sky and say that they are without a doubt doping, and I understand why it can't be said that they are without a doubt clean.
I think that they think they are not cheating. I also think that they are doing everything they can to give their riders an advantage over their rivals, and that could easily slip over the line that divides "doping" and "not doping", wherever that line is drawn.
When you get a shot before every day of racing you know you are doping.
We know how sports work that is how we know they are doing drugs.
You dont suddenly become as good as proven drug users without doing drugs. Why people want to cover their eyes is beyond me. I love watching the sport but hate the fact people love trying to prove their bullshit hero isnt doping when its obvious they are.
Yes, but there's blood transfusions doping and then the concoctions that all riders have doping (the ones that Taylor Phinney hated https://www.velona...sport.aspx )
we dont know how far (if at all) Sky have crossed the line. i very much doubt that if Sky are doping, they are doing it to the same extent that US Postal and the other eras doped because of the changed rules. they cant do it to the same extent anymore.
Angus Osborne wrote:
I don't know how anyone can look at Sky and say that they are without a doubt doping, and I understand why it can't be said that they are without a doubt clean.
I think that they think they are not cheating. I also think that they are doing everything they can to give their riders an advantage over their rivals, and that could easily slip over the line that divides "doping" and "not doping", wherever that line is drawn.
When you get a shot before every day of racing you know you are doping.
We know how sports work that is how we know they are doing drugs.
You dont suddenly become as good as proven drug users without doing drugs. Why people want to cover their eyes is beyond me. I love watching the sport but hate the fact people love trying to prove their bullshit hero isnt doping when its obvious they are.
Yes, but there's blood transfusions doping and then the concoctions that all riders have doping (the ones that Taylor Phinney hated https://www.velona...sport.aspx )
we dont know how far (if at all) Sky have crossed the line. i very much doubt that if Sky are doping, they are doing it to the same extent that US Postal and the other eras doped because of the changed rules. they cant do it to the same extent anymore.
Of course not but what is your point? They take the line as far as they can just like the dopers of previous did. Just because you use a better product doesnt change anything.
Angus Osborne wrote:
I don't know how anyone can look at Sky and say that they are without a doubt doping, and I understand why it can't be said that they are without a doubt clean.
I think that they think they are not cheating. I also think that they are doing everything they can to give their riders an advantage over their rivals, and that could easily slip over the line that divides "doping" and "not doping", wherever that line is drawn.
When you get a shot before every day of racing you know you are doping.
We know how sports work that is how we know they are doing drugs.
You dont suddenly become as good as proven drug users without doing drugs. Why people want to cover their eyes is beyond me. I love watching the sport but hate the fact people love trying to prove their bullshit hero isnt doping when its obvious they are.
Yes, but there's blood transfusions doping and then the concoctions that all riders have doping (the ones that Taylor Phinney hated https://www.velona...sport.aspx )
we dont know how far (if at all) Sky have crossed the line. i very much doubt that if Sky are doping, they are doing it to the same extent that US Postal and the other eras doped because of the changed rules. they cant do it to the same extent anymore.
Of course not but what is your point? They take the line as far as they can just like the dopers of previous did. Just because you use a better product doesnt change anything.
I'm saying the line isn't clear cut. maybe they are doing illegal stuff. maybe they are just more efficient at training and legal suppliments than their competitors.
Just because they are as good as proven drug users doesnt mean they are doping either (though it isn't helping their argument).
you say they take the line as far as they can. how do we know how far they have gone? unless there's proof, we can't be 100% sure they are doping. Granted, in all likelihood they are, but i'm not willing to tarnish a rider's achievements without proof. at least wait till there's more than circumstancial evidence to say they are as doped as Armstrong et al
