John-Lee Augustyn, Lars Petter Nordhaug, Morris Possoni, Stephen Cummings, Serge Pauwels, Kjell Carlstrom and Chris Sutton are the other guys in Froome's group. Three of them are out of the pro-peloton already. The others are domestiques. One of them is a Tour winner..
The whole data thing is totally misleading though. I'm again not saying Sky are clean or that they aren't, just trying to balance things a little.
If they are doping, then obviously, they do not want to release the data. The problem is, this means if you don't release data people assume its because it shows dope.
However, if your team is ahead of the rest because you have applied several science methods that other teams have not thought to do, then equally, why on earth should you sacrifice that.
So your options are
1. Win the Tour clean, but get accused of doping.
2. Ride the tour clean, but probably not win the tour as your advantage is gone.
If you look it at that why, its kinda easy to see why you'd rather not give your data too all and sundry. They are happy to give it to doping control people whom should keep it entirely secret unless there is something illegal with it. The teams don't want that though.
Whether Sky are clean or not doesn't really matter to the other teams. They just want to know why Sky are so good so they can do it too.
BritPCMFan wrote:
The whole data thing is totally misleading though. I'm again not saying Sky are clean or that they aren't, just trying to balance things a little.
If they are doping, then obviously, they do not want to release the data. The problem is, this means if you don't release data people assume its because it shows dope.
However, if your team is ahead of the rest because you have applied several science methods that other teams have not thought to do, then equally, why on earth should you sacrifice that.
So your options are
1. Win the Tour clean, but get accused of doping.
2. Ride the tour clean, but probably not win the tour as your advantage is gone.
If you look it at that why, its kinda easy to see why you'd rather not give your data too all and sundry. They are happy to give it to doping control people whom should keep it entirely secret unless there is something illegal with it. The teams don't want that though.
Whether Sky are clean or not doesn't really matter to the other teams. They just want to know why Sky are so good so they can do it too.
The power and blood data won't give away anything of their training methods. Brailsford implies it would just so he can have an excuse, but it's a blatant lie.
HTC did it and their success wasn't affected in the slightest.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
The whole science thing is something I only partially buy. Sure, you have a bigger budget, to spend on developing training and nutrition methods and doing rider analysis, but it's not like other teams don't do that at all:
"Sky is the best!"
>"Only because they're doping"
"No, they're not doping"
>"Then how do you explain their incredible dominance?"
"It's because they use science!"
Whenever I read stuff like this I always start facepalming. It's like 'science' is a magic word to people. Too many times, the word 'science' has been used to make a crooked theory seem straight. Just say that you're being scientific and people will believe even the weirdest things. Scientology comes to mind. Not to mention it makes the other teams in the WT sound retarded for not using that supersmart thing called science.
Every WT team uses scientific analysis to assess and improve rider performance. Sky may have the bigger budget and have different methods they keep hidden but until they become transparent it's impossible to judge to what extent their increased performance is from 'science' and how much actually comes from doping.
The power and blood data won't give away anything of their training methods. Brailsford implies it would just so he can have an excuse, but it's a blatant lie.
HTC did it and their success wasn't affected in the slightest.
Assuming that their methods aren't causing those values to be higher then expected.
I have no doubt the reason why they won't release the data is because we would see it as mutant. That would then lead to questions as to why, which would lead to the demands of the training data anyway, hence there is no point in them doing it, as the data would only be more "proof" of doping.
Like I said, not seriously defending because I can't really believe Froome is real but trying to provide a reasoned non-fanboy otherside XD
EDIT: @Avi: Money isn't everything. It takes one guy to have one bright idea. I believe the sky story is something along the lines of one genius guys though of some system 20 years ago and and collected data others didn't over the last 20 years which they are somehow using to get massive gains.
Edited by BritPCMFan on 17-07-2013 14:07
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Also BMC has even more money and it does not help them to GC domination.Science is only for SKY i suppose?
Well to be fair, BMC just sucks they don't seem to care about their riders and nobody seems happy there...
But I agree with what you said previously, it might be the hippy inside of me
I guess all I'm saying now is: instead of just asking constantly: "are you clean?", we must have an open, transparent system where the question need not to be asked. And until that moment comes, instead of asking Froome that question, find evidence. You won't get any evidence of doping by asking Froome or Contador Unless foam starts pouring out of his mouth when he tries to answer.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Also BMC has even more money and it does not help them to GC domination.Science is only for SKY i suppose?
Well to be fair, BMC just sucks they don't seem to care about their riders and nobody seems happy there...
But I agree with what you said previously, it might be the hippy inside of me
I guess all I'm saying now is: instead of just asking constantly: "are you clean?", we must have an open, transparent system where the question need not to be asked. And until that moment comes, instead of asking Froome that question, find evidence. You won't get any evidence of doping by asking Froome or Contador Unless foam starts pouring out of his mouth when he tries to answer.
Or he starts consuming copious quantities of steak.
samdiatmh wrote:
why don't journos just ask Brailsford to explain the fact that Froome's time up Ventoux was comparable to that of Lance (who by his own admission was on PEDs) and matched into what was decribed as a withering headwind?
Because they will politely smile at you, and you will never get invited to their press conferences again, making your job really hard to do, which in turn leads to your boss replacing you for next years Tour.
And if anyone wants an example of this at work, read Walsh's Seven Deadly Sins.
ShortsNL wrote:
The whole science thing is something I only partially buy. Sure, you have a bigger budget, to spend on developing training and nutrition methods and doing rider analysis, but it's not like other teams don't do that at all:
"Sky is the best!"
>"Only because they're doping"
"No, they're not doping"
>"Then how do you explain their incredible dominance?"
"It's because they use science!"
Whenever I read stuff like this I always start facepalming. It's like 'science' is a magic word to people. Too many times, the word 'science' has been used to make a crooked theory seem straight. Just say that you're being scientific and people will believe even the weirdest things. Scientology comes to mind. Not to mention it makes the other teams in the WT sound retarded for not using that supersmart thing called science.
Every WT team uses scientific analysis to assess and improve rider performance. Sky may have the bigger budget and have different methods they keep hidden but until they become transparent it's impossible to judge to what extent their increased performance is from 'science' and how much actually comes from doping.
Well, if you look at it with a very broad focus, doping is also a science... At the very least, it is Pharmacology, which is indeed a science!
So coming with the argument that Sky has more money to invest in new sciences, we should not forget that every drug starts with a scientifc idea, and gets developed through experiments...
I think all those Sky fanboys think of theses new fancy "scientists" like Nutritionists or windtunnel engineering etc. when ever they use the word science, but completely forget that any drug or chemical company (bayer, gsk, Astra Zeneca to name only a few) are all investing in "sciences" too...
ShortsNL wrote:
The whole science thing is something I only partially buy. Sure, you have a bigger budget, to spend on developing training and nutrition methods and doing rider analysis, but it's not like other teams don't do that at all:
"Sky is the best!"
>"Only because they're doping"
"No, they're not doping"
>"Then how do you explain their incredible dominance?"
"It's because they use science!"
Whenever I read stuff like this I always start facepalming. It's like 'science' is a magic word to people. Too many times, the word 'science' has been used to make a crooked theory seem straight. Just say that you're being scientific and people will believe even the weirdest things. Scientology comes to mind. Not to mention it makes the other teams in the WT sound retarded for not using that supersmart thing called science.
Every WT team uses scientific analysis to assess and improve rider performance. Sky may have the bigger budget and have different methods they keep hidden but until they become transparent it's impossible to judge to what extent their increased performance is from 'science' and how much actually comes from doping.
Well, if you look at it with a very broad focus, doping is also a science... At the very least, it is Pharmacology, which is indeed a science!
So coming with the argument that Sky has more money to invest in new sciences, we should not forget that every drug starts with a scientifc idea, and gets developed through experiments...
I think all those Sky fanboys think of theses new fancy "scientists" like Nutritionists or windtunnel engineering etc. when ever they use the word science, but completely forget that any drug or chemical company (bayer, gsk, Astra Zeneca to name only a few) are all investing in "sciences" too...
Now we get to a whole can of worms though. We start getting to the, what is an unfair advantage debate.
Drugs are certainly part of science, but then not all drugs are PED's, Some drugs are totally legal to take whilst riding. Nearly every sportman in the world takes some kind of vitamin supplement to boost their levels of vitamin C and all that stuff. That's totally legal. Taking something that boosts your blood count is not though.
To be honest, I'm still not entirely clear what defines a PED. Does it only count if its on a list (And hence if Sky had somehow created a "new" drug, technically it would be legal?).
My gut it that is probably most specific then that (and probably has something about anything that directly modifies blood values). But what if a combination of legal substances caused an indirect change on these values. Would that still technically be a breech.
Its like with F1, when teams make a new car modification. Most the time, it is perfectly legal. They don't show it to the teams, because unless the team can identify it, they can't protest it. When they find out what it is, they do at which point one of two things happen.
Everyone goes ok, that is within the rules but is really not meant to be and is a loophole and we are now closing it, so you cannot do this anymore.
Or, everyone goes ok, thats within the rules and we can pretty easily copy that and probably do it better, so its all cool. And at the next race, everyone sports their own version of it.
Obviously in Cycling, the machine is lower % of performance and so the team focus more on the rider, so the modification apply to the rider and not the bike.
In Froome's case, it reminds me of that athlete with the fake leg, who was in the semi-finale of the 100 meter sprint, or 200 meter or 400 meter, don't matter
When someone has a condition, or a leg missing or whatever, it's fair they compensate, but where does it end? If Froome would amputate his legs, we'd get a real FroomeBot, two alumium legs?
Ian Butler wrote:
In Froome's case, it reminds me of that athlete with the fake leg, who was in the semi-finale of the 100 meter sprint, or 200 meter or 400 meter, don't matter
When someone has a condition, or a leg missing or whatever, it's fair they compensate, but where does it end? If Froome would amputate his legs, we'd get a real FroomeBot, two alumium legs?
The normal thing, training and Sky´s knowledge and approach to cycling.
His mountain performance and his pulls for Froome, does show and right now is +30mins on Froome.
But if he goes around and wins a GT i will have to revise that belief because Porte is nothing but a great helper and classic top 5 rider.
I had a theory, albeit far fetched and a bit of a conspiracy theory, about that a few pages back...
Here a summary:
Maybe they order him to drop back, eventhought he still has enough left in the tank, cause it looks les supicious
they don't seem to care about their riders and nobody seems happy there...
