|
Sky Doping/Hate Thread
|
| Rin |
Posted on 26-07-2013 11:28
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2748
Joined: 14-04-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
 Team Bianchi - 2012 Man-Game ProContinental Tour Champions
 |
| |
|
|
| Dee-Jay |
Posted on 10-08-2013 19:56
|
Free Agent
Posts: 129
Joined: 20-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
I can understand you guys hating Sky for how their strategy can stifle races, but how can you criticise Froome for doping when there is zero evidence?
What makes it even crazier is that some of these critics are fans of riders with more evidence against them (cancellara, Contador etc). |
| |
|
|
| Selwink |
Posted on 10-08-2013 19:59
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8856
Joined: 17-05-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
How much 'real' evidence was there for Armstrong? Who was the last rider who dominated so much before Froome? We condemn Froome just as much as Armstrong
Edit: at least I do
Edited by Selwink on 10-08-2013 19:59
|
| |
|
|
| Spilak23 |
Posted on 10-08-2013 20:05
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 22-08-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Dee-Jay wrote:
I can understand you guys hating Sky for how their strategy can stifle races, but how can you criticise Froome for doping when there is zero evidence?
What makes it even crazier is that some of these critics are fans of riders with more evidence against them (cancellara, Contador etc).
What is evidence? A positive test? Climbing times that are too low? Power outputs that are too high? Cooperation with certain doctors?
|
| |
|
|
| lluuiiggii |
Posted on 10-08-2013 20:18
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8542
Joined: 30-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Dee-Jay wrote:
I can understand you guys hating Sky for how their strategy can stifle races, but how can you criticise Froome for doping when there is zero evidence?
What makes it even crazier is that some of these critics are fans of riders with more evidence against them (cancellara, Contador etc).
You didn't come shooting rage in all directions, so I'll go for a serious answer rather than a facepalm or something like that: yes, I agree it's a bit hypocritical that some people say "Froome is a f*cking doper" and then go on to cheer for obvious dopers like Cancellara and Contador. Something like this was discussed a few pages back:
https://pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread....ost_763702
https://pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread....ost_764983
The problem in this case, as I see it, is that people mix their feelings for the riders between what sort of rider he is, personality, etc, with whether he's doping or not. More specifically, the problem is that they do it in different proportions depending on the rider (f.e. Contador's a fun guy to watch, so the fact he's a doper doesn't matter much - Froome's not so fun to see, so crucify him, he's a doper!). And in this point, the fact that Froome has been pretty dominant over everyone and thus made races boring (plus his irrational defenders, which can be seen in this thread), makes people dislike Froome and thus attack him on the doping side, even though he's obviously not the only one doping.
However, I'll have to disagree with the fact that there's 0 evidence. In the strict term of the word, there might be 0 evidence (those you could present on a court, f.e.), but there are so many suspicious links/facts which match pretty well together to give a sensible explanation that it's hard to believe Froome wouldn't be doping. Especially considering that history of cycling has proven these accusations right so many times, in cases where there was considerably less "evidence".
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 24-11-2024 03:37
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 10-08-2013 21:24
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
There's tons of evidence.
What there's 0 of is conclusive proof. Big difference.
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
|
| |
|
|
| Dee-Jay |
Posted on 10-08-2013 21:51
|
Free Agent
Posts: 129
Joined: 20-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Thanks for the replies guys.
I think we in the UK have to be careful about what we believe in - the people of the USA (and much of the world) were taken in by Armstrong's lie. Arguably, Team Sky is even more involved with the British state (British Cycling, successful track cycling, national honours for Wiggins and Brailsford etc) than Armstrong was with the US system
. In fact, following Sky's parent company's recent involvement in newspaper scandals & phone hacking we should maybe trust them even less!
I think one good reason why Sky may be successful is because they've been committed to coaching and riding clean, whilst rivals are having to adjust to new techniques and clean sport. We also saw in the TdF that Movistar were a real force - aren't they committing to Sky style marginal-gains strategies? Once the other teams adapt, the gap will close.
I'm not saying Froome/Sky definitely arent doping, but why should we believe they are? They've just won the tour against riders who are young and still developing (Quintana etc), older and previously associated (allegedly!) with PED use but now riding clean (Contador, Valverde etc) - perhaps the biggest threat Nibali wasnt riding, he may have pushed Froome further. |
| |
|
|
| Dippofix |
Posted on 10-08-2013 22:15
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3905
Joined: 29-01-2013
PCM$: 300.00
|
Just read a bit between pages 30-35 for last years tour, the pro sky arguments haven't changed a bit  For this year, Froomebot.exe has to be doped. At least the secret pro guy has actual arguments, but still pretty weak. I mean, if they are faster because of less attacking shouldn't everybody be fresher and everybody be able to beat Armstrong/Ullrich/Pantani times?
|
| |
|
|
| Selwink |
Posted on 10-08-2013 22:24
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8856
Joined: 17-05-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Dee-Jay wrote:
Thanks for the replies guys.
I think we in the UK have to be careful about what we believe in - the people of the USA (and much of the world) were taken in by Armstrong's lie. Arguably, Team Sky is even more involved with the British state (British Cycling, successful track cycling, national honours for Wiggins and Brailsford etc) than Armstrong was with the US system
. In fact, following Sky's parent company's recent involvement in newspaper scandals & phone hacking we should maybe trust them even less!
I think one good reason why Sky may be successful is because they've been committed to coaching and riding clean, whilst rivals are having to adjust to new techniques and clean sport. We also saw in the TdF that Movistar were a real force - aren't they committing to Sky style marginal-gains strategies? Once the other teams adapt, the gap will close.
I'm not saying Froome/Sky definitely arent doping, but why should we believe they are? They've just won the tour against riders who are young and still developing (Quintana etc), older and previously associated (allegedly!) with PED use but now riding clean (Contador, Valverde etc) - perhaps the biggest threat Nibali wasnt riding, he may have pushed Froome further.
I'm sorry, but being committed to riding clean and signing Leinders as doctor do not correspond together.
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 10-08-2013 22:27
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Dee-Jay wrote:
I think one good reason why Sky may be successful is because they've been committed to coaching and riding clean, whilst rivals are having to adjust to new techniques and clean sport.
Like when they hired Dr. Leinders (doping doctor), tried to hide it, eventually got rid of him to find a replacement that is as doubtful (I forgot his name).
Coaching clean ? Come on...
edit : zabel'd
Edited by Aquarius on 10-08-2013 22:27
|
| |
|
|
| lluuiiggii |
Posted on 10-08-2013 22:30
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8542
Joined: 30-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Aquarius wrote:
Dee-Jay wrote:
I think one good reason why Sky may be successful is because they've been committed to coaching and riding clean, whilst rivals are having to adjust to new techniques and clean sport.
Like when they hired Dr. Leinders (doping doctor), tried to hide it, eventually got rid of him to find a replacement that is as doubtful (I forgot his name).
Coaching clean ? Come on...
edit : zabel'd
Fabio Bartolucci.
And also when they made several promises when the team was created, such as to be as transparent as possible, not to hire any non-british doctors, etc, to quickly start ignoring them one by one.
|
| |
|
|
| cosmic |
Posted on 10-08-2013 22:32
|
Stagiare
Posts: 171
Joined: 28-06-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Putting times and W/kg aside, there's another aspect about Froome as well, which is the fact that he suddenly went from mediocre to world breaker in late 2011. And not only that, he did it supposedly carrying bilharzia, a parasite that actually feasts off red blood cells. Doesn't exactly sound like something that would have positive effects on a person's performance. Especially if you add that he has to go weeks if not months with virtually no training while being treated for it.
And this guy, with all these issues, still puts on performances on par with a souped up Armstrong. And not just for the Tour de France, but he's unbeatable all year long. |
| |
|
|
| Dee-Jay |
Posted on 10-08-2013 23:12
|
Free Agent
Posts: 129
Joined: 20-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
As for Froome's rise from being a nobody to a world beater, how about the fact that it has coincided with the rest of the peloton getting weaker (i.e. less doping). Either he gets better or the others get worse - each of these would produce a relative rise in his performance.
For true doping-induced spikes recently, just see Santambrogio at the Trentino/Giro and Sayar at the Tour of Turkey. Both guys got rumbled. True improvements happen over a few years.
The possible PED records of recent Sky coaches & riders, surely it's difficult to find top guys who were in the sport from 1990 to recently who weren't close to drugs, given that doping was so widespread. It doesnt necessarily mean they brought their practices to Sky.
|
| |
|
|
| cosmic |
Posted on 11-08-2013 00:47
|
Stagiare
Posts: 171
Joined: 28-06-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
So you think it's a more realistic scenario that every other stage race GC rider stopped doping and got significantly worse in august 2011 than Froome starting to dope and improving drastically ? Thing is though, Froome's performances seem to surpass that of Contador/Schleck in the previous years, and Froome was nowhere remotely close to those performances before the Vuelta in 2011. It's quite evident that Froome took an insane leap, compared to every single other rider, prior to the vuelta in 2011.
Edited by cosmic on 11-08-2013 00:53
|
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 11-08-2013 09:26
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7681
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Dee-Jay wrote:
As for Froome's rise from being a nobody to a world beater, how about the fact that it has coincided with the rest of the peloton getting weaker (i.e. less doping). Either he gets better or the others get worse - each of these would produce a relative rise in his performance.
1 For true doping-induced spikes recently, just see Santambrogio at the Trentino/Giro and Sayar at the Tour of Turkey. Both guys got rumbled. True improvements happen over a few years.
2 The possible PED records of recent Sky coaches & riders, surely it's difficult to find top guys who were in the sport from 1990 to recently who weren't close to drugs, given that doping was so widespread. It doesnt necessarily mean they brought their practices to Sky.
1 Froome at the Vuelta 2011 is even more surprising than Santambrogio. He came from being a nobody at the start to one of the best stage racers in the world. That was not a gradual improvement over a few years.
2 But they went and got a doping doctor when they said theywere only going to get doctors from our country and from outside our sport. |
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 11-08-2013 09:26
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Dee-Jay wrote:
As for Froome's rise from being a nobody to a world beater, how about the fact that it has coincided with the rest of the peloton getting weaker (i.e. less doping). Either he gets better or the others get worse - each of these would produce a relative rise in his performance.
But his power outputs during ascents have gone from random to world beater's. That particular to one rider, it doesn't have to do with the rest of the peloton.
Besides, you can't really believe every single rider in the peloton was on heavy doping, and they all decided, altogether, at the very same time, to quit doping, and then poor Froome who had gotten spoiled all along could show his real talent and became the strongest rider in the world...
You're right about doctors and staff, surely there's no "clean ones" around, yet they started their team with a zero-tolerance policy, and managed to find clean ones, which wasn't such an exploit since we're not in the middle of the 1990's any more. When they realized they were a very average team (tells much about marginal gains...) they started hiring, of all the avoidable staff in the world, people known for being amongst the most efficient doping doctor. Surely that's coincidental, and those people didn't bring their practices with them and have nothing to do with Sky becoming the best GT team in the peloton in no time...
I agree it's no conclusive proof. It's just overwhelming evidence. |
| |
|
|
| nacho63 |
Posted on 11-08-2013 12:03
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1944
Joined: 14-03-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
My question is how much can doping improve you? I know drugs will react differently to different riders but can EPO or a lot of it turn just a random cyclist into a world beater?
Edited by nacho63 on 11-08-2013 12:03
|
| |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 11-08-2013 12:21
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
nacho63 wrote:
My question is how much can doping improve you? I know drugs will react differently to different riders but can EPO or a lot of it turn just a random cyclist into a world beater?
This is a great post on the effect of EPO:
https://www.sports...e-who.html
So in amateurs:
We don't wish to go into all the blood analysis and DEXA work done - they measured all kinds of things, but this is a post about performance. And the main finding was that EPO use improved time to exhaustion by an enormous 54% within 4 weeks! Peak Power Output improved by 13% in the first four weeks of the trial. The graph below shows the results:
In pros it is slightly different because you are coming off a very, very high power output already clean:
Another potential problem with the study is the extrapolation of the data to the elite. These subjects were fit, but clearly not elite. It's likely that in the elite, the improvement would be smaller. For example, you could hardly take an Alberto Contador, who might have a Peak Power Output of 500W and bump it up to 565 (13% increase, see graph above) in 4 weeks! Having said that, if you could take this figure and get it to 515W, that would be a very significant increase at the elite level. Similarly, if you could help an elite cyclist improve his average power output by only 5%, that would represent a major step forward. Whether or not EPO would do this is debatable, but given this study, it would seem that 5% is a pretty conservative guess for how much EPO would improve performance...
And:
So while the results still don't fully answer the question of "how much does EPO improve performance?", they do go a long way to showing us that the effect is potentially massive. Even a quarter of this improvement - 15%, would be the difference between a yellow jersey and the autobus during the Tour de France.
Of course most pro riders don't use EPO any more because the test is widely available but there could well be a next-gen EPO on the market (someone else will probably know more about this than I do) that has a similar effect but is not yet detectable.
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 11-08-2013 12:22
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Bjarne Riis : went from average helper to world beater in three seasons
I must be honest and say I've read about a couple of surprising studies lately, which said it had, at best, a placebo effect.
Now, most studies generally said 8 to 13 % improvement (depends on the people, the doses, etc.). That's more or less the difference between what's believed to be humanly possible and what has been achieved by riders whose EPO usage is not a secret any more.
Given the difference in strength (ability) between pros, that'd be enough to turn a rider finishing a bit ahead of the grupetto into a podium contender.
edit : Zabel'd again. Must definitely work my sprints...
Edited by Aquarius on 11-08-2013 12:23
|
| |
|
|
| nacho63 |
Posted on 11-08-2013 15:26
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1944
Joined: 14-03-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
Cheers guys |
| |
|
