the_hoyle wrote:
Over the last couple of days (since the thread was created) I have reading the comments that people of put, and I thought I would throw in my 2 cent, as the saying goes. (Apologies if any of this is repeating what has been said already. There was a hell of a lot of things said and I can't remember it all )
I have been a big Wiggo fan for years, from his days on the track to his adventures on the road, and have also read his autobiography, so yes my point of view may be a little 'biased', but points of view are like arseholes... everyone has one, whether people like it or not.
Reading his autobiography, he talks about how he wanted to evolve into a road rider after success on the track, and developed that at Garmin, not Sky. Remember, he finished 4th in the Tour when he was with Garmin, doing at first a very similar role to what Froome did at Vuelta last year and the Tour this. Also he dropped his weight down dramatically in order to transform from a track pursuit to a road racer. This development has just continued at Sky. Last year, he won the Dauphiné in a similar way to how he won all the stage races this year. He sets his own rhythm on the climbs, and grinds away whilst others attack. He is not an explosive climber.
He trained in Tenerife because, like Alakagom said, it is isolated, and quiet, and away from the press/media, and the team can train in peace. Also, there is a big arse volcano there, so plenty of training up mountains, and at altitude. If you can find somewhere that is like that, and easily accessible for a big cycling team, then you should forward your suggestions to Sky directly, cos you obviously know something that they don't, and might even get offered a job with them.
And for those that question him losing the weight, but still keeping the power in the TT, yes it is possible. It is all about how you put it on the road, through technique and position. Contador, for example, is a great climber, and an equally good TT rider. If he hadn't buggered up with some dodgy steaks, he would be up there in the Tour now with Wiggo.
So... now on to Froome. Yes, I will admit it is a little suspicious, and a shock to the system. He has gone from average rider/domestique to great climber/domestique in about 12months. And looking from the outside, the doping finger can be pointed at him. But can I bring other riders into this argument who have pulled great results out of nowhere in the cycling world:
1. Peter Velits in 2010 at the Vuelta. He finishes 2nd in the Vuelta, beating Cancellara (who won the World ITT just weeks later, so much be on form at the Vuelta) in the final ITT in the process. Before then, what was his best result, as either a TT rider or a GC rider... 32nd on the Tour in 2009 and a few national u-23 titles before that...?
2. JJ Cobo, at the Vuelta again, last year. Wins the Vuelta, after beginning the Grand Tour as a domestique to Menchov. He climbs like a GC veteran, beating the likes of Wiggins (+ 1,39), Menchov (+ 3'48) and Nibali (+ 4,31). Yet again, for that GC victory, he had a few Top 10 finishes in one week Stage races and 10th at the Vuelta in 2009, but nothing more than that!
3. Sep Vanmarcke out sprinted an on-form Tom Boonen at the Omloop Het Nieuwsblad earlier this year, but then did nothing else at any of the other Cobbled Classics!
4. Boonen attacking 56km from the finish of Paris-Roubaix, and riding away with ease from the others in the group, and winning by over 1,30! When Cancellara did that a couple of seasons ago, he was accused of having a motor on his bike, cos it is not possible for someone to be able to do that in a bike race like the Paris-Roubaix!
5. Jon Tiernan-Locke won the Tour de Méditerranéen, Tour de Haut Var and comes in second at Vuelta a Murcia earlier this year. Yes I know, he is a Continental rider with Endura, but even he had the doping finger pointed at him, like a lot of people are doing now with Froome/Wiggo/Team Sky now, because he was not the favourite to finish high on the GC, and has no previous results that show he is capable of doing it.
6. Lieuwe Westra at the Paris-Nice this year finished in 2nd behind Wiggins, and only just, losing out by 8 seconds! He is in no means a climber and has never been considered as a GC contender at stage race like Paris-Nice, but did anyone question this result... plain and simple: No!
7. Thomas de Gendt finished 3rd in the Giro this year! When has he honestly been considered as a GC rider in a Grand Tour? He has always been known as a rider who gets in the breaks, and does 'a Voeckler' trying to hold on when he is a leader's jersey.
Ok, I know that there are only 7 examples above, but people need to remember that surprise results have happened before from riders who we do not expect to do it, but can we not just congratulate these riders for what they have been able to achieve through dedication, training and generally putting in the hard work? Also, can we also remember the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty'... If they are caught, and are shown to have doped, then ok, I will one hold my hand up, and admit I got it wrong!
But will all those pointing the doping fingers at Sky and Froome admit they were wrong if they are proved to be clean, or will you just say that they are taking something that cannot be detected, or think up more excuses to why they haven't been 'caught' yet?
So that is my point I wanted to say, so feel free to agree, question or pull it apart as much as you want!
* Contador doped. Thanks for helping prove the point.
** Froome didn't go from A to B in 12 months. He did it in the amount of time it took him form hsi last race before the Vuelta to the Vuelta!
1. Velits, not sure, but I'm pretty sure Canc was using it as a form Builder, not on form. Plus, he's a dgood climber and used his break to gain time.
2. He is suspicous for sure. But he also used strategy like Sastre in 2008. It is suspicous though.
3. Vannmarcke out sprinted an off-form Boonen. He was prepping for Ronde, Roubaix. Why would he peak in February?
4. Boonen has always been great at cobbles, and ddn't have much competition since Cancellara wasn't there. But taking a look at the team doctor's history he very well could have dopedr
5. Tiernen Locke is young and imprving, unlike fRoome who randmly becomes great at 27.
6. Look at Paris - Nice. Where do you see a big summit finish. Westra is a time trialist, and that's what mattered.
7. De Gendt wasn't near the big guns in the previous summit finishes. He gained five minutes with an attack, and we knew he could time trial. Look at the Tour de Suisse stage last year, same thing. No, he never had the leader's jersey at the Giro.
*** So there are really no examples for you.
**** Armstorng never failed a test. Do you think he doped?
*****There are several ways to mask dope. Some never get caught due to this, and since no one is gonna rat out anyone else on the team, no veidence might ever come. that doesn't mean they aren't doing it.
Boonen had just won stage at Tour de San Luis and Tour of Qatar, so he wasn't as off-form as you suggest. Ok, I will admit it isn't important race for him, and was building towards RVV and P-R, but surely he would have wanted to carry on from San Luis and Qatar. And he didn't have much competiton? So the likes of Hayman, Flecha, VanSummeren, Boom, Terpstra, Ballan etc aren't competition to him?
Contador did dope yes, and I wasn't denying that... but that was from some dodgy meat during the Tour. But if he hadn't eaten it, and the whole steak thing didn't happen, would you still say that he doped?
And I know there are several ways to mask doping agents etc. I did a 12,000 word dissertation on doping in the tour for my university degree, so I know what is done, and the resorts that riders go to stop being found out.
*No, they aren't the level of competiton that Cancellara would be. He was always better than them, at least slightly.
**No, he took Clebueterol. You actually believe him? Even his fanboys don't.
***Exactly.
To be honest, I believe what CAS found out, and that it came from contaminated meat... and anyway, I am someone who is a cyclist and I use clebueterol... It helps with my asthma!
By the way, is there a reason why you are so for Team Sky doping and seem to have a reply to what everyone suggests or says? Is it because you are a big Armstrong fan who has finally been proven to have done wrong, so you now think that everyone else must have doped as well?
I'm not the only one. Look at the thread.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
the_hoyle wrote:
Over the last couple of days (since the thread was created) I have reading the comments that people of put, and I thought I would throw in my 2 cent, as the saying goes. (Apologies if any of this is repeating what has been said already. There was a hell of a lot of things said and I can't remember it all )
I have been a big Wiggo fan for years, from his days on the track to his adventures on the road, and have also read his autobiography, so yes my point of view may be a little 'biased', but points of view are like arseholes... everyone has one, whether people like it or not.
Reading his autobiography, he talks about how he wanted to evolve into a road rider after success on the track, and developed that at Garmin, not Sky. Remember, he finished 4th in the Tour when he was with Garmin, doing at first a very similar role to what Froome did at Vuelta last year and the Tour this. Also he dropped his weight down dramatically in order to transform from a track pursuit to a road racer. This development has just continued at Sky. Last year, he won the Dauphiné in a similar way to how he won all the stage races this year. He sets his own rhythm on the climbs, and grinds away whilst others attack. He is not an explosive climber.
He trained in Tenerife because, like Alakagom said, it is isolated, and quiet, and away from the press/media, and the team can train in peace. Also, there is a big arse volcano there, so plenty of training up mountains, and at altitude. If you can find somewhere that is like that, and easily accessible for a big cycling team, then you should forward your suggestions to Sky directly, cos you obviously know something that they don't, and might even get offered a job with them.
And for those that question him losing the weight, but still keeping the power in the TT, yes it is possible. It is all about how you put it on the road, through technique and position. Contador, for example, is a great climber, and an equally good TT rider. If he hadn't buggered up with some dodgy steaks, he would be up there in the Tour now with Wiggo.
So... now on to Froome. Yes, I will admit it is a little suspicious, and a shock to the system. He has gone from average rider/domestique to great climber/domestique in about 12months. And looking from the outside, the doping finger can be pointed at him. But can I bring other riders into this argument who have pulled great results out of nowhere in the cycling world:
1. Peter Velits in 2010 at the Vuelta. He finishes 2nd in the Vuelta, beating Cancellara (who won the World ITT just weeks later, so much be on form at the Vuelta) in the final ITT in the process. Before then, what was his best result, as either a TT rider or a GC rider... 32nd on the Tour in 2009 and a few national u-23 titles before that...?
2. JJ Cobo, at the Vuelta again, last year. Wins the Vuelta, after beginning the Grand Tour as a domestique to Menchov. He climbs like a GC veteran, beating the likes of Wiggins (+ 1,39), Menchov (+ 3'48) and Nibali (+ 4,31). Yet again, for that GC victory, he had a few Top 10 finishes in one week Stage races and 10th at the Vuelta in 2009, but nothing more than that!
3. Sep Vanmarcke out sprinted an on-form Tom Boonen at the Omloop Het Nieuwsblad earlier this year, but then did nothing else at any of the other Cobbled Classics!
4. Boonen attacking 56km from the finish of Paris-Roubaix, and riding away with ease from the others in the group, and winning by over 1,30! When Cancellara did that a couple of seasons ago, he was accused of having a motor on his bike, cos it is not possible for someone to be able to do that in a bike race like the Paris-Roubaix!
5. Jon Tiernan-Locke won the Tour de Méditerranéen, Tour de Haut Var and comes in second at Vuelta a Murcia earlier this year. Yes I know, he is a Continental rider with Endura, but even he had the doping finger pointed at him, like a lot of people are doing now with Froome/Wiggo/Team Sky now, because he was not the favourite to finish high on the GC, and has no previous results that show he is capable of doing it.
6. Lieuwe Westra at the Paris-Nice this year finished in 2nd behind Wiggins, and only just, losing out by 8 seconds! He is in no means a climber and has never been considered as a GC contender at stage race like Paris-Nice, but did anyone question this result... plain and simple: No!
7. Thomas de Gendt finished 3rd in the Giro this year! When has he honestly been considered as a GC rider in a Grand Tour? He has always been known as a rider who gets in the breaks, and does 'a Voeckler' trying to hold on when he is a leader's jersey.
Ok, I know that there are only 7 examples above, but people need to remember that surprise results have happened before from riders who we do not expect to do it, but can we not just congratulate these riders for what they have been able to achieve through dedication, training and generally putting in the hard work? Also, can we also remember the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty'... If they are caught, and are shown to have doped, then ok, I will one hold my hand up, and admit I got it wrong!
But will all those pointing the doping fingers at Sky and Froome admit they were wrong if they are proved to be clean, or will you just say that they are taking something that cannot be detected, or think up more excuses to why they haven't been 'caught' yet?
So that is my point I wanted to say, so feel free to agree, question or pull it apart as much as you want!
* Contador doped. Thanks for helping prove the point.
** Froome didn't go from A to B in 12 months. He did it in the amount of time it took him form hsi last race before the Vuelta to the Vuelta!
1. Velits, not sure, but I'm pretty sure Canc was using it as a form Builder, not on form. Plus, he's a dgood climber and used his break to gain time.
2. He is suspicous for sure. But he also used strategy like Sastre in 2008. It is suspicous though.
3. Vannmarcke out sprinted an off-form Boonen. He was prepping for Ronde, Roubaix. Why would he peak in February?
4. Boonen has always been great at cobbles, and ddn't have much competition since Cancellara wasn't there. But taking a look at the team doctor's history he very well could have dopedr
5. Tiernen Locke is young and imprving, unlike fRoome who randmly becomes great at 27.
6. Look at Paris - Nice. Where do you see a big summit finish. Westra is a time trialist, and that's what mattered.
7. De Gendt wasn't near the big guns in the previous summit finishes. He gained five minutes with an attack, and we knew he could time trial. Look at the Tour de Suisse stage last year, same thing. No, he never had the leader's jersey at the Giro.
*** So there are really no examples for you.
**** Armstorng never failed a test. Do you think he doped?
*****There are several ways to mask dope. Some never get caught due to this, and since no one is gonna rat out anyone else on the team, no veidence might ever come. that doesn't mean they aren't doing it.
Boonen had just won stage at Tour de San Luis and Tour of Qatar, so he wasn't as off-form as you suggest. Ok, I will admit it isn't important race for him, and was building towards RVV and P-R, but surely he would have wanted to carry on from San Luis and Qatar. And he didn't have much competiton? So the likes of Hayman, Flecha, VanSummeren, Boom, Terpstra, Ballan etc aren't competition to him?
Contador did dope yes, and I wasn't denying that... but that was from some dodgy meat during the Tour. But if he hadn't eaten it, and the whole steak thing didn't happen, would you still say that he doped?
And I know there are several ways to mask doping agents etc. I did a 12,000 word dissertation on doping in the tour for my university degree, so I know what is done, and the resorts that riders go to stop being found out.
*No, they aren't the level of competiton that Cancellara would be. He was always better than them, at least slightly.
**No, he took Clebueterol. You actually believe him? Even his fanboys don't.
***Exactly.
To be honest, I believe what CAS found out, and that it came from contaminated meat... and anyway, I am someone who is a cyclist and I use clebueterol... It helps with my asthma!
By the way, is there a reason why you are so for Team Sky doping and seem to have a reply to what everyone suggests or says? Is it because you are a big Armstrong fan who has finally been proven to have done wrong, so you now think that everyone else must have doped as well?
I'm not the only one. Look at the thread.
I wasn't saying you are the only one, there are plenty others that are saying it. I just happened to say what I said in a reply to you
**No, they aren't the level of competiton that Cancellara would be. He was always better than them, at least slightly.
Winning by more than 1,30 is a little more than 'better than them, at least slightly' as you put it!
Well, when nobody wants to chase very hard, as apparent by the Turgot group coming back up, and you have the best cobbles guy in the race giving it his all, you are gonna get a 1:30 gap, which FYI isn't that big. I'm not saying he didn't dope at all anyway. But is he less suspicous than Froome? YES.
Edited by baseballlover312 on 11-07-2012 00:02
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
Yes it is a less suspicious than Froome. As I said in my post, it is shocking and surprising what Froome is doing. I am just one of those people who believe in innocent as until proven guilty, and until that happens, I will argue the innocent side of this!
Edited by the_hoyle on 11-07-2012 00:06
the_hoyle wrote:
Yes it is a less suspicious than Froome. As I said in my post, it is shocking and surprising what Froome is doing. I am just one of those people who believe in innocent as until proven guilty, and until that happens, I will argue the innocent side of this!
So you critisize my former Armstrong defense, and then use it?
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
No I don't critise it and then use it. I was the same with Armstrong. I believed for a long while that he did not doped (back of my mind I still hope that he has not doped and it is corrupt evidence that is being brought against him)
You are just not using the same thing with Sky/Froome. You believed Armstrong was innocent (your signature even jokes about it), so why not do the same with Froome?
TheManxMissile wrote:
whose to say he didnt have great training data and asky werent just waiting?
Knowing the numbers and resign prior the Vuelta = saving a few 100k bucks.
or checking to see if he can perform over 3 weeks
2nd in vuelta and currently 3rd in tdf, fairly good value for money
You don´t want to get it. If a team has a really promising rider, they try to resign him as early as possible and not after he did a GT podium. Many teams tried to sign Froome, so why should SKY take the risk of loosing him?
dont know, perhaps they had a reason, surprisingly i dont know what goes on inside pro teams
surly if other teams want him, he has some talent/ability?
(just keeping the several quotes to keep the context going)
So, if you don't know what goes on inside pro teams, don't come up with arguments such as "Froome had great training data and Sky were waiting", when logic dictates exactly the opposite (no team would play with losing a potential GT winner or keeping him but, as felix pointed out, paying a lot more). If other teams want him he obviously has ability - he podiumed the Vuelta after all, but that ability can come to him with doping (not saying that the doped).
the_hoyle wrote:
**No, they aren't the level of competiton that Cancellara would be. He was always better than them, at least slightly.
Winning by more than 1,30 is a little more than 'better than them, at least slightly' as you put it!
Yes, Boonen's performances are quite suspicious as well.. although before this year, he already had palmares that not many riders in history have better (extremely opposed to Froome last year, f.e.). Remember who is OPQS team doctor this year: https://pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread....ost_541922
Brailsford has been the cornerstone of British cycling for over a decade now and has transformed British cycling into a powerhouse, on both road and track, along with the help of the National Lottery funding and Shane Sutton. Team Sky was setup up to be one thing: the best and have a core of the young British talent that Sutton and Brailsford had invested so much time and resources into to make better. Brailsford is a guy that delivers and will strive to do so whatever the cost and will try something new even to make minor gains and has brought in a whole range of staff members to make this a reality, like Sean Yates, Bobby Julich, Tim Kerrison and Dr Steve Peters, who have all come together and improved the team with their coaching and methods. The track team has been good for many years and nobody even thought to question them on doping or the Australians for that matter who are the only country able to challenge Britain on the track at the moment.
Now from moving riders from track to road hasn't been an instant hit. Cavendish couldn't even finish races when he first began road racing, Thomas was only ever a factor in time trials when he first started and said this when the disqualification of fellow Barloworld team member, Moises Duenas, from the Tour de France, Thomas expressed his strong anti-doping opinions on his blog on the BBC 606 website: "..if someone is fraudulent in a business, wouldn’t they be facing a prison term? I don’t see how riders taking drugs to win races and lying to their teams is any different. Bang them up and throw away the key!", he is showing good progression as he is a young talent and is coming into his prime.
As for Wiggins we all know since the Cofidis incident in 2007, he has been a staunch anti-dope campaigner and did say he 'wanted to punch Moreni' after he found out about his doping.
This article reports a lot: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othe...stiny.html
The Telegraph reports that: 'No sooner had Wiggins crossed the Col d’Aubisque in the Pyrenees than the local gendarmes interviewed him and searched his hotel room for drugs.
The ordeal converted Wiggins to the anti-doping crusade.'.
He was also taken under Sutton's wing, which inevitably turned his career around and it was only when he really switched from track/road focus to road focus only did the results begin to come his way.
The same article from the Telegraph again shows how he transformed himself: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othe...stiny.html 'Granted, he needed to lose the upper-body muscle mass from his track days, but he did so in increments, switching to a gluten-free diet before cutting out sugar from his coffee and heading off on training rides without breakfast to force his metabolism to work differently.
The gains in his performance were manifest: where once Wiggins would struggle on the Tour’s Alpine stages, he began in 2009 to move from the rear of the pack to the front group on the most sapping climbs. “Brad is a supreme athlete,” Matt Parker, Wiggins’s coach, explains. “He’s an Olympic champion and world record-holder, so with the power he produces, we knew he could climb well.”
Now onto the breakthrough, the 4th in the Tour de France in 2009, sure it was a surprise to many but Wiggins published all of his blood data and values and an article on CyclingNews reported this: 'Bradley Wiggins' blood profile from the Giro d'Italia and Tour de France may be proof of a cleaner peloton, according to the data released by Team Garmin-Slipstream today. Just days after the conclusion of the Tour, Wiggins' values for the period February 16, 2008 to July 28, 2009 were made public, the British rider's values well below the parameters potentially indicative of any artificial performance-enhancing methods.'
The whole article is here: https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggi...er-peloton and explains a hell of a lot in terms of haematocrit, haemoglobin concentration (which correlates to haematocrit) and the concentration of reticulocytes.
2010 was a bit of an off-year but 2011 was another breakthrough year as he had some good results rounding off with the 3rd at the Vuelta, now if he was in any way doping here surely he wouldn't have cracked on the Angrilu and then ended up losing huge amounts of time to Cobo (who I'm not entirely sure was clean anyway).
Move onto 2012 and he has gained amazing results which has been down to a great winter program created by Sky staff (https://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/...-de-france and the use of the Tenerife base (where they only went with performance analyst and nutrionists not doctors ) and Brailsford being Brailsford and finding new things to get minor gains for his riders.
On another note, the Tenerife base was not down to the riders, but Tim Kerrison (as mentioned in this article: https://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/...-de-france): 'Tenerife, Kerrison explains, provides everything lacking for a Tour contender in Wiggins's home in Lancashire: heat, altitude, 20-mile mountain climbs, and peace and quiet. There is a benefit for athletes merely from being at altitude, which enhances the body's ability to utilise oxygen, but there are other pluses here. "Unlike some high-altitude venues, it's possible to train at sea level, which is less damaging at high intensity; unlike Alpine locations the weather is relatively stable in April and May."
So overall Wiggins has had a natural progression of results and has finally managed to hook everything up this year to gain great results.
As Gilles Le Roch writes in this article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othe...s-say.html
'Many of us in France have known Bradley’s potential for many years and that he would one day be a considerable Tour de France rider. It is no surprise. Even when he signed in 2001 as a young man for FDJ you could see it. Perhaps he didn’t train and eat correctly then but Bradley has always had a great passion for the sport and great heart. And with that heart and his physical attributes he was always going to achieve.'
As for Froome, I haven't been able to do much research into him but Bobby Julich did have this to say on the Team Sky website: (https://www.teamsky.com/profile/0,2729...23,00.html)
“I didn’t bring Chris to the team. They knew about his talent and they had to convince me about his talent. Then working with Chris he definitely convinced me pretty quickly. There was no magic sprinkle dust with getting him to ride better. It was basically working a little bit on his confidence and the way he rode the races because he has already training really well. You can sit back now and just shake your head and say ‘wow. I didn’t see that coming!’
Overall I cannot fathom why Wiggins and co. would even begin to think about doping simply because they would be ruined if they were ever caught and not to mention being disgraced in your own country (and they would probably ask for MBE/OBE back too ). It seems idiotic for a person to give up all that they have worked for their entire life and then never be welcomed in your home country again. Now I know the Olympic bans have been abolished but it still held while they were in place and I know that London 2012 means so much to British athletes that before the abolishment why would they put themselves at risk of a lifetime ban like Millar and then have to miss their own home olympics, it just doesn't seem logical to me. Finally, on the Leinders note he doesn't seem to be that involved in Sky and would seem to be playing second fiddle to Dr Steve Peters (bio here: https://www.teamsky.com/profile/0,2729...47,00.html) in terms of being the main doctor for the team. Yes it is a big deal that he has doping history but I'm not entirely sure that they have that much contact with him or how much contact Brailsford would allow for them to have.
Also, why would Team Sky actively encourage so many people to take up cycling and actively promote it throughout Great Britain if there was doping going on because it would lead to a catastrophic failure of cycling support in Britain and not to mention it would lead to bad publicity for Sky and their owners (who are already involved in phone hacking).
Anyway apologies for the long article, thought I'd do some research and finally weigh in properly on the matter.
"Brailsford is a guy that will strive to win no matter the cost"....
"No one has ever thought of questioning the track team for doping"
Really?
"If he was doping he wouldn't have cracked on Angliru"
To use a recent example, where was Di Gregorio then? Surely if he dopes he would be a top rider in the Tour this year?
"I cannot fathom why Wiggins and co would dope, it would ruin them!"
It ruins everyone, yet people still do it.
"Why would they actively encourage people to ride if doping was going on?"
Because it gets people interested, which means more money for them, and more possible British talents etc. Gets people active, and makes them look good. (I'm sorry but I have never thought that big corporations actually care about you, even if they say they do, they want your money or your support)
I am not saying they 100% doped. Just open your eyes please.
the_hoyle wrote:
No I don't critise it and then use it. I was the same with Armstrong. I believed for a long while that he did not doped (back of my mind I still hope that he has not doped and it is corrupt evidence that is being brought against him)
You are just not using the same thing with Sky/Froome. You believed Armstrong was innocent (your signature even jokes about it), so why not do the same with Froome?
And look how Armstrong ended up. I rest my case.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
'Many of us in France have known Bradley’s potential for many years and that he would one day be a considerable Tour de France rider. It is no surprise. Even when he signed in 2001 as a young man for FDJ you could see it.'
What was the guy on when writing such a thing? Although the guy uses the "envy"/jealous argument on the same 'article', so there's not much you can expect.
I honestly have to say I believe Froome is Doped but the fact is how many have we actually caught? shit we believed Landis when he said he got drunk instead of taking drugs and that is why he was so good LOL.
The truth is no matter the sport, the PED users have and will always be ahead of the testers because NEW tests are only created to stop CURRENT problems.
What if there is a drug that does not need to be taken during the tour and will still improve performance? If this drug is not detectable with current testing methods there is no way to catch the users unless you get a tip before the tour which is very unlikely.
Movistar wrote:
What if there is a drug that does not need to be taken during the tour and will still improve performance? If this drug is not detectable with current testing methods there is no way to catch the users unless you get a tip before the tour which is very unlikely.
Every drug will improve performance even if taken out of the races. The direct drug effects will go away, but you'll have been able to train harder, so your heart will have gotten stronger, same thing for your muscles, etc. That's why there are out of competition tests. But it's right what you say about why the PED users are always ahead of testers.
Do i think the Sky riders doped? That I am not sure of... Is there performance suspicious? Absolutely, particularly Froome in my opinion. As a neutral observer it is very obvious that their results in the Tour and recent races stand out as not normal. However, it could just be a product of great training, determination, and hard work. All we can hope is that the Sky riders have performed well without doping. I guess only time will tell.
golance123 wrote:
However, it could just be a product of great training, determination, and hard work.
Propaganda. Like seen many times in the past.
Others train hard, others are determined, others work hard. Yet they can barely match Sky leaders at all.
Plus how weird is it that only their core GT team has had such drastic improvements ? As someone else pointed out, their other riders still have the same average level they had in their former teams.
)
Please don't delete me!!
Although the guy uses the "envy"/jealous argument on the same 'article', so there's not much you can expect.
