chris froome

Lumen

desertcircus wrote: »

In other words: the extrapolations we're seeing are giving us an idea of Froome's LPT...

What's LPT? Local property tax?

edit: oh, presumably lactate threshold power. There are several. Maybe FTP?

walshb

Sky have released data that they don't have to. Didn't they release all data to WADA? Why should they release the data to the public? Ridiculous!

mcgratheoin

walshb wrote: »

Why should they release the data to the public?

Because they said that they were going to be the most transparent and open team ever, they weren't going to hire ex-dopers, they weren't going to use cycling doctors and they weren't going to seek TUEs for riders. If they want to regain the public trust that they lost by reneging on their promises, this would be a good way to go about it.

gordongekko

walshb wrote: »

Sky have released data that they don't have to. Didn't they release all data to WADA? Why should they release the data to the public? Ridiculous!

Why would Wada want it. They are hardly going to say that a person is deffo not doping. That's not their job.

Leroy42

walshb wrote: »

Why should they release the data to the public? Ridiculous!

As Kimmage said on Newstalk, what is the point of winning the TdF if nobody believes in it?

In an ideal world, you are right and Sky should not have to give out this information. They should also not be subject to the constant stream of loaded questions calling into question their credibility.

However, this is pro-cycling, and pro-cycling after an era where doping was not only not tackled it seems that it was actually facilitated by those in charge.

So they are coming from a position where the sport needs to reestablish credibility, you don't do that by saying that people should just believe you even if the evidence to their eyes is reminisant of previous times.

walshb

Leroy42 wrote: »

As Kimmage said on Newstalk, what is the point of winning the TdF if nobody believes in it?

I.

And what numbers are believable? When will you satisfy people? The numbers themselves are not an indicator of doping or not doping. That is the point that has been made.

Kimmage is obsessed with doping and cheating.

walshb

gordongekko wrote: »

Why would Wada want it. They are hardly going to say that a person is deffo not doping. That's not their job.

I don't know, but from reading I see that data was made available to WADA.

There is no obligation or requirement for Sky to release data just because someone wants it.

walshb

Leroy42 wrote: »

if the evidence to their eyes is reminisant of previous times.

How so? What is so glaringly obvious with Froome that points to previous times?

mcgratheoin

walshb wrote: »

There is no obligation or requirement for Sky to release data just because someone wants it.

Nobody has said they're obliged to release data. They can quite happily skip along with the status quo but they can't complain about non-UK journalists and fans being sceptical given cycling's history.

lennymc

didnt they release their data to l'equipe who got a respected guru type person to analyse it? His results iirc where that the data was fine and didnt indicate anything untoward.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/news/froome-reiterates-claims-hes-racing-clean-at-the-tour_295236

walshb

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Nobody has said they're obliged to release data. They can quite happily skip along with the status quo but they can't complain about non-UK journalists and fans being sceptical given cycling's history.

Of course they can complain, just like the journalists can be skeptical. It's a free world. It's a non story. Froome has done nothing wrong here, and nor have Sky. No matter what is or is not released you will have the doubters and naysayers and haters.

mcgratheoin

walshb wrote: »

Of course they can complain, just like the journalists can be skeptical. It's a free world. It's a non story. Froome has done nothing wrong here, and nor have Sky. No matter what is or is not released you will have the doubters and naysayers and haters.

Absence of wrong does not equal right.

Brian?

walshb wrote: »

I don't know, but from reading I see that data was made available to WADA.

There is no obligation or requirement for Sky to release data just because someone wants it.

No obligation, except the one they made themselves. They promised transparency and failed to deliver.

walshb

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Absence of wrong does not equal right.

So, what are you saying? The same tired line that not being guilty doesn't make you innocent? It's a no win situation with some people. No matter what Sky and Froome do they cannot win with some people.

walshb

Brian? wrote: »

No obligation, except the one they made themselves. They promised transparency and failed to deliver.

How transparent did they promise to be? How many hoops did they say they would jump through?

terrydel

jackstaff wrote: »

Maybe it's a Kenyan thing .
He has the same body frame as a Kenyan long distance runner.

Anyway I seen him win in Oman just there pulled away on the last climb after been riding for 4hrs, wins the race, then jumps back on the bike to go higher up the mountain to cool down

He grew up there but both his parents are English as far as Im aware, so he probably has as much Kenyan genes as you or I.

Brian?

walshb wrote: »

How transparent did they promise to be? How many hoops did they say they would jump through?

They promised "unprecedented levels of transparancey". Yet they didn't join the MPCCC and refused repeatedly to release data on TUEs and power.

Leroy42

walshb wrote: »

And what numbers are believable? When will you satisfy people? The numbers themselves are not an indicator of doping or not doping. That is the point that has been made.

Kimmage is obsessed with doping and cheating.

I agree that the numbers themselves will not prove or disprove anything. But withholding the numbers, or argueing that the calculated numbers are way off only to come out later and give the data that prove the calculated numbers materially correct gives the impression of lack of transparency.

You will satisfy people when they believe what you are saying. Right now, most people don't because of the history of the sport. That of course of not Sky's fault but that is where it is.

walshb wrote: »

How so? What is so glaringly obvious with Froome that points to previous times?

There is nothing glaringly obvious, but then LA didn't cycle around with a syringe in his arm either. Its the way the team dominates the race, domestiques are now better than GC contenders from other teams. The way they are prepared to bend the rules to suit themselves, (Froomes gel on Alpe), the massive improvement in their star man without any real explanation (for 'he had a mystery virus which is now cured', read 'he lost all his weight but kept his muscle'). The times he is doing are comparable to times done by LA, Pantani etc.

Nothing really wrong with any of this, but again it is the impression it gives and must be looked at in the light of the LA era and Postal. You can't simply expect people to forget that.

Undercover Elephant

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Absence of wrong does not equal right.

Yes it does.

Absence of evidence of wrong isn't necessarily evidence of right, unless you've looked in the places you expect to find wrong and not found it.

mcgratheoin

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

Yes it does.

Absence of evidence of wrong isn't necessarily evidence of right, unless you've looked in the places you expect to find wrong and not found it.

Let me rephrase then, there's a huge grey area between illegal behaviour and optimal behaviour. It is in this murky area that Sky (and all other teams) operate, having promised much much more.

e.g. Dave Brailsford said in 2009

I've specified that I want British doctors who haven't worked in professional cycling before.

he then hired Geert Leinders. They also began life with a statement that they wouldn't seek TUEs for riders in competition, but they have frequently done so, and then not been clear in numerous interviews about whether a rider took something, or has a TUE, or has asthma etc. etc.

BadCharlie

Leroy42 wrote: »

The times he is doing are comparable to times done by LA, Pantani etc.

I think if you look at all todays sports across all fields. You will find the athlete's of today are faster, stronger.

Swimming we have phelps "The best Ever"
Sprinting we have Bolt "The best Ever"
Bikes we have Froom "I dont think his the best but lots of people having jibs at the guy"
Boxing we have Taylor "The best Ever in Laddies"
Soccer we have Ronaldo/Messi. "The best Ever"
Triathlete's we have Brownlee brothers.
Tenis we have Roger "The best Ever"

And this list goes on & on & on but i don't have all day to list them.

walshb

Why stop at Pantani and LA as regards times. LeMond rode the fastest ever TT in 1989. I am sure the average speed has been beaten, but only recently. Was LeMond on the juice as well? Lance competed at his peak 10-15 years ago, and Pantani was several years before that.

Are we to assume that all the athletes who ran faster than 9.79 in the 100 meters are cheats because Ben ran that time whilst on steroids?

mcgratheoin

walshb wrote: »

Lance competed at his peak 10-15 years ago, and Pantani was several years before that.

What's that got to do with it? There has been only one tour with no dopers in the top 10 since the Festina scandal so it's not like doping in cycling is a decades old problem.

walshb

mcgratheoin wrote: »

What's that got to do with it? There has been only one tour with no dopers in the top 10 since the Festina scandal so it's not like doping in cycling is a decades old problem.

It's got to do with athletes getting better and faster and stronger through progression/equipment/diet and overall desire to improve. Froome is riding comparable times to men from 10-15-18 years ago. Both those men were cheaters. I don't find it odd that 10-15-18 years later that the earth cannot produce clean cyclists who can be as good as dirty cyclists from years gone by.

mcgratheoin

walshb wrote: »

I don't find it odd that 10-15-18 years later that the earth cannot produce clean cyclists who can be as good as dirty cyclists from years gone by.

neither do I - (I assume you mean "can" though)

I think you're seriously underestimating the effect of doping (and I don't think that performances have caught up the dirty performances overall). To get an idea of how much doping can distort a sport I'd suggest you have a quick glance at the women's track and field records and tell me whether you think clean performances have caught up to doped performances there, closing in on 30 years from the collapse of the eastern bloc.
Of the 17 women's track and field events at the 1988 Olympics, 12 of the world records at the time still stand, 27 years later. Of the other 5, two were set by Wang Junxia in China, Dibaba only recently broke Qu Yunxia's 1500m record and the East German 4x100m record had lasted 27 years until the USA broke it in London. Some of those records may never be broken - nobody has got within 20 seconds of the 10K record in 25 years!

Leroy42

walshb wrote: »

It's got to do with athletes getting better and faster and stronger through progression/equipment/diet and overall desire to improve. Froome is riding comparable times to men from 10-15-18 years ago. Both those men were cheaters. I don't find it odd that 10-15-18 years later that the earth cannot produce clean cyclists who can be as good as dirty cyclists from years gone by.

I'm not saying its odd, I'm saying that the comparison raises legitimate questions based on the fact that those times from 10-15 years ago are known to be based on doping.

I have said on other threads that the times of themselves mean nothing, I would expect times to get faster due to better equipment, better more focused training etc.

But you are missing the point. The reason why so many questions are being asked is that people have been burnt already in the past, quite recent past, and those are not quickly forgotten. You are argueing a valid point, except for the fact that pro cycling has little to no credibility.

We got all the same reasons for LA as we get for Froome (better equipment, more focused training) and given the total lack of credibility that cycling has created for itself it is hardly surprising that people question what is now shown to us as the new reality.

"Yeah, we know all that LA was complete BS, we know we actively helped cover it up, but this time its different, this time this guy really is a hero."

Its unfair on Froome, its unfair on Sky, but that is the way the sport has let itself go.

walshb

mcgratheoin wrote: »

neither do I - (I assume you mean "can" though)

I think you're seriously underestimating the effect of doping (and I don't think that performances have caught up the dirty performances overall). To get an idea of how much doping can distort a sport I'd suggest you have a quick glance at the women's track and field records and tell me whether you think clean performances have caught up to doped performances there, closing in on 30 years from the collapse of the eastern bloc.
Of the 17 women's track and field events at the 1988 Olympics, 12 of the world records at the time still stand, 27 years later. Of the other 5, two were set by Wang Junxia in China, Dibaba only recently broke Qu Yunxia's 1500m record and the East German 4x100m record had lasted 27 years until the USA broke it in London. Some of those records may never be broken - nobody has got within 20 seconds of the 10K record in 25 years!

Thanks for the correction

I am not underestimating doping and its effectiveness. But, I also happen to believe that the earth can produce clean humans that can do extraordinary things. Example: I am close to 100 percent that Bolt is a genuine and honest and decent and clean athlete who happens to be extraordinarily fast.

I also believe Bekele to be clean and EL G and many other track athletes. Is Sonia's 2 K WR clean? I think it is. It's years old! Yes, it's not all that targeted but you can bet people still do try and beat it.

In relation to Froome. Yes, I do believe we have a good guy here. I really do.

mcgratheoin

Leroy42 wrote: »

We got all the same reasons for LA as we get for Froome (better equipment, more focused training)

Miraculous disease recovery...

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its unfair on Froome, its unfair on Sky, but that is the way the sport has let itself go.

Nail on the head. While I would hazard a guess that most people here do believe Froome to be clean, we've done this dance before and far from "Fool me once.." we're on to iteration 4 or 5 by now and we're mostly fed up of it. Cycling has forfeited it's right to presumed innocence in the court of public opinion a long time ago and they are doing nothing to try to win back that belief.

walshb

Leroy42 wrote: »

I'm not saying its odd, I'm saying that the comparison raises legitimate questions based on the fact that those times from 10-15 years ago are known to be based on doping.

I have said on other threads that the times of themselves mean nothing, I would expect times to get faster due to better equipment, better more focused training etc.

But you are missing the point. The reason why so many questions are being asked is that people have been burnt already in the past, quite recent past, and those are not quickly forgotten. You are argueing a valid point, except for the fact that pro cycling has little to no credibility.

We got all the same reasons for LA as we get for Froome (better equipment, more focused training) and given the total lack of credibility that cycling has created for itself it is hardly surprising that people question what is now shown to us as the new reality.

"Yeah, we know all that LA was complete BS, we know we actively helped cover it up, but this time its different, this time this guy really is a hero."

Its unfair on Froome, its unfair on Sky, but that is the way the sport has let itself go.

So, it really boils down to the sport's reputation. It has a really bad rep. That then is equating to no man ever being given the real kudos he deserves for succeeding. It's a sad world, but I understand the suspicion. I do not get the way many are so adamant that someone is a cheater with F all evidence, apart from the lame "LA was a cheat, and this guy and that guy were cheats."

There is a section of society who won't believe anything, and label any of the best as cheats. It's unfortunate.

mcgratheoin

walshb wrote: »

In relation to Froome. Yes, I do believe we have a good guy here. I really do.

You're kinda missing the point here though - this is not just about Froome, it's about the structures that are in place throughout cycling that can still facilitate doping - the secrecy, the omerta, the unapologetic ex-dopers running teams, the ex-dopers prevalent at every level of the sport, the closing of ranks to any questioning, the aggressive responses and the repetition of everything we've seen and heard before. The anger towards SKY, that seems excessive when compared to that directed at Astana for example, is a backlash at having had the wool pulled over our eyes again by another team that promised much and delivered none of it. There's a very good post on the cycling news forum that sums up the anger here