# Is Paul Kimmage calling out Froome and Sky here



## Beeankey (15 Jul 2013)

on his twitter or just shoot stirring as he has been right in the past with Cheatstrong?

*Paul Kimmage ‏@PaulKimmage 7m*Froome on Ventoux? Call me Dumbo: "I saw a peanut stand, heard a rubber band, I saw a needle that winked its eye. But I think I will have.....seen everything when I see an elephant fly."

I think if Sky are doping it will be the biggest story in sporting history in Britain. They have been so anti doping but I know Kimmage has a good nose for smelling bullshit but its not that hard tbh. For example Froome won Stage 8 in a time which was only 12 seconds slower than LA did on the same leg a few years ago. Kimmage is looking at the times and drawing his conclusions based on this obviously.

Look at Contador (Doper) Valverde (Doper) Schleck (possible doper in the past) yesterday. They weren't able to sustain the pace they used to in the past and looked pretty ordinary. Quintana is incredible but he used a massive amount of energy to get away from Porte who was pacing the lead group and protecting froome is his wheel until the last 7km. It's been said that SKY are using the track training of improving the power on 25min power outputs as that where most gains can be made and that's where Froome has developed the incredible 25min peak power unlike Armstrong that was putting out that kind of power for the full hour of a big alpine climb (EPO being the secret ingredient to that gain) . Who knows about Froome and SKY only time will tell but I personally think that it's all the dopers coming off the gear and SKY's track background and scientific approach to training that has seen the shift.


----------



## TheJDog (15 Jul 2013)

With them getting double figure %age drag improvements from new technology, I'm not totally surprised the times are like they are.

Personally don't think SKY could be doping. I think Brailsford has publicly invested too much vocally in their being a clean team.


----------



## Noodley (15 Jul 2013)

Firstly, Kimmage was right re Armstrong. Secondly, he is not always right. Thirdly, he needs to speak to his mate Walsh. Fourthly, it should be "when I see an elephant flyyyyyyyyyy!" Get with it Polo.


----------



## Beebo (15 Jul 2013)

TheJDog said:


> Personally don't think SKY could be doping. I think Brailsford has publicly invested too much vocally in their being a clean team.


 
I agree, *SIR* David Brailsford has too much to lose if his team was caught doping. He has an Olympic track and road race legacy that is second to none.
In the UK we are far harder on cheats than the US. His knighthood would be stripped and he would have no future in the sport.


----------



## User269 (15 Jul 2013)

Kimmage & Walsh don't believe in Santa Claus either, and our lives are the worse for it.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (15 Jul 2013)

I don't think Sky are using any currently banned substances


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (15 Jul 2013)

Noodley said:


> Firstly, Kimmage was right re Armstrong. Secondly, he is not always right. Thirdly, he needs to speak to his mate Walsh. Fourthly, it should be "when I see an elephant flyyyyyyyyyy!" Get with it Polo.


Fifthly, Froome is more giraffe than elephant.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (15 Jul 2013)

Beeankey said:


> For example Froome won Stage 8 in a time which was only 12 seconds slower than LA did on the same leg a few years ago. Kimmage is looking at the times and drawing his conclusions based on this obviously.


 
You can't blame Kimmage for looking at times and asking questions IMHO. When you consider that Froome beat LA's 2005 time up Ventoux by 25 seconds during a time when LA was known to be on the juice it really makes Froomes 2013 climb an exceptionally impressive performance.

Sky are not cleaner than clean, as such they are not beyond question. They have had riders retire which has been implicated in previous doping scandals and associations with questionable members of staff which they later let go.
Encouraging your staff to lie and sign a bit of paper if they want to keep their job does not solve the problems of the past.

Ultimately the UCI have done very little to change things, what action have they taken since the USADA report? - What makes you think they have changed dramatically?
The financial rewards are the same, why is another big team or top rider not capable of telling fibs?

The issue IMHO is with the UCI, they are the ones which need to save the sport, the questions at this time are right and healthy


----------



## byegad (15 Jul 2013)

TheJDog said:


> With them getting double figure %age drag improvements from new technology, I'm not totally surprised the times are like they are.
> 
> Personally don't think SKY could be doping. I think Brailsford has publicly invested too much vocally in their being a clean team.


 
Yes they've well and truly nailed their colours to the mast on dope that IF they are telling lies they are going to crash and burn. However a certain Mr L was equally vociferous about drugs and we now know he was doping.

My *guess *is they are clean. Only time will tell.


----------



## albion (15 Jul 2013)

The problem with Kimmel logic is that there is always the next in line.
I almost quite got the impression that those who had spoken out probably got hounded from both sides.

Stage times surely depend on wind factors and on who does the donkey work.
Froome was quite obviously far stronger than Wiggins last year so this year not doing all that donkey work he wins easy.
I bet he did less work than Quintana in that winning stage.


----------



## rich p (15 Jul 2013)

Listen, Kimmage has been dubious of Sky and Wiggins for years now. This is nothing new. Since there's not a shred of evidence, unlike in the Armstrong campaign, you pays your money and takes your choice. I'm not sure personally we need any more hot air on this one but feel free to carry on!
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/paul-kimmage-suspicious-of-sky.120802/


----------



## Herzog (15 Jul 2013)

Mr Haematocrit said:


> I don't think Sky are using any currently banned substances


 

Which leaves a lot of wiggle room...


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (15 Jul 2013)

Herzog said:


> Which leaves a lot of wiggle room...


 

For me and Sky


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Jul 2013)

Kimmage has turned in to a sad old geezer with nothing to say other than 'I'm not happy'.

I'm more worried about Froome paying his tax. And the thought that he represents the new paradigm - six foot one, eleven stone, legs like sticks. Cuddles, Nibbles, Valverde and company carry no fat, but they have body types that are something like the normal.


----------



## oldroadman (16 Jul 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> Kimmage has turned in to a sad old geezer with nothing to say other than 'I'm not happy'.
> 
> I'm more worried about Froome paying his tax. And the thought that he represents the new paradigm - six foot one, eleven stone, legs like sticks. Cuddles, Nibbles, Valverde and company carry no fat, but they have body types that are something like the normal.


 
They may appear to be "close to normal" but virtually nobody in the pro peloton has what you migt call "normal" body shape, except possibly one or two of the bigger sprinters. It is all about power/weigt, and carrying too much body fat simply means you won't climb well. By which I am not referring to specialist climbers, but the majority, who put into any high level amateur race would smash the mojority uphill just going at their normal speed. A professional athlete by definition is in the area of genetic exception, and in cycling terms a GC rider is thin, light, and powerful. As are virtually all the other less gifted riders who work away for the "heads". There is no point in comparing "normal" with "exceptional", two different types. Evens, Nibali, Valverde are all thin and if you ever saw them with no kit on, you would see exactly why they are classy winners. Less than 3% body fat is actually very bad, but there are some riders who hover between 5-9%, whichst the absolute top climbers may be 3-5%. People with "normal" bodies would think they were thin at 15%!!


----------



## tigger (16 Jul 2013)

Kimmage has done some great work to raise awareness and expose doping in cycling. However, he's now turned into an aggressive fanatic who is incapable of taking a rational, objective view on performance. The Alex Jones of cycling! I couldn't be less interested in anything he has to say...


----------



## PK99 (16 Jul 2013)




----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (16 Jul 2013)

PK99 said:


>


Lancey boys out of season training or Froome wearing red. What's the comparison meant to be?


----------



## Paul99 (16 Jul 2013)

Mr Haematocrit said:


> I don't think Sky are using any currently banned substances


You have posted this before and I don't see how it can be relevant? If the UCI decided to put energy gels or bananas or old spice aftershave on the banned substances list next year does it make the previous years users of these substances dirty cheats? If it isn't banned yet it can't be cheating by using it can it?

Of course if you are referring to some newly created, top secret synthetic performance enhancer then I agree with your statement.


----------



## Herzog (16 Jul 2013)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Lancey boys out of season training or Froome wearing red. What's the comparison meant to be?


 

Before and after photos of the 30 bananas a day diet...


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (16 Jul 2013)

Paul99 said:


> You have posted this before and I don't see how it can be relevant? If the UCI decided to put energy gels or bananas or old spice aftershave on the banned substances list next year does it make the previous years users of these substances dirty cheats? If it isn't banned yet it can't be cheating by using it can it?
> 
> Of course if you are referring to some newly created, top secret synthetic performance enhancer then I agree with your statement.


 

It is mean't to state my belief that Sky comply with the rules as they currently stand, but to suggest also that I personally believe they have found gains from something not yet banned. They act holier and more righteous regarding accusations of doping than any other team bar USPS.
Yet they have had riders like Michael Barry and medical staff like Geert Linders, along with people like Paul Yates who had links to Armstrong and the legendary 'motorman' of which there are pictures of him with his arm round him.

Sky have a zero tolerance of doping, great, but what exactly constitutes doping to them? Is it a anti-doping rule violation? Is it grounds for suspicion? Or are they simply relying on what the rider/member of staff tells them.


----------



## Hont (16 Jul 2013)

Sean Yates.


----------



## jdtate101 (16 Jul 2013)

I hate it when people post climb times as proof of doping. Climbs are totally subjective and each is an individual effort that cannot be compared. For example Lance on Ventoux, he could have been going reasonably slowly (for a pro cyclist) up until the point he attacked and bridged across to Pantani, whilst the final section was fast the overall would be much slower. On the other hand Pete and Riche were going full bore from about 1/4 of the way up and then Chris attacked over the top, and he was only 25secs faster overall. The two cannot be compared as it's down to pacing, wind direction/strength, temperature etc etc etc...

In short too many variables to directly compare performances. Now TT's on the other hand I think can be considered closely matched for comparison, as it's a 100% individual effort over a set distance (even better if the conditions are the same, ie on the same day/time).....

I don't believe SKY are doping, and it was interesting to note that Mick Rodgers interviewed today said he thinks Froome has only improved 1 or 2% on last yr...not outside the realms of normal human development through training.


----------



## Paulus (16 Jul 2013)

Please remember that Kimmage is a journalist who has to write articles and has a book to sell, even though it has been out for years. He is still asking the same questions from years ago. He is on a personal mission.


----------



## albion (16 Jul 2013)

jdtate101 said:


> I hate it when people post climb times as proof of doping. Climbs are totally subjective and each is an individual effort that cannot be compared.


Funnily enough it was some of the silly mud that made me think Armstrong possibly innocent, even with the testimonies.


On this one there is zero so it breaks that social premise of innocence.
Thus I guess it is simply tribalism.


----------



## BJH (16 Jul 2013)

This really is getting stupid.

Based on past history, PK can make little jibes like this forever on and will just be able to claim that the future will see him proved correct. 

He might also join in and say that Froome and Brailsford are part of he reptillians controlling the human race via the queen etc as a foment Coventry City goalkeeper keeps telling us. He uses the same argument that we just haven't seen the truth yet.

There is a vey big difference between Froome, Wiggins, Brailsford and LA. Their words are very clear and unequivocal which cannot be compared to LA with his everything but defence. 

Dave Brailsford has built an incredible reputation for British cycling and I couldn't see him doing something that would put his legacy at risk in this way.

Kimmage needs to either sh1t or get off the pot on this, but at the moment he's doing a load of groans and wind but nothing solid.


----------



## jdtate101 (16 Jul 2013)

Paulus said:


> Please remember that Kimmage is a journalist who has to write articles and has a book to sell, even though it has been out for years. He is still asking the same questions from years ago. He is on a personal mission.


 

Exactly right. He's in love with the sound of his own voice, and all his comment are being made to make himself 'relevant', ie worth talking to and making money. My impression of PK is that he's now a one trick pony, who can't move on from the past and is still very bitter SKY kicked him to the curb over embedding with them.


----------



## festival (17 Jul 2013)

Mr Haematocrit said:


> I don't think Sky are using any currently banned substances


 

Hit the nail on the head, that is probably the closest anyone is going to get for now!


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (17 Jul 2013)

That's a tricky one imo. If Sky were to be using substances or supplements which increase performance, but are not banned, then would it be an unfair advantage? Just because cycling's governing body hasn't even heard of it let alone banned it doesn't really change its effect on rider performance?

They do like to push the "marginal gains" mantra. They do seem to be looking for every "legal" edge. 

For this reason one could assume Sky use enhancing formulas that are not used by the rest of the Peloton. It would though be perfectly legal and could even be in capsule form or simply mixing marmalade and jam together. Point being is that strictly speaking they will not be breaking any rules by doing so, at least not until the "legal" performance enhancer becomes illegal - if it ever did. With this perspective in mind then Sky would have done nothing wrong. 

It's a question that will split opinion: If Sky discovered that adding aspirin to Kool aid gave Chris Froome a 10% increase in performance over 30 minutes should they A) not use it and B) let anyone else in on the secret?? 

This of course is also assuming that they are partaking in any of the above practises. Nothing but speculation just now.


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Jul 2013)

Paul99 said:


> You have posted this before and I don't see how it can be relevant? If the UCI decided to put energy gels or bananas or old spice aftershave on the banned substances list next year does it make the previous years users of these substances dirty cheats? If it isn't banned yet it can't be cheating by using it can it?
> 
> Of course if you are referring to some newly created, top secret synthetic performance enhancer then I agree with your statement.



Therein lies another issue.....

The have been a number of cases where drugs have been abused before being banned, or a synthetic used that has he same effect, but is suitably different to avoid e ban.

If you know where to look there are drugs out here that can be used to enhance performance, but not break the rules


Take  Glutaminewhich has an anabolic effect and is listed as a supplement.


----------



## smutchin (17 Jul 2013)

Mr Haematocrit said:


> It is mean't to state my belief that Sky comply with the rules as they currently stand, but to suggest also that I personally believe they have found gains from something not yet banned.


 
The implication being that whatever it is they're doing/using will be banned at some point in the future...

Presumably it'll be banned sooner rather than later if WADA take up Brailsford on his offer to let them scrutinise Sky's training methods, hmm?

I don't buy it. A theoretically undetectable new form of a known class of PED would already be covered by current rules (viz CERA), therefore it would have to be some completely new class of drug Sky are dabbling with, and for no one to know about it, they'd have to be in balls deep with some seriously shady labs ("The New Balco" levels of shadiness), and I just don't believe that's how Sky work.

Comments like yours are, to borrow someone else's excellent phrase, nothing more than "smear masquerading as reasonable suspicion".


----------



## smutchin (17 Jul 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Take  Glutaminewhich has an anabolic effect and is listed as a supplement.


 
I used to take glutamine on the advice of the chap in the local health food shop (a former endurance athlete himself), but then I did some reading up on it and decided it was a waste of money. Its usefulness as a supplement is greatly overstated - mainly by the people selling it.

Likewise glucosamine.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (17 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> The implication being that whatever it is they're doing/using will be banned at some point in the future...


 
I have no idea if what they are doing will be banned at some point, but I believe that they are using every avenue to get marginal gains. I find that Brailsford chooses his words very carefully in certain situations and acts surprised when it suits.



> Presumably it'll be banned sooner rather than later if WADA take up Brailsford on his offer to let them scrutinise Sky's training methods, hmm?


 
I hope WADA do accept the offer.



> I don't buy it. A theoretically undetectable new form of a known class of PED would already be covered by current rules (viz CERA), therefore it would have to be some completely new class of drug Sky are dabbling with, and for no one to know about it, they'd have to be in balls deep with some seriously shady labs ("The New Balco" levels of shadiness), and I just don't believe that's how Sky work.


 
I genuinely hope your right but there are signs that the doping game is moving on and changing. Over the past six months a number of riders have tested positive for GW1516, a synthetic substance which works on a muscle building gene. It persuades the body to send more oxygen to the muscles by using up fat rather than carbohydrate or protein. Athletes can employ it to train harder and increase their endurance, the classic job of a modern performance enhancing drug. GW1516 has not been certified for human consumption and WADA has taken the rare step of warning against its dangers such is the increase in its use. There are other drugs increasing in popularity such as 'Aicar' pronounced Ay-Car.
A quick Google can find these products ranked very highly in terms of sales, someone must be taking them. If riders have been caught using them like Miguel Ubeto from Lampre-Merida why not consider the possibility that others may be doing them or something totally different.



> Comments like yours are, to borrow someone else's excellent phrase, nothing more than "smear masquerading as reasonable suspicion".


 
I would not consider my comments to be smear masquerading as suspicion, reasonable or otherwise. The UCI have done nothing at all to address the issues cycling has faced. The UCI have done less than little to ensure or even suggest that the sport is now clean, why should I believe that it is.
A team totally and completely dominating the sport rightly causes questions to be asked.... If someone want to believe this is the tour of renew all (again) then that's up to them.


----------



## smutchin (17 Jul 2013)

Mr Haematocrit said:


> I have no idea if what they are doing will be banned at some point


 
Weasel words. Your choice of phrasing clearly implies that you think they will.



> I genuinely hope your right but there are signs that the doping game is moving on and changing... [snip blather cut-and-pasted from the internet about GW1516 and Aicar pronounced Ay-car]


 
Hence my comments about what Sky would have to be doing in order to comply with current doping regulations.

Do you think Sky are using GW1516, Aicar or Telmisartan?



> A quick Google can find these products ranked very highly in terms of sales, someone must be taking them. If riders have been caught using them like Miguel Ubeto from Lampre-Merida why not consider the possibility that others may be doing them or something totally different.


 
You're asking me to consider the possibility that Brailsford is administering untested products to his riders? Seriously?



> I would not consider my comments to be smear masquerading as suspicion, reasonable or otherwise.


 
And yet that is exactly what they are.



> The UCI have done nothing at all to address the issues cycling has faced. The UCI have done less than little to ensure or even suggest that the sport is now clean, why should I believe that it is.


 
Yeah, the UCI are useless. That has no bearing on whether or not Sky are clean.


----------



## VamP (17 Jul 2013)

Mr Haematocrit said:


> I genuinely hope your right but there are signs that the doping game is moving on and changing. Over the past six months a number of riders have tested positive for GW1516, a synthetic substance which works on a muscle building gene. It persuades the body to send more oxygen to the muscles by using up fat rather than carbohydrate or protein. Athletes can employ it to train harder and increase their endurance, the classic job of a modern performance enhancing drug. GW1516 has not been certified for human consumption and WADA has taken the rare step of warning against its dangers such is the increase in its use. There are other drugs increasing in popularity such as 'Aicar' pronounced Ay-Car.


 
This is cut and paste lazy argumentation. Are you saying SKY are using substances not yet banned, or are you saying they are using GW1516 and AICAR? Which are banned.

Being disillusioned with pro cycling doesn't mean you get away with lazy slurs.


----------



## oldroadman (17 Jul 2013)

Is this thread actually any more than wild speculation and/or pseudo science from people who know little or nothing? Fuelled by "Mr Pananoia Kimmage" who is still getting some of his living from pointless wild speculations. Time for know-nothing troll posters who are making vague accusations to do exactly what PK should do, Put up or shut up.


----------



## smutchin (17 Jul 2013)

I would at least like to hear something that relies on less skewed logic than "some riders have been caught using GW1516 so we have to consider the possibility that Sky might be cheats".

Balance of probability says there are dopers in the peloton at the current Tour de France, but there is absolutely no evidence for pointing the finger at Sky specifically.


----------



## VamP (17 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> I would at least like to hear something that relies on less skewed logic than "some riders have been caught using GW1516 so we have to consider the possibility that Sky might be cheats using performance enhancing products that are not yet banned".


 
FTFY
Even more skewed IMHO.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (17 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> Weasel words. Your choice of phrasing clearly implies that you do.


 
If that is how you wish to interpret my views, that's fine... To state that I believe they are doing something which will be banned in the future would require inside information of the team actions or WADA neither of which I have



> Do you think Sky are using GW1517, Aicar or Telmisartan?


No idea, I'm not a team insider.



> You're asking me to consider the possibility that Brailsford is administering untested products to his riders? Seriously?


I'm not suggesting Brailsford is personally administering anything, the team employed staff such as Geert Linders at a time when questions were being asked about him, which is an interesting choice to make for a team publicly presenting such a stance.



> Yeah, the UCI are useless. That has no bearing on whether or not Sky are clean.


I think it has bearings on if the sport is clean, short out of competition bans and other actions are not really a deterrent. As long as the rewards are greater than the perceived risk of getting caught I fear this situation will not change, a ban needs to be a minimum of two or three years for the first offence and life for the second imho
At this time I do not believe the sport has changed dramatically and I can understand why Kim age is questioning such great performances... I hope Kimmage is wrong, I hope I'm wrong, I really do.


----------



## smutchin (17 Jul 2013)

Mr Haematocrit said:


> I hope Kimmage is wrong, I hope I'm wrong, I really do.


 
Funny. I get the sense that, like Kimmage, you'd love to be proved right.


----------



## benb (17 Jul 2013)

The most toxic and corrosive influence from Armstrong's traitorous legacy is that an extraordinary performance from Froome is viewed with suspicion rather than being applauded.

Allegations need to be supported by some evidence, otherwise they are just distasteful innuendo.


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Jul 2013)

The power output of a rider is one of the things that has been quoted as an indicator of doping.

It is inaccurate as it depends on the model used to calculate the power output, where the power was applied, support from the team and a whole range of other factors so is not reliable.

However it is one of the "indicators" that is now being used to assess riders by some.

Froome's output has been calculated by Antoine Vayer, one of the advocates of the power output / doping link as as between 6.3 - 6.5 w/kg, and compares this with Armstrong's doped performance of 6.7 w/kg

Is this "evidence" or distasteful innuendo?

Brailsford has continually dismissed this method of assessment for doping as has Froome and they have support form many others in this, however in the modern cynical world the sport is now in, but it will be a political tool as well.

Team Sky has had the data on power outputs for a long time, and there have been many attempts to extract this data from Braislford and Team Sky, but these have been turned down on confidentiality and that it wpuld be misunderstood (as is the case above?)

The efforts to get this data released have now been at least partially successful in that Sky are now offering the data to the WADA to establish the credibility of the rides.


----------



## Flying Dodo (17 Jul 2013)

benb said:


> The most toxic and corrosive influence from Armstrong's traitorous legacy is that an extraordinary performance from Froome is viewed with suspicion rather than being applauded.
> 
> Allegations need to be supported by some evidence, otherwise they are just distasteful innuendo.


 
Exactly. Kimmage is probably just sore that David Walsh got invited to stay with Sky and not him. I saw Walsh on ITV4's TdF programme and he was fairly clear that based on everything he'd seen, Sky were clean.

"Believe in better" looks like a true slogan from Sky (although that's probably the only thing I'd trust about Murdoch).


----------



## smutchin (17 Jul 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Froome's output has been calculated by Antoine Vayer, one of the advocates of the power output / doping link as as between 6.3 - 6.5 w/kg, and compares this with Armstrong's doped performance of 6.7 w/kg
> 
> Is this "evidence" or distasteful innuendo?


 
Reporting Antoine Vayer's estimates of Froome's power output is one thing.

Some amateur pundit on the internet using Vayer's figures as the basis for a personal theory is another thing altogether.

Vayer may or may not be accurate with his estimates. But even if he is accurate, they aren't the whole story.


----------



## T4tomo (17 Jul 2013)

a) I thought Froome was marginaly slower than LA's drugged fueled record, but whether its marginally faster or marginally slower matters not, just becasue froomes time is similar to that of a master doper does not make froome a doper.
b) they had a favourable tailwind for much of Sundays climb
c) Froome spent the first half of the climb tucked in behind Porte being paced up.
d) Froome is built like a proper natural climber, LA was naturally a rubbish climber - look at his pre cancer / drugs TdF record and climbing ability and look at his build - that is not the physique of a natural climber. If they were on a level playing field Froome would be miles ahead of LA's time. Teh fact that LA was pumped full of EPO meant his time is similar.
e) training today, particualry in sky, is far maore scientific than the 90's /2000's when get some miles in your legs and then race was pretty much the order of the day.


----------



## foyster (17 Jul 2013)

Mr Haematocrit said:


> It is mean't to state my belief that Sky comply with the rules as they currently stand, but to suggest also that I personally believe they have found gains from something not yet banned. They act holier and more righteous regarding accusations of doping than any other team bar USPS.
> Yet they have had riders like Michael Barry and medical staff like Geert Linders, along with people like Paul Yates who had links to Armstrong and the legendary 'motorman' of which there are pictures of him with his arm round him.
> 
> Sky have a zero tolerance of doping, great, but what exactly constitutes doping to them? Is it a anti-doping rule violation? Is it grounds for suspicion? Or are they simply relying on what the rider/member of staff tells them.



Bring back doping this tour is like watching paint dry


----------



## User169 (17 Jul 2013)

foyster said:


> Bring back doping this tour is like watching paint dry


 
Dude - which tour are you watching?


----------



## Crackle (17 Jul 2013)

foyster said:


> Bring back doping this tour is like watching paint dry


That's sarcasm right?


----------



## smutchin (17 Jul 2013)

What a first post! I look forward to future contributions from foyster.


----------



## raindog (17 Jul 2013)

foyster said:


> Bring back doping this tour is like watching paint dry


----------



## Dave Davenport (17 Jul 2013)

Whilst I wouldn't actually bet my house on Sky being clean my thoughts are;
1. Sky's riders are very closely monitored and it would be virtually impossible for any of them to use PED's without DB getting a sniff of it.
2. I believe there is no way that DB would jeopardise his standing with UK sport and the country in general. Whilst he's obviously driven to produce the best athletes and teams possible I don't believe it's win at all costs. 

Kimmage reminds me of a guy I know who was a pro in Belgium in the late 90's to early 00's but never really 'made it'. Whilst his assertion that it was because he refused to dope does have some merit, the way he constantly bangs on about 'the whole peloton still being on the juice' and 'Wiggins has been on a sophisticated program since he was 16' just make him sound like a bitter nobber.


----------



## Andrew_P (17 Jul 2013)

Have to say that I really, really want to believe that Sky are racing clean this year and last but there is just this nagging itch about it. Having said that Froome would have to be plonker there was no need for him spin out that attack in terms of the GC, so who knows. For sure it would be awful for the sport and Brailsford if they were at it.

Like I say it is just an itch, an itch probably caused by LA et al.


----------



## foyster (17 Jul 2013)

Are you on drugs


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (17 Jul 2013)

In a slightly off-topic calling out of Sky, the French minister of sport (and youth and public education and associative affairs and safety standards for pencil erasers), Valérie Fourneyron has called for all power details and biological passport details for the yellow jersey to be made public from now until the end of the tour. A recommendation impossible for Sky to accept but bound to increase widespread French scepticism. Idiote! It reminds me of the ''magic wheels'' episode at the Olympics. I'm surprised she didn't call for full public disclosure for all 19 cyclists ahead of the highest placed Français.

Oops, linky for francophones


----------



## albion (17 Jul 2013)

Seems to be that that guy whose name I won't mention is the message bearer.
Avid readers get to quote him.


----------



## raindog (18 Jul 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Idiote!


the readers commenting under the article agree with you!


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (18 Jul 2013)

raindog said:


> the readers commenting under the article agree with you!


She's still an idiot in my book but it does seem to have forced Sky's hand a little - http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Actualites/Sky-joue-la-transparence/386574

DB agrees to disclose data of 18 Froome climbs since the Vuelta 2011 to Fred Grappe, considered an expert in such matters, and FG's initial conclusion is that his power data over the last 2 years is consistent with Froome's profile, and he goes on to say that the exceptional power he can harness over a 5 minute period gives him a certain advantage over other riders.

The full analysis is available on the subscriber online version of L'Équipe apparently.


----------



## raindog (18 Jul 2013)

thanks for that link dm - I'm not too keen on l'Equipe, because of the rabid youtube style comments after the articles, but sometimes it's useful for stuff like this.


----------



## smutchin (18 Jul 2013)

"@richardmoore73: BREAKING: Those who believe in Sky think that releasing Froome's data to L'Equipe a good thing. Those who don't, think it wasn't."

lol


----------



## smutchin (18 Jul 2013)

The twitter exchanges between @stephenfarrand, @inrng and @cyclingfans this morning are worth reading for an understanding of why the numbers game is an interesting waste of time.


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Jul 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> She's still an idiot in my book but it does seem to have forced Sky's hand a little - http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Actualites/Sky-joue-la-transparence/386574
> 
> DB agrees to disclose data of 18 Froome climbs since the Vuelta 2011 to Fred Grappe, considered an expert in such matters, and FG's initial conclusion is that his power data over the last 2 years is consistent with Froome's profile, and he goes on to say that the exceptional power he can harness over a 5 minute period gives him a certain advantage over other riders.
> 
> The full analysis is available on the subscriber online version of L'Équipe apparently.



As raised before, this is political in some ways

How much of this was simply a way of forcing the data out into the open against Brailsford's wishes?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (18 Jul 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> As raised before, this is political in some ways
> 
> How much of this was simply a way of forcing the data out into the open against Brailsford's wishes?


Ah, but it's not in the open, as far as I understand it. It's in the hands of Fred Grappe, who just happens to play an important role in FDJ...


----------



## Crackle (18 Jul 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> She's still an idiot in my book but it does seem to have forced Sky's hand a little - http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Actualites/Sky-joue-la-transparence/386574
> 
> DB agrees to disclose data of 18 Froome climbs since the Vuelta 2011 to Fred Grappe, considered an expert in such matters, and FG's initial conclusion is that his power data over the last 2 years is consistent with Froome's profile, and he goes on to say that the exceptional power he can harness over a 5 minute period gives him a certain advantage over other riders.
> 
> The full analysis is available on the subscriber online version of L'Équipe apparently.


 
I need to find a link to that paywall article now. Science of Sport chaps have produced another good article

http://www.sportsscientists.com/

I never had too many doubts about Sky or Froome but what were there are fading. Of course I've been around long enough to never be off my guard but....


----------



## thom (18 Jul 2013)

T4tomo said:


> a) I thought Froome was marginaly slower than LA's drugged fueled record, but whether its marginally faster or marginally slower matters not, just becasue froomes time is similar to that of a master doper does not make froome a doper.
> b) they had a favourable tailwind for much of Sundays climb
> c) Froome spent the first half of the climb tucked in behind Porte being paced up.
> d) Froome is built like a proper natural climber, LA was naturally a rubbish climber - look at his pre cancer / drugs TdF record and climbing ability and look at his build - that is not the physique of a natural climber. If they were on a level playing field Froome would be miles ahead of LA's time. Teh fact that LA was pumped full of EPO meant his time is similar.
> e) training today, particualry in sky, is far maore scientific than the 90's /2000's when get some miles in your legs and then race was pretty much the order of the day.


f) The road has been resurfaced as well I believe - less rolling resistance now.
g) all the techy bike improvements
...
the list could go on I imagine


----------



## Crackle (18 Jul 2013)

The Guardian has a bit more on Grappe's analysis

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jul/18/team-sky-chris-froome-data

And another here

http://au.eurosport.com/cycling/tou...o-show-froome-is-clean_sto3848386/story.shtml


----------



## smutchin (18 Jul 2013)

I'm slightly surprised that Sky haven't measured Froome's VO2Max. I don't suppose it would tell them anything they don't already know by other means, but it would be interesting. I'm guessing it would be very high - maybe even higher than Indurain/Lemond.


----------



## Crackle (18 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> I'm slightly surprised that Sky haven't measured Froome's VO2Max. I don't suppose it would tell them anything they don't already know by other means, but it would be interesting. I'm guessing it would be very high - maybe even higher than Indurain/Lemond.


It's odd isn't it. I found that odd. Of course the data doesn't prove anything definitively and the other oddity is no data before 2011. I know  I'm just spinning it from both sides.


----------



## VamP (18 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> I'm slightly surprised that Sky haven't measured Froome's VO2Max. I don't suppose it would tell them anything they don't already know by other means, but it would be interesting. I'm guessing it would be very high - maybe even higher than Indurain/Lemond.


 
Probably because VO2max is only an indirect correlator for performance, and of no use in the structuring of training programmes.


----------



## smutchin (18 Jul 2013)

Indeed. Aiui, it's main use is as an indicator of potential performance level, right? ie "This dude has a huge VO2max so it's worth investing time and effort in training him up." But I guess Sky have more sophisticated ways of measuring a rider's potential.

Of course, EBH reportedly has a very high VO2max but has so far not really lived up to his early promise.


----------



## junglegusset (20 Jul 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> ..... or simply mixing marmalade and jam together..... .



This is really dangerous! Only a psychopath would try this!


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Jul 2013)

junglegusset said:


> This is really dangerous! Only a psychopath would try this!


 
Once went to a workshop on nutrition and Graham Obree explained how Jam Sandwiches contained both slow and fast release sugar chains,they were also cheaper and tastier than the energy gels etc


----------



## junglegusset (20 Jul 2013)

Aye, heard that. Flapjack as well, plus it's got a bit if lard for the long term.


----------

