Is Paul Kimmage calling out Froome and Sky here

[smutchin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.