blonde poker forum

Well clear in the TdeF, riding clear of the field on the first mountain stage

and the rumours start, these rumours are even hinted at on the BBC online and news programmes

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/33517897

"Team Sky believe their computers have been hacked by critics convinced Tour de France leader Chris Froome is using performance-enhancing drugs. "

Armstrong casts a long shadow, and cycling only has itself to blame of course.


We would say, yes, that some in the peloton are doping? the logic goes that Froome is riding away from them, so

Are you entirely confident he is clean?

No cycling knowledge but find this fascinating

The main hint i get from some reading is he has gone from a journeyman to well clear of the field in a relatively short space of time.

That is pretty unusual in sport if clean, nicked the below from "the science of sport"

"I can't stress enough - today's mountain finish, and the estimated 6.1 W/kg produced by Froome for 41 minutes (even though the attack only really came in the second half) is not an isolated reason for skepticism about cycling.
There is six years of historical context, it is a conversation that has been happening since 2009 and this is but the latest sentence. You see those time gaps, and look at who they're to, and that a third rider was just marking moves behind after doing tempo work earlier on.
In fact, something I hope you will appreciate is that a performance from the past can change meaning as new information emerges to contextualize it. In other words, it doesn't need for there to be a performance of X to suddenly make the previous ones suspect. As the environment changes, interpretation in hindsight can, so what was 'marginal' or grey in the past can look different thanks to that.
Quintana, incidentally, at 5.9W/kg was just slightly above what we've seen for the last four years, for the length of the climb, and everyone else was down on estimates, so a howling tail-wind won't cut it this time.
Then add in the CIRC report which explains how doping has shifted from "blunt force" to "surgical precision", changing its nature but not its existence. And keep in mind the sporadic doping busts, just enough to let on that all is not peachy.
Then Froome, on the verge of being discarded, having not stood out in our SA cycling circuit, transformed into the greatest ever cyclist after the age of 25, with VO2max values that would have made a physiologist's eyeballs explode (and hey, we're in Africa, but we aren't that backward here).
Next throw in the arrogant Public relations spin that Sky in particular offer (pillows, dieticians, altitude and Nutella bans for example - give me a break), plus the lack of transparency pretty much from top to bottom of the sport, the presence of the same people in charge of teams as who doped, the hiring and denial of hiring of doping doctors, the TUEs, the inhaler before big efforts, and on and on.
Then look at other sports and what Salazar's group is accused by about 18 people of doing, and you get an idea for how the sport has moved on since Festina, then Lance.
I fully expect attacks, and that's OK, I don't mind. But over the years, I've grown more and more confident in our estimates, and what they mean, and pixel by pixel, an image is being revealed.
Some will say my degree was printed on clip-art (got this on Twitter already), others that I have, and I quote, "questionable research ethics, cherry picking data, and clear lack of objectivity/investigator bias" (I may use this as an introduction next time I give a talk, thanks Alastair :-)). That's alright, just know that if it's a South African (hey, Froome even grew up here), I'd be saying the same thing.
Would you, if that was an American riding away from the world, with two team-mates controlling the mountain, one his closest challenger? Cast you mind back, and perhaps you did, because it's happened before."

The main hint i get from some reading is he has gone from a journeyman to well clear of the field in a relatively short space of time.

This doesn't tie in with the facts.  If you read his wiki he seems to have made steady progress after turning professional.  
He has some minor results in his first year as a professional in 2007 at age 22.
In 2008 he finishes the Tour De France, and gets 11th in the young rider, which seems fairly standard to me for a promising rider.
In 2009 he is 36th in the Giro and 7th in the Young Rider
In 2010 he joins Sky and is 2nd best in the UK National Time trial championships and fifth in the Commonwealth games.
In 2011 he gets his first major result in the Vuelta finishing 2nd.
...from there he just gets steadily better.

So you could possibly say that there was a significant improvement about 2010, but he also joined a better team around then.  He also seemed to improve every year from 2007 to 2010.  I'd also say 2010 to 2015 is not a short space of time at all for a professional sportsman.

Sure he may be doping, but there seems little to back up the assertions that he was just some journeyman who was almost dropped and then suddenly became the "greatest ever cyclist" as the article implies.

    

Team sky and  Brailsford have reasoning for why Froome went from unknown to coming on the podium in the 2011 Vuelta. They say that he always had very strong data in training but could never but it into practice on the roads, and it was more surprising he HADN'T been riding to an elite level than it was when he finally made that breakthrough. They discovered he had a disease (Bilharzia) from swimming in a lake in his native Kenya and when they managed this his true form showed itself.  He would have won that race had he not had to wait for Wiggins, and the same goes for the TDF the next season, when he was stronger than Wiggo but wasn't team leader. Since becoming leader his form has been consistently good.

Given we are all cynical after the Lance years this could easily just be a smokescreen, and a convenient story. The same can be said for when he missed a test 6 weeks ago, because he said the hotel staff sent the drug testers away.  The training times he and Porte do up the Madone are quicker than anything Lance ever did, which doesn't help their cases.

Sky have always been about clean cycling, it was their outspoken aim from the start. I'd be disappointed if they weren't clean. There are teams that you'd think would definately be clean (Cannondale-Garmin would be one) and others than are definitely not (Astana). If they produce more shows of team domination like yesterday, the unfortunate fact of cycling is that they'll be questioned about it's legitimacy.

http://road.cc/content/news/101868-chris-froome-says-hes-now-free-parasitic-condition-bilharzia

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/faster-than-lance-richie-porte-smashes-madone-record-again-162797

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannondale-Garmin

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/astanas-uneasy-ride-professional-peloton-139345

Of course it still goes on, but I'd be surprised if the Team Sky guys are on drugs. Think there's supposed to be a contract they are made to sign as part of their riding for the team about drug use and the consequences of it.

They've got the best technology, elite riders, a well balanced team and a lot of money. Oh and a lot of their main rivals have dropped down the rankings following drug scandals. Hardly surprising Sky are at the top, is it?

I wondered about Nibali last year, just because he blew very good cyclists away, on a number of stages. He seemed 'too good'.
Follows that I must have the same doubts about Froome.

Cycling is hugely damaged by the last 20 years, and it's going to take a number of years of little or no positive tests, for these kind of doubts to recede.

micro-dosing is meant to be undetectable

http://www.cyclingnews.com/http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/french-television-report-shows-how-micro-dosing-can-beat-uci-biological-passport

To my mind there is no question, absolutely everybody at the top of all sports is drugging.
BBC journalist did beat biological passport whilst recording massive performance improvements.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-32983932

This. Try to explain nadals drop off in tennis to comical levels in the last two years.

His chemist stopped giving him pharma grade test, and has got him on the Tesco value stuff now :D

So if everybody at the top of all sports is cheating presumably this includes Jess Ennis, Roger Federer, Jonny Wilkinson, Bradley Wiggins, etc etc.
I'm not saying its not so, however a lot of my illusions would be shattered if any of the above cheated.

There isn't anyone at the top level of any sport not juiced out their nuts on something.   

I watched with interest the British Weightlifting Championships a few weeks back and saw a guy lift 20kilo more in a lower bodyweight than he did in a higher bodyweight when he should have been peaking.   

This is at national level just to keep ahead, yet put the same lifter into European/World level and he would be embarassed. 

So how many cricketers at Lords today or golfers at St Andrews are guilty of taking anything more sinister than recreational drugs? Under 10% imo. Ridiculous to suggest that all top sports people cheat.
I think we, understandably, have a very jaundiced view of sports, however if everybodys cheating why aren't modern female athletes getting near to, never mind beating, the world records set by Flo Jo (1000 sit ups a day) various Chinese ladies from the early 90's (coaches secret tea), Marita Koch (sp) or Jamila Kratochvilova (haemaphrodite).
Genuine question. Is it because the level of testing was so negligible when these records were set that doping on a fair greater level was possible? If so, isn't it surprising that improved doping techniques haven't counteracted this? Or is it that women's athletics is cleaner now. Why do men's records continue to fall in stark contrast.

I really hope, and trust, that Froome is clean. He seems like a decent guy and he's British (sort of).  Its nice to watch Sky in action and think they're doing it the right way. Be absolutely gutting if that's all smoke and mirrors.

Agree with that.

It's too easy to libel all these people on the assumption that we won't be held to account for our words because it's the internet. You could not publish such comments in a newspaper or on TV without the risk if being sued, why should it be possible on the internet?

Sure, there are too many drug cheats, but to suggest that ALL top sportsmen & women are on PED is an affront to natural justice.  5%, 10%, 15%, who knows, but more than 20%, no way. The vast majority of individuals are good, decent & honest.

I've no idea about Froome - nor has anyone else on here - but it'd be a major surprise if true, the whole Sky ethos as to cycling is based around being clean. It certainly looks suspicious, but that does not mean it necessarily is. 

Does anyone in their right mind seriously think the likes of Joe Root, Lewis Hamilton, Jensen Button, Ryan Moore, A P McCoy, Ian Poulter are or were on drugs?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKBy_F9WsAAIaLh.jpg)

As a man who has played numerous sports at a (poor) level, and cycled a fair distance as a one off (2500 miles, Tour de France route 1907 route) what I can say from personal experience is as follows....

In the former, I never got anywhere near anything performance enhancing, or even restorative. I paid little attention to diet, sometime playing with a steaming hangover, and always getting by.

In the latter, I blacked out on the bike as I reached the foothills of the Alps (departed Paris). I had taken the same lackadaisical attitude, very little boozing but fundamentally a disrespectful lack of nutritional attention.

Cycling is not a game that  involves any skill, it is science paid wattage pure and simple. I'm not saying this means anyone is doping / has doped, merely that the output of doing so would be much more quantifiable. For context, I am a lazy tosspot and could output a greater wattage than Rooney for twice as long and go for a civilised supper in the evening. The TdF cyclists are absolute MONSTERS.

It's a rambling, nothing, point and answers little.....but it compare cycling/rowing with other skill-based, non-wattage dependent sports is naive, in my opinion.

I absolutely agree that power/stamina based sports are far more susceptible to the obvious benefits of doping.I just don't believe that ALL top sportsmen and women are guilty of doping which was what a couple of other posts implied. I've no idea if Froome is doping or not. I really hope not because I'd like to think Team Sky are on the level.And because its great to see British sportspeople succeed. The trouble is it's so hard after all the scandals to have faith in any athletes or cyclists. I guess until its proved otherwise its nice to keep believing. I'd hate to imagine Coe, Ovett, Cram, Daley Thompson, Ennis, Gunnell, Jackson, Black for example had cheated and don't believe they did.

How clean is the pro peloton? Not very, judging by this article http://ow.ly/O4QKR

Tour de France: Why are Team Sky attracting doubters?

balanced stuff

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/33587176