It would be a pretty tight race without (spoiler)
Last Post 07/12/2013 03:33 PM by Cosmic Kid. 66 Replies.
Author Messages
Ride On

Posts:293

--
07/10/2013 12:49 PM
Without Froome in it. They are pretty tightly bunched 2-10.
Keith Richards

Posts:542

--
07/10/2013 01:01 PM
Dude is on some form, ain't he?
----- It is his word versus ours. We like our word. We like where we stand and we like our credibility."--Lance Armstrong.
Yo Mike

Posts:209

--
07/10/2013 01:11 PM
It is thought that ~ 90% of the peloton is now riding clean, huh?

;-)
pikeHillRoad

Posts:95

--
07/10/2013 01:30 PM
Agree. I hope they make the rest fun to watch.

Oh Yeah, me and my tinfoil hat think that Froome tanked the last few kms today so he did not win.

stronz

Posts:226

--
07/10/2013 01:50 PM
i actually am looking forward to the fight for the podium. For whatever reason watching Froome bores me even though he's obviously the strongest at the tour. It will be fun to watch the others duke it out. I think we can expect Rodriguez to try some serious mountain attacks that they might let go since he's five minutes back. Contador would be wise to grab his wheel as he blows by.
jookey

Posts:86

--
07/10/2013 02:37 PM
teams with a second guy in good GC should use them on the attack early to isolate froome. movistar, saxo, belkin need to take the reigns and make a race. time to throw caution to the wind. the tour has been boring since the 80's. guys just won't take a chance for fear of a bad day. otherwise, sky will keep it all together and Froome will beat them up the last climb of the day. That is the recipe for the team with the strongest rider. to beat him you MUST take chances. GC guys don't have it in them anymore to realize 2nd place is the first loser.
Keith Richards

Posts:542

--
07/10/2013 02:44 PM
Contador already has won Le Tour. He should go on an early flyer and take, dare I say it...Andy Schleck with him or something. Maybe Purito. The Spaniards tend to stick together, Valverde being the exception as he is looking at his best finish ever and has to protect his 2nd. The directors need to have a pow-wow and get something poppin'.
----- It is his word versus ours. We like our word. We like where we stand and we like our credibility."--Lance Armstrong.
SideBySide

Posts:101

--
07/10/2013 02:49 PM
I don't think they will be able to isolate Froome. Porte will be right there until the end for the rest of the race.
It will take multiple suicide attacks from far out to make any real change, and probably multiple people.

Edit:  I do hope I am wrong.
laurentja

Posts:122

--
07/10/2013 03:27 PM
True. The top step is occupied, unless he crashes.

He's not exactly, err... classy-looking on a bike, Froome... He's all limbs. Kind of like this on a bike:

Red Tornado

Posts:20

--
07/10/2013 04:15 PM

I remember the days of several riders/teams banding together to crack the GC leader and get them out of contention; then they would go back to fighting it out amongst themselves.  Robert Millar's blog today on Cyclingnews made this same point.  There's enough proficient climbers in the peloton that if the right teams got on the same page, they could do some damage.  Several Sky riders are already on the ropes, so to speak, so Sunday (I think that was the latest mountain stage) would have been the time to keep on driving nails into Froome's coffin.
Maybe this style of riding was/is only possible if you're on the juice, or is it the newer crop of guys just don't have the killer instinct?

Cosmic Kid

Posts:751

--
07/10/2013 06:25 PM
As laurentja notes, the top step is occupied and done. The battle for the other 2 spots may prove to be entertaining, but overall, the race just got boring as hell.

As usual.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
Orange Crush

Posts:861

--
07/10/2013 07:10 PM
Valverde: "there's Froome and then there's everyone else"

Since when did Froome become so good that he's a big cut above the rest?
laurentja

Posts:122

--
07/10/2013 07:34 PM
Posted By Orange Crush on 07/10/2013 07:10 PM
Valverde: "there's Froome and then there's everyone else"

Since when did Froome become so good that he's a big cut above the rest?


Seems it started in the 2011 Vuelta. Why do the results always come in Spain? Once could hypothesize...
pikeHillRoad

Posts:95

--
07/10/2013 07:47 PM
What Laurentja said.

And in response to KR about Laiseka - True, he was the fastest up the mountain, but also clearly caught lightning in a bottle. I mean, he had three career wins? All the other guys on that list perfom(ed) day in and day out like aliens. And they made racing boring. And that might be most fans main gripe about doping and dopers - it is not exciting.
Ride On

Posts:293

--
07/10/2013 08:08 PM
If the wind hadn't come up Froome would have beaten the TT world champ in a flat TT today.
bobswire

Posts:290

--
07/10/2013 08:19 PM
Posted By Ride On on 07/10/2013 08:08 PM
If the wind hadn't come up Froome would have beaten the TT world champ in a flat TT today.
  That sounds familiar.........                

2009 TdF, stage 19: Contador beat Cancellara by less than three seconds.

Photo: Agence France Presse

Yellow jersey Alberto Contador flew around the 40.5km Annecy time trial course to win the stage and cement his lead in the Tour de France. Contador beat time trial specialist Fabian Cancellara by two seconds, and put 50 seconds or more on the other GC competitors, including teammates Andreas Klöden and Lance Armstrong.

Contador was fastest through all but one of the intermediate time checks, making his biggest gains on the course’s one climb, and holding his advantage to the end.

“I had a great day,” Contador said. “I was thinking about the GC more than winning the stage.”

Andy Schleck (Saxo Bank) rode what for him was a phenomenal time trial, finishing in 21st and holding onto his second overall placing.



JS

Posts:47

--
07/10/2013 08:26 PM
Posted By Ride On on 07/10/2013 08:08 PM
If the wind hadn't come up Froome would have beaten the TT world champ in a flat TT today.

Yeah, think about that for a minute. World TT champ who weighs 10-12 kilos more than Froome almost getting beat in a flat TT. It would be awesome if Martin posted his power numbers for the stage. It'd be easy to extrapolate Froomes doped up watts per kg as I doubt their cg is much different, Martins might be a little lower even.
BikeCzar

Posts:53

--
07/10/2013 09:46 PM
10-12 kilos? ummm... Froome is not that little. More like 3 or 4 kilos I'd say. And he's the 2012 bronze medal in the Olympics and has always been a competent rider against the clock. Plus Tony Martin is skinned and battered. I wasn't shocked.
Ride On

Posts:293

--
07/11/2013 06:13 AM
Gazzetta calculated that Martin produced 480 watts during his TT, pushing a huge gear of 58x11. Froome weighs nine kilogrammes less than Martin but Gazzetta calculates he produced an average of 470 watts during his ride. Valverde and Contador were much slower and produced lower power outputs, reportedly around 385 watts.
jrt1045

Posts:281

--
07/11/2013 08:22 AM
in the summer of 2011, Froome started "training" in Tenerife

Before the Vuelta that year he'd podiumed in parking lot crits and B level worlds events, then he discovered some "marginal gains". ummm, yeah...right

the big question is: does Fromme get busted at the Tour or after the Tour? I had the same feeling the year Chicken was wiping the field all over the place
Keith Richards

Posts:542

--
07/11/2013 08:53 AM
People forget that Martin almost pulled out of the race he was so injured. I was actually surprised he won. Like Czar said, not that shocking a result for Froome.

And let's not act like Froome just fell from the Sky (see what I did there?) he finished 11th in the white jersey comp in his first TdF as age 21/22 or something. he always had potential. You look at Lance's run, Wiggins last year, Froome the past two seasons and what jumps out at me is no problem in training and lead up to Le Tour. No wrecks, no sickness, no injuries...the one year I had a problem free season, I was a cat 4 and had no problem keeping up with anybody in the DC/metro area. I was not out of the top 10 in any event all season. It makes a huge difference when you can stay on track with your training plan with no issues.
----- It is his word versus ours. We like our word. We like where we stand and we like our credibility."--Lance Armstrong.
JS

Posts:47

--
07/11/2013 09:49 AM
KR, Insert the name Armstrong where you have Froome and it 2006 all over again. Froome is a doper. Fool me once shame on you, fool my twice shame on me.
Keith Richards

Posts:542

--
07/11/2013 10:14 AM
Until he gets caught (and I have not seen a shred of evidence), you got nothing bro. Have a drink!
----- It is his word versus ours. We like our word. We like where we stand and we like our credibility."--Lance Armstrong.
laurentja

Posts:122

--
07/11/2013 11:47 AM
From Cyclingnews today:

More pseudo science

Team Sky manager David Brailsford has dismissed the debate about power data, performance and suspicion of doping as pseudo science. However Chris Froome's superb performance in the Mont-Saint-Michel time trial has sparked a new tide of analysis, debate and conjecture.

Gazzetta dello Sport journalist Claudio Ghisalberti has calculated that Froome produced 18% more power than main overall rivals Alberto Contador and Alejandro Valverde.

Gazzetta calculated that Martin produced 480 watts during his TT, pushing a huge gear of 58x11. Froome weighs nine kilogrammes less than Martin but Gazzetta calculates he produced an average of 470 watts during his ride. Valverde and Contador were much slower and produced lower power outputs, reportedly around 385 watts.
CERV

Posts:136

--
07/11/2013 12:05 PM
While I agree with you there is no evidence, it's the same argument used by lance armstrong supporters for years. There's lot's of cases of dopers in the past who were winning races and had no evidence against them, until they got caught.
I think pro cycling, and by extension the people who get paid to be pro cyclists today, deserve to be asked these questions. if they are going to claim they are clean, at this point the onus on the sport to convince fans they are clean, not the other way around.
Froome has been producing power numbers and performances only matched in the past by people who were shown to be dopers. Of course fans are going to be suspicious.
I actually think Sky could be doing a whole lot more to prove to cycling fans he is clean than just the whole "i'm sorry you don't believe in miracles (read: marginal gains, improved training techniques, blood bourne parasite)". If they are the clean saviours of cycling as they like to claim, the actually SHOULD be doing a whole lot more in the interest of rebuilding the credibility of the sport. Release blood profiles to the public. Allow access to journalists. Release power numbers after the races.

Funny thing is, I've gotten over even really having a problem with doping at all in the pros. i just wish we weren't watching one guy ride away from the rest of the field from riders who could have matched him while on the sauce. At least then it would be an entertaining race. I far prefer the 'nudge, wink' style of denying doping practiced by the spanish and italians to the righteous indignation style of armstrong, wiggins, froome, etc.
Keith Richards

Posts:542

--
07/11/2013 12:07 PM
Lance had that failed cortisone test back in 1999. There was ALWAYS speculation about him because there were reasons OTHER than his results to be suspicious. That is what I am saying.
----- It is his word versus ours. We like our word. We like where we stand and we like our credibility."--Lance Armstrong.
BikeCzar

Posts:53

--
07/11/2013 12:19 PM
Can't prove a negative.

And why does everyone keep saying Froome is 20+ pounds lighter than T. Martin? I show Martin at 75kg and Froome at 71-72 kg. They are both 6'1".

Some responsibility for moving the sport forward lies with the fans. We have to quit accusing every guy who wins of doping. These guys are human and deserve the benefit of the doubt. Ever here a casual sports fan's view of cycling? It's shockingly similar to much of the above. It's kind of like mass shootings. The more you focus and give attention to the perpetrators the more the behavior becomes engrained in the psyche of the culture. Let's give attention to the good things that make up the world's most beautiful sport.
Ride On

Posts:293

--
07/11/2013 12:34 PM
If you are taking something not on "the list" yet, are you doping?
CERV

Posts:136

--
07/11/2013 12:41 PM
Fair enough, but it's also been less than a year since all the revelations about usps officially came out. For many 'casual fans', this is when they would have first heard about it. Not a lot of time.

jrt1045

Posts:281

--
07/11/2013 12:48 PM
Czar, Cerv hit the nail on the head. The credibility issue with the sport of cycling does not lie with the fans silently accepting whatever is served up by the PR folks of the different teams so the sport can get out from under a cloud of suspicion. That ship sailed long ago with the arrival of Chiapucci (my favorite doper btw), Indurain, Barnie Riis, Dirty Tony Rominger, Berzin, Zulle, Bugno, Urgomov, the one who shall remain nameless, Floyd, Tyler, Levi and many more. Fans were feed crazy stories of crazy fixes for crazy problems and it was all complete BS. Rampant doping was the magic

The questions and the suspicion is a problem lies solely with the teams and the sport to figure out and to do so they have to come clean. Fans have every right to ask questions, if you want to criticize the fans - they should be criticized for stupid enough to believe the fantasies cooked up since the arrival of EPO.

Just my humble opinion
cabron fiber

Posts:17

--
07/11/2013 12:58 PM
+1 jrt and cerv
Oldfart

Posts:352

--
07/11/2013 01:08 PM
Seems to be a presumption by some folks that a totally clean peloton would see tighter racing when in fact I think it would be the opposite. If all riders doped to say the 49% hematocrit, it would be more even. In cycling there has often been an outlier that had the ability to win multiple grand tours. In between those individuals you see the less capable riders win.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:751

--
07/11/2013 01:10 PM
I have zero problem with people being cynical and casting a jaundiced eye towards Froome's race so far. I'd be lying if I said I didn't raise my eyebrows a touch after yesterday's TT.

That said, there is a HUGE difference between being naturally suspicious (especially given the sport's past) and out right calling the guy a doper.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
CERV

Posts:136

--
07/11/2013 02:21 PM
+1 CK

I like to think I'm able to entertain the possibility that he could be clean, while at the same time not being naive enough to believe 100% he is. It is possible for a fan to entertain both possibilities simultaneously, and I think many on here are in that camp.
if I had to pick numbers, given these last few performances, especially the 6.6+watts/kg for 40min TT, I would say I'm 80% leaning towards doper, 20% he could be clean.
I still think Froome and Sky could do a whole lot more to convince the public he is riding clean than they currently are. The onus is on them, not the fans.
Some think it's going to 'kill' the sport, but I actually think the opposite about fans questioning the athletes all the time. I think it's the only high level sport in the world where there's no longer an accepted 'don't ask, don't tell' mentality between fans and athletes. In that regard, cycling is way ahead of football (american or european version) , hockey, basketball, baseball, or even olympic track in it's journey to becoming a credible sport.
As much as I am willing to accept, and watch, and be entertained by doped up performances on the pro level, I still have a little niggling hope in the back of my mind that the sport and activity I enjoy the most might someday end up being something i would want to encourage my kids or my friends kids coming up through junior racing to pursue at a high level is they ever showed interest/talent.
cabron fiber

Posts:17

--
07/11/2013 03:14 PM
"And let's not act like Froome just fell from the Sky (see what I did there?) he finished 11th in the white jersey comp in his first TdF as age 21/22"

Isn't that just more circumstantial evidence against Froome? 11th for the white jersey!
I believe Merckx was 1st overall in his first tour, Hinault: 1st overall, van Impe: 12th overall, Roche 13th overall, Fignon: 1st overall, Lemond:third overall, Delgado 15th overall.
Entheo

Posts:301

--
07/11/2013 03:37 PM
Posted By Andy Eunson on 07/11/2013 01:08 PM
Seems to be a presumption by some folks that a totally clean peloton would see tighter racing when in fact I think it would be the opposite. If all riders doped to say the 49% hematocrit, it would be more even. In cycling there has often been an outlier that had the ability to win multiple grand tours. In between those individuals you see the less capable riders win.


that is a good point. what i'm seeing this season is a diversity of winning, from ciolek to dan martin, for example. and look how the sprint finishes are well spread out. froome is an outlier, but perhaps naturally so. i have to think that the bio passport baselines have diminished the use of EPO, if not homologous transfusions taken on board at key points in a grand tour. contador is certainly looking far more human. i'm going to suspend disbelief until there's reasonable proof, circumstantial evidence or a sound argument as to why froome shouldn't be clean.
79pmooney

Posts:817

--
07/11/2013 04:20 PM
Andy, the racing may be closer with the 50% hematocrit cutoff, but it puts different athletes on the podium. Those with naturally low hematocrits who are reasonably fast get to see huge boosts with (say) 35% boosts in oxygen capacity, bit those already on the limit (or those over who need exemptions) get no additional benefit.

Entheo and Keith, one reason Contador may not be looking so good this year is 1) as you said, Keith, Froome has had a phenomenal season for avoiding setbacks and 2) I read that Contador has backed off on motor pace training to better avoid bad crashes in deference to his marriage. Froome has spent far more time at race speed and it shows. Those power number differences sound to me like "Yeah, that's what you get with those difference in training".

Ben
ElleSeven

Posts:48

--
07/11/2013 05:59 PM
This thread is reminding me of the public and media chatter that followed a commercial plane crash in my area a few days ago. Speculation was immediately amok. Just as in this thread, none of that speculation was patently stupid or even implausible. By the same token, it had nothing to do with real information. There were credible-sounding, seriously intoned suggestions about how Korean pilots talk to each other in the cabin; there were hypotheses about wind-sheer; there was hand-wringing disparagement concerning SFO's off-line glide path ILS. Not one of these remarks or theories was based directly on verifiable fact, let alone serious knowledge of aeronautics or Asian culture or meteorology.

What's up with that? Whatever actually did happen will eventually be revealed through a long process of painstaking forensics and engineering expertise. What do the public get from tossing in their opinions, however intelligent, prior to an informed investigation?

We're maundering on here about numbers and correlations and a hotchpotch of quasi-scientific notions the nuances of which, likewise, we have no access to. To name just one concern, I have never yet been able, despite being a scientist and mathematician myself, to reconcile speculative power calculations based on some external index (speed, distance, mass, slope, etc.) with actual data recorded on my power meter. These calculations have been sort of close enough on occasion to warrant a kind of conversational hypothesizing, but never accurate enough for useful predictions. Try it yourselves. In fact I'm going to try again this afternoon.
abrickinthewall

Posts:13

--
07/11/2013 07:34 PM
Ellie7 - "we are maundering on here...." without good information. The very definition of this forum.
JS

Posts:47

--
07/11/2013 08:26 PM
Well here is a fact for ya. Chris Froome just kicked the $4it out of a bunch of known dopers (3+ minutes in 2 stages). So Either we're witnessing the Greatest non-doped Tour De France performance in 50 years or the more plausible explanation, Froome is a doper like the last 20 Tour De France winners. ElleSeven, you can use all big words you want, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck well...........
cabron fiber

Posts:17

--
07/11/2013 09:13 PM
"We're maundering on here about numbers and correlations and a hotchpotch of quasi-scientific notions the nuances of which, likewise, we have no access to."

A big problem here is that, as CERV said, the onus is on Sky to convince the public that Froome is riding clean. They haven't done it.
When they started, they said they were going to be clean, with a strict policy on who they would hire, etc. Brailsford's explanation for why he hired Geert Leinders? "He looked me in the eye and told me he was (clean)." That's how, in 2010, the "principal" of the world's biggest team, with millions in sponsorship $ involved, vetted his team doctor? C'mon! It's been the same thing with Froome: if Sky is so scientifically advanced, can't they provide some evidence for why Froome is exceptional?
ElleSeven

Posts:48

--
07/11/2013 09:15 PM
An animation of a duck? A duck Marionette? An actor wearing a duck costume? In any case my question is what do we get out of speculating? I love gossip as much as anyone. But it's pretty silly, usually
Cosmic Kid

Posts:751

--
07/11/2013 09:39 PM
Ok, so I'll ask this again....if SKY is dirty, and has been since they hired Leinders, then why did they clean house during the off season with anyone who had a doping past? Furthermore, why didn't any of those let go (Julich, Yates, et al) call bullschitt on them when they got canned? "What a bunch of hypocrites. They fired me for something I did back in the 90's, but they are doing he exact same thing RIGHT NOW, I am nothing but a scapegoat." I am not saying that SKY is clean, but if I was one of those guys and I got canned, I would be screaming from the rooftops. And please don't tell me Omertà.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
ElleSeven

Posts:48

--
07/11/2013 09:46 PM
Cosmic, I think that's a really good question.
Ride On

Posts:293

--
07/11/2013 09:53 PM
The question I have is why does cycling seem to attract that once in a life time athlete lately?
cabron fiber

Posts:17

--
07/11/2013 10:14 PM
Furthermore, why didn't any of those let go (Julich, Yates, et al) call bullschitt on them when they got canned?

I don't have an answer for that.
But maybe Jorg Jacksche or Michael Rasmussen or Floyd Landis or some other guys do.
JS

Posts:47

--
07/11/2013 10:48 PM
Cosmic, I'd speculate that only a select few are on the program or even know about it. I'm guessing that's why Kimmage asked Brailsford why Boassen Hagen hasn't improved like others have after joining SKY when he actually showed more early potential than the current Skyborgs. Also, I'd be willing to bet that everybody released was pulled aside and told "look, we have to let you go to keep this from turning into a $4itstorm but here is a truckload of money, just sign this non-disclosure agreement and it's all good"
Cosmic Kid

Posts:751

--
07/11/2013 10:59 PM
Wait...only a select few are on he program? Weren't you one of those pointing out how the whole SKY team was riding ala USPS on the first mountain stage? How is that a "select few"? That's the whole damn team!

And as USPS has showed, you just can't keep that schitt quiet. People on the team figure it out pretty quickly. Hamilton's book illustrated that well.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
cabron fiber

Posts:17

--
07/11/2013 11:27 PM
It's Sky's job to defend their program. Until they do it in a convincing way, people aren't going to believe them.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:751

--
07/11/2013 11:42 PM
What defines "convincing"?

Whether we like it or not, there is a fine line between providing info to prove your program is clean and giving your competitors too much inside info.

In all honesty, I don't know if it is any team's responsibility to do that. IMO, that role belongs to the UCI.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
JS

Posts:47

--
07/11/2013 11:56 PM
Posted By Cosmic Kid on 07/11/2013 10:59 PM
Wait...only a select few are on he program? Weren't you one of those pointing out how the whole SKY team was riding ala USPS on the first mountain stage? How is that a "select few"? That's the whole damn team!

And as USPS has showed, you just can't keep that schitt quiet. People on the team figure it out pretty quickly. Hamilton's book illustrated that well.

I'm not going to argue the point. I will say I told you so when they do get busted, and they will. Maybe not this year but it's going to happen. Phuck team SKY for screwing up what could have been a great race and a perfect opportunity for a clean(er) future.
cabron fiber

Posts:17

--
07/12/2013 12:14 AM
"Whether we like it or not, there is a fine line between providing info to prove your program is clean and giving your competitors too much inside info."

That's fine, but their victory won't be credible.
And really
- Training has gotten so specialized that someone can win the Tour by stealing training secrets? A lot of people would argue that, for the most part, TdF champs are born not made.
- Sky can't provide some meaningful info without revealing their secret training regime? What's Froome's VO2 max, for starters?
CERV

Posts:136

--
07/12/2013 02:34 AM
Posted By Cosmic Kid on 07/11/2013 11:42 PM
What defines "convincing"?
At this point, I would say anything beyond "you'll have to trust us" or "he's clean, get over it". Some gesture, any gesture to show some accountability and demonstrate some transparency. Something that acknowledges the fact that fans are skeptical, and SKY, as the leading pro team in the world right now, with the leading rider in the world, cares enough about the sport to do something to help win back peoples confidence in the performances they are seeing. Publish passport results after the tour is over. Hire an independent testing agency to test riders daily and put riders results up on a forum with an expert to field questions about interpreting the results. Until then, fans have hear "trust us" way too many times.
cabron fiber

Posts:17

--
07/12/2013 02:36 AM
+1 CERV
CERV

Posts:136

--
07/12/2013 02:59 AM

One metric that isn't speculative is that Froome's time up A3 is the third fastest recorded, and everyone else in the top 25 of that list is a known doper. The only faster times were in the first "new era of clean cycling" circa 1999 right after festina.

The factors (fatigue, wind, race dynamics, etc) that influence a rider being able to put in a performance like that are debatable. Froome was fresh and out to prove himself. The stages leading up were easy, but at the very least people's skeptisim of his time is founded.

Sky, perhaps, could have dug into their highly rigorous scientific vault, and put out some documented VO2max or lactate clearing test results from 2009 showing Froome has always shown the potential to ride at this level. The majority of fans would be on board with a gesture that shows the top team in the sport would like to win back trust.
Instead, Brailsford calls people out for engaging in pseudo-science, right out of the lance-yohan playbook. It shows zero good will to the fans.
jrt1045

Posts:281

--
07/12/2013 08:38 AM
Agreed Cerv, would love to see that data that convinced Brailsford that Froome had the potential to go from donkey to racehorse. Before Aug/Set 2011 Froome was mid 20's and had done what at the sharp end of the grid? And now he's killing it?

The tale of the tape, not bad as pro bike racing is tough but potential winner of a Grand Tour?
2005
1st Stage 2 Tour of Mauritius
2006
1st Overall Tour of Mauritius
1st Stages 2 & 3
2nd Anatomic Jock Race

2007
1st Overall Mi-Août Bretonne
1st Stage 5 Giro delle Regioni (Under-23)
1st Stage 6 Tour of Japan
2nd Berg en Dale Classic
2nd Time trial, B World Championships
3rd Road race, All-Africa Games

2008
2nd Overall Giro del Capo
4th Overall Herald Sun Tour

2009
1st Stage 2 Giro del Capo
1st Anatomic Jock Race

2010
2nd National Time Trial Championship
5th Time trial, Commonwealth Games

Giro
2009: 36th
2010: DQ for holding on to a car - stage 19

Tour
2008: 84th
Orange Crush

Posts:861

--
07/12/2013 08:54 AM
Address Bike Pure's comments and reasons why they pulled Froome as example athlete from their site. Of course same onus should fall on other GC contendors as well. http://bikepure.org/2013/06/transparency-grand-tour-contenders/
pikeHillRoad

Posts:95

--
07/12/2013 08:55 AM
Why didn't the fired guys talk? Non-disclosure agreement?

I don't know, but like CERV, cannot buy the Brailsford use of the Johann/Lance playbook.

In Addition:
1) I am amazed by the change in the nature of Froome as a rider
2) I am amazed his dominance this year in all races he has entered
3) I am amazed by his dominance of this tour

That is not proof of doping, but it does, as many have said here and in the media, entitle us to ask hard questions. And those questions remain unanswered.
THE SKINNY

Posts:243

--
07/12/2013 09:10 AM
i think the tt sealed the deal for me. the fact that he could beat all his competitors is believable but the fact that he beat them by almost a minute raised more flags than the olympic opening ceremony. i'm still watching though. it's just entertainment for me.
How we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:751

--
07/12/2013 10:24 AM
Posted By CERV __ on 07/12/2013 02:59 AM

One metric that isn't speculative is that Froome's time up A3 is the third fastest recorded,


Actually, it is kinda speculative. They have only been up the climb 4 times.So you can say it is the 3rd fastest or the second slowest. Just depends on your perspective, I suppose. Again, I;m not defending SKY or claiming that they are clean. As I said, I raised my eyebrows a touch after the TT. I just think there is a massive difference between being (rightfully) suspicious and outright calling the guy a doper when there is no evidence.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
Cosmic Kid

Posts:751

--
07/12/2013 11:10 AM
Whooops.....so much for the SKYbots and their program. Exposed once again. Down to 2 riders in the chase group.

If I saw that attack correctly, it looked like Saxo had a guy behind the main charge and he sat up to create the gap which snapped the elastic. Brilliant.

Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
The Short White Guy™

Posts:54

--
07/12/2013 11:15 AM
Maybe the Sky bus will have a "mechanical" later today?

CERV

Posts:136

--
07/12/2013 03:09 PM
Posted By Cosmic Kid on 07/12/2013 10:24 AM
Posted By CERV __ on 07/12/2013 02:59 AM

One metric that isn't speculative is that Froome's time up A3 is the third fastest recorded,


Actually, it is kinda speculative. They have only been up the climb 4 times.So you can say it is the 3rd fastest or the second slowest. Just depends on your perspective, I suppose. Again, I;m not defending SKY or claiming that they are clean. As I said, I raised my eyebrows a touch after the TT. I just think there is a massive difference between being (rightfully) suspicious and outright calling the guy a doper when there is no evidence.


I don't follow. (nothing new) How could it be considered 2nd slowest?
CERV

Posts:136

--
07/12/2013 03:11 PM
It was nice to see today that Sky, for all the training advantages, hasn't really learned how to race bikes yet. Maybe there is some hopes of the GC closing up more.
Reminds me of their showings in the classic this year.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:751

--
07/12/2013 03:16 PM
They have gone up the climb 4 times.

1) Rider A
2) Rider B
3) Froome
4) Rider C

Yes, Froome is the 3rd fastest time. But there is also only one other time slower than Froome, Rider C. So it is also the second slowest time ever recorded up that climb.

Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
CERV

Posts:136

--
07/12/2013 03:20 PM
That 3rd place is out of a top 100 times recorded. The peloton has gone up 4 times. So it's more like:
Rider A
Rider B
Froome
Rest of riders in peloton A,B,C,D combined

Some riders are on there multiple times in the top 20 as they have ridden it more than once, but many of the names in the top 30 are known or suspected dopers

_1. Roberto Laiseka _____ ESP | 22:57 | 2001
_2. Lance Armstrong _____ USA | 22:59 | 2001
_3. Chris Froome ________ GBR | 23:14 | 2013
_4. Jan Ullrich _________ GER | 23:17 | 2003
_5. Haimar Zubeldia _____ ESP | 23:19 | 2003
_6. Jan Ullrich _________ GER | 23:22 | 2001
_7. Lance Armstrong _____ USA | 23:24 | 2003
_8. Alexandre Vinokourov_ KAZ | 23:34 | 2003
_9. Ivan Basso __________ ITA | 23:36 | 2003
10. Lance Armstrong _____ USA | 23:40 | 2005

10. Ivan Basso __________ ITA | 23:42 | 2005
11. Oscar Sevilla _______ ESP | 23:45 | 2001
12. Joseba Beloki _______ ESP | 23:45 | 2001
13. Denis Menchov _______ RUS | 23:47 | 2010
14. Samuel Sanchez ______ ESP | 23:47 | 2010
15. Jan Ullrich _________ GER | 24:00 | 2005
16. Andy Schleck ________ LUX | 24:01 | 2010
17. Joaquim Rodriguez ___ ESP | 24:01 | 2010
18. Robert Gesink _______ NED | 24:01 | 2010
19. Alberto Contador ____ ESP | 24:01 | 2010
20. Jurgen van den Broeck BEL | 24:01 | 2010

21. Richie Porte ________ AUS | 24:05 | 2013
22. Levi Leipheimer _____ USA | 24:15 | 2005
23. Floyd Landis ________ USA | 24:15 | 2005
24. Iban Mayo ___________ ESP | 24:15 | 2003
25. Santiago Botero _____ COL | 24:19 | 2001
26. Michael Boogerd _____ NED | 24:19 | 2001
27. Alexandre Vinokourov_ KAZ | 24:19 | 2001
28. Stefano Garzelli ____ ITA | 24:19 | 2001
29. Inigo Chaureau ______ ESP | 24:19 | 2001
30. Marcos Serrano ______ ESP | 24:19 | 2001
Cosmic Kid

Posts:751

--
07/12/2013 03:33 PM
Fair enough. I was looking at it from the perspective of the winners of the climb, I guess.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!


---
Active Forums 4.1