After the 6.5 w/kg freak show deal yesterday, with the best climbers in the world completely snapped, I said to self, McNutty, if those two don't have an off day soon, like tomorrow, then I'm out like Kramer. So I'm still in for now. Porte was so suspicious, just crazy that he shanks the likes of Purito, Martin, AC. And I didn't see him fall off his bike and writhe on the ground like a dying cock- a- roach. Just_not_right. That said.....

Sky has everything so dialed, down to custom compression socks (seriously) that my guess is they have something within their arsenal, a pre race cocktail something that is perhaps not prohibited. So they're doping but legally. ( Easter Bunny, Santa, etc, insert here, I know.) Also, they have a much more detailed plan per stage than anyone else. Not sayin' other other teams aren't thorough, but Sky does take it all to the next level. Keeping my head buried in the sand for a couple more days.

If I had to bet I wouldn't bet on clean, but I am not willing to concede that Froome doesn't soon show some chinks in the armor and I think we have a race still....maybe.....please?

Let's light a candle, shall we? Dan Martin, badass ride, eh?

Given the heavy nature of parts of this thread, I think this is apt.
OGE genuinely seem to enjoy their work, unlike a bunch of other teams.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAl1-mBhFpU

Speaking of enjoying their work, why is BMC doing so poorly? I would have expected Tejay to be much further up, even if he is riding domestique to Evans. At this point, Evans is almost out of contention and Tejay is completely gone. Is this just a statement of how fractured the team is behind the two?

Human performance is not an exact science. Apply your logic to Kona....every year guys show up seemingly dialed and ready to put out their best performances. Bt come race day, some implode while others succeed.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

I'm pretty firmly in the skeptic camp regarding Sky, but I'm dubious that what Sky did yesterday was on purpose. Purposely leaving Froome alone is a breathtakingly risky move. Let's imagine the following perfectly plausible scenario: 1) someone dangerous gets away near the top of the last climb; 2) that dangerous rider crests Ancizan and goes screaming down the descent; 3) the top riders summit and go tearing down after the attacker; 4) Froome punctures or, even worse, has a substantial mechanical. Now we all know about the yellow jersey/sportsmanship norm in cycling. But this is exactly the situation where the top riders will not and cannot neutralize to wait for Froome. They have to chase and chase hard and poor little Christopher has to wait by the side of the road for a support vehicle. In this scenario he could easily lose multiple minutes.

Or we could have seen a more aggressive version of what happened yesterday. I still don't know why the Movistar guys shut it down. Maybe they were tired or perhaps they concluded that Froome wouldn't crack. But for a while there the Movistar guys had Froome in an incredibly vulnerable position. If they'd put together a couple more really hard attacks, first from Quintana, then from Valverde, they might have eventually toasted Froome. It's just so dangerous for the yellow jersey to be alone like that; I have trouble believing Sky did it on purpose.

That said, Porte and the other guys cracking probably did help relieve some of the suspicion, at least among the, shall we say, more cheerleader-oriented media. Paul and Phil were definitely singing the, "This proves the racing is now clean" song after the Sky bunch disappeared. Of course this ignores the fact that Froome did not show weakness despite his big effort the day before.

Would you call Boardman a cheerleader then? when asked he said he hadn't seen anything to indicate that Sky were doping. And I think most of us would probably agree he's one of, if not the most trusted man in cycing.

the libel/slander laws in the GB is a lot harsher than the corresponding laws here in the U.S. even Vaughters won't comment about such things on the record as it would be inviting Brailsford and News Network to sue.

again, JV's comment regarding doping and accusation (taken from clinic of cyclingnews http://forum.cyclingnews.com/...4&postcount=2058); i highlighted the relevant parts for emphasis.

OK, so let me get all these conspiracy stories straight.....

1) SKY is a team of dopers, but yet they fired everyone on their team who had a doping past. Amazingly, none of these fired employess have come out and said "well, here's the truth about AKY's program. I got fired as a PR stunt. They ALL dope and here are the details." Paging Sean Yates, Bobby Julich, et al.

2) SKY goes on a tear for one stage of the TdF (after a failry uneventful week which required little energy expenditure on their part). The whole world goes bezerk on Twitter and forums and SKY says "Schitt, we better take it down a notch. Ritchie, you are gonna have to struggle all day to sell the story. All you other guys who were up ther....you, too. Drop out on the second climb."

3) As a result of the great conspiracy, SKY ends up isolating their team leader all day, leaving them in a vulnerable position where they could have lost the Tour.

4) Porte, who has been faking it all day, then decides to attempt to bridge up to Froome and almost makes it. But then gets told in his earpiece to sit up and lose over 15 minutes. So SKY willingly gave up not only the podium, but any shot at a Top 10. Porte, who could have parlayed a TdF podium into a massive payday, is OK with this.

Seriously?

Wouldn't it have just made more sense for Porte et al to be up there for the majority of the race adn then "burn out" on the final climb?

I'm not saying that SKY is clean, but these conspiracy theories are pretty far out there.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

I have no doubt that some people will say one thing publicly but harbour a very different view privately. But I'm not sure that would ring true of Boardman. Doesn't strike me as that kind if person.

One thing weighing in favour of Boardman's view is that he works/worked (can't remember if he still does now) with British cycling who in turn have a very close working relationship with Team Sky. You would have thought if Boardman had the slightest inkling that something was up he'd have mention something even if it was just in an off the the cuff read between the lines kind of way.

You forgot the one about the moon landing! But other than that you hit the nail on the head.

An alternate theory being that SKY is a team of dopers, but that whatever stuff they're using this time around to evade detection simply isn't very effective.
I'll watch and decide how fresh Froome is tomorrow before passing any my own judgment on what happened the last couple days. I remember watching Froome look like a mountain goat at last year's TdF, almost literally carrying Wiggins up the climbs. It's possible he's *just that good* and got ahead of his teammates yesterday by more than they were capable of sustaining. How smart it turns out to be depends on how much he had to give to perform like that so early on. He is a competitive athlete, and once he attacked probably just defended as he saw fit. Maybe he did so regardless of any yelling in the earpiece. Within the first 100 meters he would have been told how far behind any support was, if he didn't already know how hard Porte was fading from riding with him earlier.

I think we might be surprised at how big training differences could be in the pro peloton. The above is certainly a safe assumption-- that at the TdF all the guys are doing everything right and training optimally, but maybe not. A few years ago when Voeckler was in yellow for a week or so, I remember reading that afterwards, he'd admitted that he hadn't really taken his training very seriously before the Tour. He'd barely been on his bike for a few weeks prior to the race! He spent so long in yellow, and survived a few stages folks thought surely he'd be decimated on, that it seemed like it was a real wake-up call for him to get it together. And he's easily one of the top French cyclists.

As another example, I remember a news story this past winter, or the one before, that talked about how different it was that Wiggins was training through the off-season and all-year round, like other endurance athletes do. Writing from a cycling perspective, the tone of the article was that this training style was surprising.

This is all to say that I don't think its unreasonable to say that Sky has a better training program ongoing than some of the other squads. I'm not really buying the marginal gains shit (we have blue lighting in our buses because it helps the riders relax!) as reason for the team doing incredibly well and being so consistent, but I definitely think they could have a training edge. That could contribute.

I'm not sure while you're replying to me since we clearly agree on your points 2-4. If Sky was the slightest bit worried about their doping PR they would have told Porte to sit up on Saturday not on Sunday. I think what happened was doped or not Porte cooked himself on Saturday, which was stupid for him to do and Sky to let him do it. As for Sky's reputation: it's not exactly new. People have been raising pretty strong questions about this team and especially Froome for a while. He put in a couple of monster rides during the Vuelta last year and that ride on Saturday was either one of the greatest in history or a complete farce. But there's never been the slightest physical or eye-witness evidence against Sky that I know of. So maybe they really are that good. Maybe.

Of all the ridiculous things that have been said in this thread so far ("Wiggins was only good for one year" and "Sky and Froome have been rubbish in the lead-up to the TdF" are a couple of other classics) the idea that the Sky team actually sandbagged an entire stage yesterday just to allay suspicions of doping may well take the biscuit.

I don't know for sure if the Sky team are clean. Nobody really does other than the riders themselves. And after the Lance saga and all the other times we've been let down by dopers in this sport, it would be naive in the extreme not to retain a healthy degree of scepticism towards any team/rider who dominates too much.

But for now there is no hard evidence against Sky and even the circumstantial evidence is extremely thin on the ground. It basically boils down to:
- They employed (and then got rid of) in a part-time advisory role a doctor who was previously associated with a doping team
- They're fast

As far as I'm aware, there are no accusations from disgruntled former employees or spouses doing the rounds. The current roster of staff and riders are as untainted by doping scandals as it's possible to be in this sport, and those who did have some question marks over them (e.g. Rogers, Yates) are no longer with the team (although if either of those 2 left for reasons related to doping in their past then it's extremely disappointing that that wasn't made public). And there are some extremely dogged investigative anti-doping journalists in the UK (such as Walsh and Kimmage) who I have no doubt will be digging around for any dirt they can find on Sky and so far they've turned up nothing substantial.

For some posters here, Sky are damned if they do and damned if they don't. When they publish some data they get lambasted for not publishing it all. When they got rid of Leinders they were accused of a cover up for not doing it earlier. When they win they get accused of being invincible doped-up robots. When they don't win they get accused of sandbagging. Twisting everything they do into a pre-determined narrative of "they must be doping" and ignoring anything to the contrary is in my view just as close-minded as those who used to do the same thing to support a narrative that Lance was clean whatever evidence was presented against.

As one of the strongest teams in a sport with the past that cycling has, Sky need to be held to high anti-doping standards and criticised when they fall short of them. But as a team that explicitly set out to win clean and that largely grew out of a programme (British track cycling) that has had a number of years of success without any doping scandals or even rumours, I also think they deserve at least some benefit of the doubt until or unless there is something more substantial against them than that they're winning races. I'm certainly prepared to at least not discount the possibility for now that they're doing it clean. I sincerely hope that history backs that view and that we can look back on this time as the start of a new, cleaner era in cycling (but sadly I have to admit that I wouldn't be that surprised to be disappointed once again).

That is interesting information. I come from a running background and there is no way world class distance runners can pull that sort of slack training off.

The curse of Thor.

Thanks you cartsman

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

How slack?
He might have just been missing out on the last 50 miles he was supposed to do, or not quite pushing as hard.

Might have even been a good thing, tour prep is hard to figure out.

Voeckler likes to keep himself thought of as not that talented, it aids his goals, is part of his plan.

But the guy is probably among the best talents in the world.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Plus Sky had Kiryienka outside the time limit, so lost a rider for the last 2 weeks. I cannot see them doing that just to sandbag.

For most, I don't think a mere win constitutes evidence that they're doping, or that Froome is doped. But it can't be denied that Froome's ride on Saturday was, to paraphrase the Cyclocosm blogger, numerically similar to doped performances in the past. Froome's time up that climb beat Armstrong's doped time up that climb. Period. Until Sky release Froome's data to suggest otherwise, I think its very reasonable to be suspicious.

I'm not saying he's doping. As I've said, perhaps Sky's training is superior to alot of the peloton. Their guys are obviously talented and hard-working. But the suspicion is reasonable. Whether its right or wrong, in cycling today the burden of proof is on the teams.

I recall that Froome's time was slower than Armstrong's time.

Though there seem to be various times...and various distances:

http://journalvelo.com/...go-up-ax-3-domaines/

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Fair enough, but then that would seem to dispute T-Rex's position that some teams may in fact be training poorly (at least based on his example). I suppose all I am saying is that there rarely are great secrets to training for endurance sports, so I am not convinced that one can point to superior coaching as the reason some teams are far superior.

Cycling has the added hiccup that people *can* race all the time, and many people choose to, or think it is ideal to...and it may not be.

No idea if that matters much, a little, or not at all though.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter