It makes no sense to you that one team can out plan, or detail, or train, another?

Have you been paying attention the past several years? Aerodynamics, nutrition, recovery, equipment choices, course reconnaissance, race schedule leading into the Tour, are all examples of where a few teams have consistently been ahead of the curve.

Heck the Schlecks won't even train on their TT bikes or practice downhills.

We went through a period where the Aussies were dominant. They were cutting edge from top to bottom, talent ID and development to coaching to aero. It started on the velodrome and carried over to the road, and it was funded and motivated by the Sydney Olympics.

The balance of power has clearly shifted to GB, once again it started on the velodrome, has carried over to the road, and was funded and motivated by the London Olympics.

Cuddles, the grizzled leader, is now approaching that age where the body is not able to do what it once did. Tejay is good but not necessarly great, and still a bikt young. And thenre is not much depth beyond that. BMC is not SKY or Garmin in terms of big cheque book.

---

Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's

On a related side-note, could someone clarify why the teams never want to release their top guys' power data for these climbs (I think some of them will, nibbles?) ? Why no onboard GPS live streaming power out to the fans? I assume for tactical reasons the teams want to keep stuff hush-hush...but its unclear to me what the specific reasons must me. In my mind, it comes down to the guy can produce X amount of wattage to get up a climb, and the basis of that is largely dependent on training/health/how good the day is. So why bother hiding that number?

Agreed that suspicion is reasonable. Given cycling's history, it would be naive to assume that any dominant performance is clean. My point was that what's not reasonable is the posters who have already made their minds up that Sky are the new US Postal and will ignore or twist the facts to suit their world view.

As you say, let's take Froome's climb on Saturday. Saturday was pretty much the optimal imaginable conditions for a good time up that climb. There was a tailwind. It was warm and dry. It was the first mountain day of the Tour after a couple of easy days so the riders were fresh. It was the last climb of the stage and the finish was pretty much at the peak so there was every reason to go for it. And the pre-Tour favourite was delivered into the lead on that climb having been protected by his team for the entire stage up to that point. In other words, the strongest rider on the Tour hit the front of that climb in fast conditions, in a fresh a state as possible, and in a tactical situation where it made sense for him to absolutely bury himself.

So how does that compare to other ascents of that climb and specifically Lance's? The Tour's only been up that climb 4 times, the first being in 2001, so Froome having the 3rd fastest time up there isn't particularly remarkable. As has already been pointed out, Lance's time from 2001 was when it was the 3rd mountain stage of the Tour (and 12th stage overall and the stage after the individual time trial), and the Ax 3 climb wasn't even at the finish. In other words, Lance in 2001 would have had been significantly more tired than Froome before he started, and with a mountain finish still to come on that stage he wouldn't have been going anywhere near as close to his maximum as Froome was. Does that mean Froome is 100% clean? Of course not, but it does put his time on Saturday into better perspective and mean it's likely not as incredible a ride as some people are making out.

It could inform other teams tactics, at least in theory. You would know exactly what pace to go up a climb to put a guy in difficulty.

They also may not want bloggers making up all kinds of narratives about how this or that bit of power data proves doping.

Of course, not releasing the power, that also proves doping!

---

---

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

Yes, but isn't the best perspective versus what he did against his main rivals on that day, not how it fairs against a 2001 time for Lance?

What he did over the last 5k alone was crazy and I am just highly skeptical. Forget about the full climb, it was the final 5k that was just other worldly, he banked virtually all his time gaps on contenders on that portion alone.

Big gaps happened on mountains before there was oxygen vector doping.

---

---

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

Agreed. I think for me, my skepticism is that until 2011 when Froome exploded onto the scene with #2 in Vuelta, he was basically a nobody with no major wins nor any impressive rides that made him shine as a future star. Since 2011 Vuelta the guy has had a straight vertical projection in his success and wins. Just makes me skeptical about such an explosion in a career. I see many similarities with US Postal and UK Postal, I mean Sky.

The question is whether those guys cracked or stayed at their own limit. It didn't appear to me that Contador or Valverde cracked, but rather were riding at their absolute limit. That's a big seperation at the pointy end of the peloton over such a short period of time. In today's era with all the technology and information on hand, it seems unlikely that a rider can be that dominant over his peers. Do you know what the actual time gaps in the final 5k were? I haven't analyzed in detail, just recall that it seemed to all occur at that point.

Lots of guys like Evans had horrible days. Contador was going bad enough that Kreuziger had to wait for him a few times and lost less than 2 minutes. Mollema and Ten Dam are good climbers but hardly what you would call grand tour GC bit hitters and they were only about a minute down. What is so remarkable about the best climber in last years tour taking those time gaps out?

Last year Mollema and Valverde lost a bit over 2 minutes to Froome on the first mountain stage and Ten Dam lost almost 3 minutes on a much easier stage. Sounds to me like those guys were closer this year. How does that fit into the "doping narative?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/...2012/stage-7/results

All of the big hitters had shit days except Valverde. Even on a crappy day Contador was less than 2 minutes down.

I think you guys are grasping at straws where there is no real evidence.

Who knows who is clean and who isn't, but I've been following the Tour de France for 30 years and I didn't see anything that shouted doping to me.

Is the new level of proof for doping going to be "well, he won, didn't he?"

---

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava

Is the new level of proof for doping going to be "well, he won, didn't he?"

Lol....Well, it's kind of worked out that way and its not our fault.

Of course there won't be any solid evidence until the blood tests are developed 5-10 years from now to test whatever the new "thing" is or someone is busted with some bags of blood with their pet turtle's name on it. Sky has already had their association with Dr. Leinders who is basically the Belgian version of Dr. Ferrari or Dr. Fuentes. We have already seen this cycle before; rinse, repeat and rinse again.

It's worked fairly well in triathlon on occasion and I don't ever see anybody on here jumping to the same conclusion about Ironman. How did Mark Allen do a time that was less than 4 minutes slower than the current course record 20 years ago? I don't think he was doping, but by using the logic I see on this forum he must have been, right? 8:07 in 1993?

---

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava

Did you also google the guy's history? If so you'd have found out that he came from a very untraditional cycling background and turned professional very late (aged 22), and also that from his teenage years onwards he suffered from a debilitating parasitic disease (Bilharzia) which was only properly diagnosed (and hence could only be properly managed/treated) in 2010. Prior to that point he apparently had some very impressive numbers in training (which is why Sky took him on - they love their numbers there) but was very inconsistent and struggled to replicate it in races. It was only when they properly diagnosed his illness and could treat it properly that he was able to train consistently and translate those numbers into race day performances.

Again it doesn't mean that he's clean (and of course there are obvious parallels to another cyclist who suffered a debilitating illness and then miraculously recovered to come back stronger and faster than before) but as an explanation for why he blossomed so late as a rider it should at least be discussed on it's merits and not completely ignored.

Same thing goes for those who are wondering where Peter Kennaugh has suddenly appeared from. They should try Google. He grew up on the hilly Isle of Man and has a background in BMX riding so it's not that surprising that he can descend fast. And he's an Olympic pursuit champion, so it's also not that surprising that he can lay down a really big effort for a few miles before blowing up and dropping off the pace.

You do realize that BMC has a few world champions right? Though I haven't seen their balance sheet I highly doubt that they come cheap....in fact I remember reading that was one complaint that Thor had at Garmin was they didn't have the budget to give him a bonus when Cervelo and Garmin merged the year he won.

When Kona begins its parade of doping confessions and negative tests we can start to talk about the similarities. AS it stands, we have Nina Kraft and ......

As I see it nobody was let down. It's more that their illusions ended. If you don't have the illusion then all the hand-wringing isn't necessary.

Have people noticed all the fans on the climbs? They apparently don't give a shit. Just like most people didn't really give a shit about Ray Lewis and deer scrotum spray or whatever it was. They wouldn't even have cared about McGwire and Sosa had there not been such a media frenzy. Or Clemens and Armstrong ... except those 2 were dicks about it and were generally unlikable.

That is not to say that it's all the media's fault, but rather that people form their thoughts by what they see and read every day, and when the big deal is made about it then people follow that lead

To me the central question isn't about whether they are clean or not clean. It's why do people have the illusion that professional sports are the paragon of virtuous athletic competition? Have they ever been? Pro sports exist because someone figured out that they can profit from people watching a spectacle.

How many tests will be performed in this year's Tour de France?

How many tests have been performed in the last 10 years at Kona?

You have to test to catch people.

Here is WADA's report from the 2003 Tour. http://www.wada-ama.org/...nt/tdf_io_report.pdf

EVERYBODY got blood tested before the start of the Tour.

There were 132 urine samples taken after the stages (6 or 7 per stage).

There were 7 out of competition tests taken during the course of the Tour.

That was 10 years ago. I don't know what they are doing now, but can only assume in today's climate there is more testing than 10 years ago.

---

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava

I don't think so.
But we have the data from the 90s+2000s where we now know everyone winning was doping. You can look at the average times of the peloton, up the famous climbs, etc, and they clearly drop off in the last 5 years (or whatever) as cycling has gotten cleaner. W/kg has dropped off. When someone comes along and suddenly they're performing like the doped guys we have data from...its right to be suspicious. In some ways, its very unfortunate, as instead of saying chapeau and lauding Froome's ability, spirit, heart, whatever, we're saying "that's impossible for a clean human being to do."

As to the releasing of power data from Sky and the other riders, I agree with jackmott that a general public release would not be super helpful. You'd have all of us and others in the forums/twitterverse playing armchair analyst when not many of us are qualified to do it. Brailsford said as much at the Sky press conference yesterday. But this is why sports have referees... why not release data to a panel of refs for analysis. It's an incredibly sticky issue, because I don't know what the role of such a panel would be. It seems obviously unfair to give referees, even experts, the ability to convict a guy of doping based merely on past doped performance data and the unknown limits of human endurance. Then again, there's a reason that O2 vector doping was so ubiquitous...because it was/is apparently the only way to achieve such performances. No good answer here, I think.

But my point is that you don't REALLY KNOW. The data that everybody is bandying about is all suspect. How much does he really weigh? Head or tail wind? Has the road been repaved since Armstrong went up it? Stage 8 vs. stage 14 (Armstrong). Using the metric of times up climbs is so fraught with peril. What were the tactics leading up to and on the climb? Sky hit the bottom of that climb hard and it never let up. Optimal tactics for setting a fast time. Do you know the times you are comparing Froome to were accomplished in the same manner? Do you compare ironman marathon times vs open marathon times? (stage 8 vs stage 14 in the case of Ax 3 Domains, Froome vs. Armstrong).

To think that you can conclude that somebody is doping with all of those unknowns is just stupid.

---

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava

The problem is that if you demand certainty when it comes to doping suspicions, then we end up back to Lance - "I have never tested positive" - when all of the evidence and speculation told us the (opposite) truth. With Froome we don't have nearly the consistent suspicion and innuendo that we had with certain dopers, but having been "fooled" so many times in the past by excuses and justifications, I think people are right to be more suspicious when they see an exceptional performance. I would say it is just stupid to accept extraordinary performances without questioning them.

Over a 3 week grand tour the body will naturally decrease in hematocrit levels UNLESS they are oxygen/blood vectoring. If you look at LA's profiles over the big Tours where there is data you will see that he is one of the impossible miracles of the human phsyiology where his hematocrit either stayed the same or INCREASED in the grand tours (except the '09 Giro where they actually dropped like they were supposed to but not in the Tour the same year where they increased slightly as the race went on).

So what's the point then ...... If Froome's time is better than LA's up the same stretch of road and we know for sure LA doped and his hematocrit levels were subsidized by PED's/transfusions by that point in his corresponding Tour, then it really raises the eyebrows and Froome's performance is suspect. Especially with the following day where he was attacked continuously by Movistar and didn't implode like his teammate. We'll never know. But it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to look at the general facts and question things.

---

_____________________________________________
Rick, "Retired" hobbyist athlete
Trying to come back slowly from acute A-Fib

The difference was that there was actual evidence w/ LA. Eyewitnesses telling their story, the Actovegen dumping, failed drug tests, etc.

Right now, there is no evidence that Froome has doped, only a stage win and hand-wringing on the internets.

While it won't surprise me in the slightest if Froome someday comes up dirty (and I'm not saying his is, just that I won't be surprised), I prefer to wait until there is some actual evidence of something before I make a judgement.

---

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

And I'm not accusing him. I'm merely stating that there are glaring incidents that should rightfully bring up the questions. Not just for him but for others as well, some of whom are usual suspects.

---

_____________________________________________
Rick, "Retired" hobbyist athlete
Trying to come back slowly from acute A-Fib

Rocket surgeon: http://www.urbandictionary.com/...erm=Rocket%20Surgeon

---

_____________________________________________________
Instagram | Team Kiwami North America