Gramercy

Apparently Froome and Porte are staying in the Sky motorhome for the tour, when most (maybe all) other riders stay at hotels? Interesting.

TheKillerPenguin

Spooning can have therapeutic affects.

Doge

The argument that all riders are to be treated the same -during the event- has some merit. So the hotel is like the cobbles. When they start waking up a few riders for dope testing - they need to wake them all up. Maybe add a stage where ever rider is kept up all night and poked in the arm and have them give 4oz of blood (maybe as a % of body weight) - equally.

What to do about the WAGs now...

gsteinb

No ants! Starting a fire. Me. I looked for fanning the flames, but couldn't find it. I suck.

save10

Tour de France shorts: Team Sky motorhome still providing marginal gains | Cyclingnews.com

They're not actually spooning overnite in the motorhome....per UCI regulations. maybe just after the race

hack

75 is the two lap lead out to the 85 sprint

cmh

Whatever happened to the xenon therapy that the Russians were using in the winter olympics? That seemed like a pretty good hematocrit booster. I believe it is on the banned list now, but still undetectable right?

As has been said in previous posts, there will always be a next doping method that is one step ahead of testing. We need to hold all winnings in escrow until retroactive testing is done as new tests are developed .

Ygduf

I hope they are pumping it full of O2, making recovery easier for those two every day. Like when TO slept in a hyperbaric chamber to help with his recovery.

grolby

Ugh, really? People anxious to believe will buy that, but my understanding is that there's no real evidence in sports science that body proportions have strong influence on performance.

The performances of Porte and Thomas are among the most damaging things for Sky's credibility in this Tour.

I do kind of feel for the complaints that there's nothing Sky can do to quiet the doubters, but there is in fact something: climb slower. 6.2 w/kg for 40 minutes is hard to believe from anyone. From someone with Froome's history, it's really hard to take.

The depressing take from Ross Tucker (but the logical one, I think) is not that the rest are clean, but just like 2004, Sky are the best at the game. Things were looking better for a little while, but over the last year, year and a half, things have started to accelerate again.

misterwaterfall

The trolls have been out in full force against him, kind of a mix of funny and sad at the same time.

I saw it broken down into 3 options:
Froome/Sky are doping, everyone else is clean thus them being head and shoulders above
Everyone is doping, Froome/Sky better like grolby suggests making them head and shoulders above
Everyone is clean and Froome/Sky are just more gifted and better at racing bikes

I can't believe that everyone is clean in any sport/activity/business, so either they are just that much better at it, or doing something that the others aren't

gsteinb

I find the idea of Froome being clean to be so ponderously silly that it's up there with the Easter bunny. I earnestly wonder what the **** is wrong with people. Look at the history. They've all been dopers. But suddenly this guy is climbing at the same levels clean.

I'm posting this while watching the Month of Zen, with Lance Armstrong being interviewed right now.

'they're throwing around allegations…don't the results speak for themselves at some point?'

save10

Re: Porte.

Porte isnt that suprising that he did well on that stage. He did have a terrible Giro and if anything that was a bigger surprise. I actually expected him to win the Giro or at least be a close 2nd. Just prior to that he won Trentino, Paris-Nice, Catalyuna and 4th at Algarve all this year. If anything he is a better GC prospect that TVG. FWIW he was 9 minutes down today (after doing work) and 50 down overall. this is neither an endorsement nor an indictment towards porte being clean or not


Re: 75mph

That doesnt seem like that much of a stretch. one of the 130lb Yates twins tweeted out that be reached 100kph/62mph today. and Thor Husovd hit 69mph on that TDF stage he won where he attacked on the breakaway in the green jersey.

gsteinb

I don't believe that either.
It takes a hell of a long straight to get big speed. Those descents tend to be winding. 62 to 75 is a massive difference. I don't know what the real number is, but when talking heads on TV start throwing out numbers dollars to doughnuts they're not correct.

MDcatV

Johann told him he couldn't win today

Grumpy McTrumpy

here's an interview with ross tucker who seems to provide a fairly level-headed perspective https://soundcloud.com/offtheball/ro...n-chris-fromme

furiousferret

Its too bad Nibali isn't on form. The UCI unjustly harassing Astana must have affected his build up to tour and he wasn't able to do things he could do last year....training things.

Doge

I am not 100% sold on the statement that non-drug performance [plus a decade or two] must be lower than the drug performance.
I also expect it is normal for riders to keep their power/training/supplement private.
That a bunch would be cheating is easy to believe, but 6.3W/kg for 30 min does not prove anything to me. I think we will see better than that in the next decade.

Look at how many sub 4 min milers there are now. Maybe they are on drugs too.

Ygduf

the numbers tossed around for froome are numbers I am pretty close to. If you put him and me side by side, he does look 40lbs lighter...

Doge

Glad you posted that.
I didn't want to have to bring up junior examples.

shermo

I can do more than 600W when I attack going uphill so that's something.

Ygduf

thinspiration sights shy away because it's too disturbing.



wiggans legs when he won


I don't know if they are clean or not, but I know they are running like 5% bodyfat and have eaten away all the muscle that isn't purely for pushing pedals.

Doge

Thing is his "close" competitors look very "normal". Chris is different. I find him very likable (and I lived 5 years in Nairobi). Watching him ride is kinda like watching the N Korean women's soccer team - except he wins.
I am thinking of shortening juniors cranks however after watching him a bit too much.

Ygduf

we will both be hated for saying anything other than some version of Chris Pharm, but look at Nairo's biceps and look at Froome's biceps. The bodyfat % difference is stark.



again, they're probably all cheating, but assuming relatively equal amounts of cheating, it doesn't shock me that Froome is crushing long climbs and losing the shorter ones.

Doge

Again, I'm not at all surprised any professional athlete cheats. It is more what is/or can be enforced or not that makes me think they are not. But that thread was closed.

To me the incredible thing is the endurance / ability to put out that power after 3-4 hours or more.
The numbers in the Tucker recording for Froome for 30 min 385W is not that big a deal by itself. At that time into the race it is more so.
Eddy Merckx put out a measured 455 for and hour and estimated 485 for an hour about 40 years ago. Wiggins said he was trying to hold 485 last year for the ITT.
Why shouldn't cyclist develop like runner and swimmers. And their speeds even more so with the equipment improvements.
1976 1,500m running winning time 3:39.17
2000 1,500m running winning time 3:32.07
1954 Roger Banniter 1st and only to run sub 4 mile (said he would die if he did). A pile of folks have now - 50+ in the USA and some HS kids.
Untitled Normal Page

Then we all know runners are on drugs.

globecanvas

I don't believe that human physiology has hit its maximum and any performance above some arbitrary ceiling (say, 6.2 w/kg for 40 minutes) is evidence of cheating.

But look at the performance gap between Froome and the rest of the peloton. As you say, many runners can now do a sub 4 minute mile which would have seemed inconceivable in 1950. But how bizarre would it be if one guy was now running 3:45 and all of the other top runners in the world were still over 4 minutes? That's more comparable to what is happening now. And then throw in the fact that the one guy's teammates are also outperforming.

Froome is putting up performances that were only previously seen in the doping free-for-all era, but nobody else is. It's not like all of humanity is marching onward and improving together.

It's all conjecture and I don't think "he seems too strong" should ever be evidence of doping, but I totally agree with Ross Tucker and others who are saying that the burden of proof is on Sky.

Why not share all of the power and heart rate data with the world? Why do they treat this stuff like a trade secret? It's not like the other teams will look at the data and say "aha, 6.2 w/kg, now we know their secret and all we need to do is train to 6.3 w/kg and win!"