mattm

Both have put on unbelievable performances.

Even before Froome's current inhaler-troubles with the UCI, many thought he was dirty.

So why does Sagan get a pass?

A serious question.

Lazyass

Well Sagan isn't winning tours year after year. I personally became suspicious of Froome when he went up Ventoux faster than a doped up Armstrong. But who knows.

one4smoke

Don't like Froome. Like Sagan.

eja_ bottecchia

MinnMan

But he has done some remarkable things that mere mortal cyclists just can't match. Like when he rode away from the pack this spring in Paris Roubaix. I'm not taking a position on who is or isn't clean, but there are times when Sagan just seems to have an edge on the competition that either indicates amazing physiology or....

johnny99

Team Sky's mysterious jiffy bags put everyone on that team under a cloud of suspicion.

mattm

RJM

canklecat

Totally different styles and physiques.

Sagan is more of a single day event racer. He's built to dominate the spring monument classics, if he chose to concentrate on those. He'd need to lose at least 10 lbs to be consistently competitive in the grand tour mountain stages. Only way to do that without weakening from starvation would be obvious doping. The fact that he's still at his natural weight is pretty good evidence he's not doping, or not doing so seriously enough to get caught. But by contemporary standards he's still too young in his career to pigeonhole.

Froome is a freak. He may be a of nature. It happens sometimes. Not all tall stringbeans with exceptional power to weight are doping. I can think of several boxers who fit that niche: Bob Fitzsimmons, Bob Foster (dominant at light heavy but couldn't crack heavyweight); Bernard Hopkins, a natural light heavyweight who could strip down to middleweight for years without weakening and still be effective at light heavy; Tito Trinidad, a natural middleweight who was most effective at welter but merely ordinary at middle. And lots of long distance runners.

Even if Froome is among the handful of athletes who'd get a significant benefit from from extra doses of salbutamol/albuterol, it's not going to be on the same level as EPO or steroids. Currently there's no consensus about benefits to salbutamol or an effective way to test for it. I've used albuterol inhalers for years just to breathe and even when I exceed the recommended dosage it's barely effective. It's really a crappy rescue inhaler -- nowhere near as immediately effective as epinephrine, still the only really effective rescue inhaler for severe asthma attacks. I'd need to eat a year's worth of inhalers in conjunction with a rigorous training and diet program to see any advantage.

But I'm mostly indifferent to the whole issue of doping among pro athletes. Legalize or decriminalize it and let the athletes and trainers choose. They're going to do it anyway, always have. It's akin to technology -- it can't be thwarted. If something can be done, it will be done. Legalizing or decriminalizing will encourage better research and reduce health risks, compared with the sneaky under the table stuff. Some athletes will still try to find other, potentially more dangerous advantages. No way to change that.

Besides the next big thing will be at the genetics level. Future generations of genetically enhanced humans, mostly coming out of Russia and China, will making today's doping seem as quaint as cyclists a century ago drinking alcohol and taking strychnine and arsenic for some advantages.

Same reason why I'm indifferent to the well supported charges that Anquetil, Merckx and others doped. The stuff they used -- speed and coke -- was just as likely to blow up their hearts and kill them as give them any advantage. It may have given them a tiny advantage in the context of their races and era. By 1990s standards it was a joke, hardly worth a footnote in history. Anquetil and Merckx would be world class cyclists in any era.

Save the puritanism for the amateurs. Even there some folks will cheat. People will do crazy stuff for kudos and chromed pieces of plastic.

Lazyass

I'm well aware of Sagan's accomplishments. He's my favorite racer. But a UCI World Championship isn't the same as winning a three week stage race.

work4bike

They're all doping. Tom Dumoulin was only 46 seconds behind; he's a doper

OBoile

Sadly, I think this is likely the case for all of the top guys. I just try my best not to think about it.

mattm

So anyone who wins a grand tour is doping? I mean I don't doubt that's the case, but I don't how Sagan gets a free pass.

What about Sagan winning field sprints deep in to a grand tour? (like stage 21 of the 2011 Vuelta, stage 16 of the 2016 TdF, etc)

MinnMan

Lazyass does have a point here. The Grand Tours are brutal endurance events well beyond that of any major sport - 19 races in 21 days. But they aren't equally brutal for the sprinters as for the GC. Sprinters can take it easy in the mountain stages and lose tons of time there. GC riders have to HTFU every damned climb. The temptation for GC riders to dope is greater.

That said, I don't have confidence that any of them are clean. I hope they are, but I wouldn't stake anything of value on it.

mattm

colombo357

I think it's the consistency.

His wins are generally consistent on the same type of terrain. He's heavy enough to win short time trials and he does on occasion, like the ToC TT.

If all of a sudden he starts winning 40K TTs and a sprint the following day, suspicion will grow.

work4bike

With all the focus on the "big guns" of cycling, I wonder how easy it is for the Super Domestiques to go under the radar. Look at any strong team, especially Sky nowadays. Those riders that keep the Froome's out of trouble and out of the wind are doing crazy badass riding. Yet, it's the riders they ride for that get all the doping attention.

Maybe the Foome's of the cycling world are true freaks of nature, but what really puts them over the top are their drugged up team of Super Domestiques.


.

MinnMan

All riders are subject to post-race random testing. What flies under the radar of the press or message boards still has to elude UCI protocols, which we all know is impossible quite likely. (I hope you've all seen Icarus btw, just in case you have a drop of remaining idealism that hasn't yet been drained)

tungsten

Is it on u-tube?

San Pedro

It's on Netflix, it's a very good film.

brianmcg123

KraneXL

That or simply accept the truth and recognize that they're still all at the same level. Also, don't like Froome's clown theatrics. Not the best representative for the sport.

Caretaker

Not surprised you find it hard to believe when you post links to The Onion.

Colnago Mixte

People like to imagine that there was some time in the past when the Tour de France and other pro races were "clean", and think we need to return to that. But these races have never been clean, Indurain doped (a guy his size dropping 125 lb climbing specialists in the mountains?) and I imagine every single Tour winner there has ever been has doped to some degree, whether they admit it or not, even Lemond and Merckx.

There are no days of "clean racing" we can return to, because bike racing never has been a clean sport, and never will be clean sport.

The day professional cycling is made a clean sport, will be the same day that horse racing finally becomes a clean sport.

Zaskar

Because Peter Sagan is just the epitome of cool. I was in Richmond when he won the Worlds. Immediately afterward, he went to the center of the fan section to sign hats and shirts and thank the fans. It was very cool. He's infinitely more fun to watch. Sagan seems "superhuman" while Froome seems "inhuman". Froome is the Tom Brady, and Sky is the Patriots of the cycling world. We want to see them lose. Well, I do... I'm a Steelers fan ;-)

Plus, he drives this:


So, I think we try harder to believe he's clean.