Chris Froome and doping.

[Spafranco]

It has not taken the buzzards long , but they are already suggesting that Froome was taking performance enhancing drugs. I don't feel for one moment that he was. I believe he won the race cleanly and at times showed that he was not invincible. Richie Porte his wing man had a total collapse on one of the stages.
What do you believe?

[BDunnell]

It has not taken the buzzards long , but they are already suggesting that Froome was taking performance enhancing drugs. I don't feel for one moment that he was. I believe he won the race cleanly and at times showed that he was not invincible. Richie Porte his wing man had a total collapse on one of the stages.
What do you believe?

What we believe doesn't matter, surely? How do we know?

[Spafranco]

What we believe doesn't matter, surely? How do we know?

We know that at least he has passed all tests initiated by McQuaid's group and independently by outside sources tasked with these matters. No person will ever know for sure but if you viewed the race from start to finish you could see the top riders fall off the pace and not recover for two days. I mentioned Richie Porte. He expended so much energy keeping Froome in contention on the dual climb of L'Alpe deHuez that he was a spent force the following day and lost 12 minutes. We can only hope.

[Robinho]

I want to believe he is riding clean, and that the majority of the current riders are also clean. History shows that this is unlikely, and as much I as I'd like to believe that the sport has turned a corner, I would not be surprised if the dopers are ahead of the testers.

In Froomes case there is zero evidence of anything untoward, the current testing regime is very different from it was in the 80's, 90's and 00's, and the sport in general seems serious in uncovering the cheats rather than being complicit in the whole affair.

What we do know is there are guys who have come back from bans and are not riding at the same level, power, consistency as they were before, so it seems that they are probably clean.

on the other hand, I am not doping and I can manage 30km/hr average on a fairly flat ride for about 1-1.5hrs. these guys can do 45km/hr average for 4+ hours, including mountain climbs - I'll have some of what they are having please!

[Mark]

It has not taken the buzzards long , but they are already suggesting that Froome was taking performance enhancing drugs. I don't feel for one moment that he was. I believe he won the race cleanly and at times showed that he was not invincible. Richie Porte his wing man had a total collapse on one of the stages.
What do you believe?

The only surprise is that you are saying this now; they've been saying this on the 6th July after Froome took yellow, nearly a month ago. Is there something new which has prompted you to post this today?

[Mark]

on the other hand, I am not doping and I can manage 30km/hr average on a fairly flat ride for about 1-1.5hrs. these guys can do 45km/hr average for 4+ hours, including mountain climbs - I'll have some of what they are having please!

What are they having? I guess a very strict diet and training regime and riding their bike for many hours every single day. And even if you did all the same training for the same number of years you probably wouldn't match up as it takes certain physical characteristics that not everyone is born with.

[airshifter]

Sadly it seems that the biking community now has a reputation of staying ahead of the doping testing. The worst part of this is that the guys not doping might be questioned just as often, and reputations tarnished.

The ones I feel for are the ones completely legal who have dedicated huge amounts of time and effort to training, only to be questioned due to the number of people doping. It drags the sport down.

[donKey jote]

My brother in law abandoned his cycling career rather than be forced by the medical team to take "recovery aid injections", and I admit I'm biased due to his story, but I doubt very much anyone above amateur level is completely clean, as opposed to "never tested positive for anything on the current list". :dozey:
What Froome did was almost inhuman, unless he's the second Indurain of course :andrea:

[MrJan]

We know that at least he has passed all tests initiated by McQuaid's group and independently by outside sources tasked with these matters.

That means about as much as...well not very much. Lance Armstrong never failed a test that he didn't have a reason for (as far as I'm aware he only failed one and managed to produce a "Doctor's note" to say that he was using Cortisone injections legitimately).


What Froome did was almost inhuman, unless he's the second Indurain of course :andrea:

Hhhm, the wonderful Miguel Indurain, a rider who could never have doped :laugh: Just imagine how much more he could have won by if his closest rivals hadn't been proven dopers ;)

It's a shame to say it but I think that cycling is still full of doping at the top level, even those like Froome and Wiggins. The truth is that I think that the majority of top level sports are in the same boat, it's just not shouted about in the same way as cycling. Where cycling has the edge, IMO, is that they at least seem to be trying to rectify things, even if they're failing at the minute.

[Spafranco]

The only surprise is that you are saying this now; they've been saying this on the 6th July after Froome took yellow, nearly a month ago. Is there something new which has prompted you to post this today?

A cycling magazine here in the US made mention of the fact that there were questions pertaining to his time trialing and his hill climbing ability. The magazine is call World Cycling. This is it's most current issue and the only ended , so I would say it was as timely as it could.

[Spafranco]

Sadly it seems that the biking community now has a reputation of staying ahead of the doping testing. The worst part of this is that the guys not doping might be questioned just as often, and reputations tarnished.

The ones I feel for are the ones completely legal who have dedicated huge amounts of time and effort to training, only to be questioned due to the number of people doping. It drags the sport down.

This is so true. Stephen Roche won the '87 Tour, Giro and WC. He was asked if the doping scandal with Lance Armstrong made him feel less worthy a champion or diminish his spectacular achievements of that season.
He stated that his wins were now seen through different eyes and that even though he was hospitalized on the penultimate climb for a superb effort to stay close to the yellow of Delgado he was certain that now all his achievements will be called into question.

He was correct. A writer for an Irish newspaper has questioned both Roche and Sean Kelly who were number 1 and 2 in the world at that time.

[555-04Q2]

There's a simple solution to doping - let everyone take them if they want and the playing field becomes even again. It's never going to go away so they might as well let the athletes choose if they want to use them or not.

This is the 21st century after all and the druggies will find new ways to bypass the system.

[Garry Walker]

There's a simple solution to doping - let everyone take them if they want and the playing field becomes even again. It's never going to go away so they might as well let the athletes choose if they want to use them or not.

This is the 21st century after all and the druggies will find new ways to bypass the system.
I agree with this, but of course that would make top level sports even bigger of a killer than they are now and I am sure we would have even more young athletes die.


but I doubt very much anyone above amateur level is completely clean, as opposed to "never tested positive for anything on the current list". :dozey:
I absolutely agree with that. It is insane to assume Froome is clean. It simply is not possible.

[Mark]

That's the issue with performance enhancing drugs - they are dangerous. The particular issue with EPO was, if you take too much of it your blood would thick to such a point that you'd get blood clots and die of a heart attack.

I'm not sure how you think it's not possible for Froome to be clean? Why is it not possible?

[Garry Walker]

That's the issue with performance enhancing drugs - they are dangerous. The particular issue with EPO was, if you take too much of it your blood would thick to such a point that you'd get blood clots and die of a heart attack.Indeed. I reckon one of the issue with so many young athletes dying these days has something to do with using substances that have their side-effects. If the use of PEDs is not limited at all, not controlled at all, then things will get just uncontrollable. We would have many dead athetes then.



I'm not sure how you think it's not possible for Froome to be clean? Why is it not possible?
People said the same about Armstrong. Why is it not possible that he is clean. Anyway, why I think he is not clean? Simple, I don't think any of the top guys is. I have nothing against Froome, he clearly is an amazing rider, but the performances he showed are not possible without some illegal "help". The sad thing is that if you try to be clean, then most likely you will be competing for places after 40.

[Mark]

I guess we just don't know. Cycling has been under the grip of doping for so long it's no longer possible to tell if a particular performance is because of a naturally gifted athlete who has trained well or because of drugs.

Especially after Armstrong, this is going to hang over cycling for a long time yet.

[555-04Q2]

That's the issue with performance enhancing drugs - they are dangerous. The particular issue with EPO was, if you take too much of it your blood would thick to such a point that you'd get blood clots and die of a heart attack.

I'm not sure how you think it's not possible for Froome to be clean? Why is it not possible?

Driving is dangerous. Crossing the road is dangerous. Doesn't stop us from doing it everyday though ;)

[donKey jote]

Hhhm, the wonderful Miguel Indurain, a rider who could never have doped :laugh: Just imagine how much more he could have won by if his closest rivals hadn't been proven dopers ;)

;) :andrea: :p

(although he did also have an exceptional physique for cycling: massive lung capacity, ultra low rest heart rate etc... )

[mousti]

It looks quite obvious almost anyone till mid 2000's was doped till the tests got stricter and stricter.. So the list coming out from the Festina tour is quite bull**** because probably anyone doped.. Indurain never doped yeah right? Froome got his yellow jersey at Paris from 3 dopers, that was quite funny :p . Hinault, Merckx, Indurain. If someone dopes now it's with microdoses, or something very new but probably not. Froome was just the best. Contador never got on his usual level that he was before. Valverde was great but not greater like before because the opposition wasn't that good only Froome was.

In Quintana we have finally again a real superclimber from Colombia. And Porte didn't lose much the stage after Alpe d'Heuz his bad day was after Ax 3 domaines where Movistar isolated Froome (Kennaugh fell in a descent also). There Movistar screwed up, isolating was good but the rest was tactical a failure.

[Spafranco]

There's a simple solution to doping - let everyone take them if they want and the playing field becomes even again. It's never going to go away so they might as well let the athletes choose if they want to use them or not.

This is the 21st century after all and the druggies will find new ways to bypass the system.

No, that would not make the playing field level. Drugs act differently with most people. Take a look at alcohol and imagine it as a drug. Some people with a relative physique and consuming the same amount of alcohol would have differing results when tested. Be it liver function, cognitive, kidney function, motor skills etc.

[Spafranco]

;) :andrea: :p

(although he did also have an exceptional physique for cycling: massive lung capacity, ultra low rest heart rate etc... )

That was it with Indurain. His lung capacity was exceptional. Beyond the norm. I really believe he did not dope. Now I wonder about Gerg LeMond. Is his dislike of Armstrong about cycling or jealousy?

[Mark]

That was it with Indurain. His lung capacity was exceptional. Beyond the norm. I really believe he did not dope. Now I wonder about Gerg LeMond. Is his dislike of Armstrong about cycling or jealousy?

Well Riis went from being an also ran to out sprinting Indurain on the climbs, I guess if Miguel was doping he might not have been vanquished quite so decidedly. Riis until recently was still hanging around like a bad smell too.

[ioan]

We know that at least he has passed all tests initiated by McQuaid's group and independently by outside sources tasked with these matters. No person will ever know for sure but if you viewed the race from start to finish you could see the top riders fall off the pace and not recover for two days. I mentioned Richie Porte. He expended so much energy keeping Froome in contention on the dual climb of L'Alpe deHuez that he was a spent force the following day and lost 12 minutes. We can only hope.

We might know better in 10 years time.

[D-Type]

If you were a, shall we say, very good rider but didn't use drugs and you found that the riders who regularly finished ahead of you were using PEDs, what would you do?

[ShiftingGears]

I agree with this, but of course that would make top level sports even bigger of a killer than they are now and I am sure we would have even more young athletes die.

Absolutely. Seven professional cyclists died in 2003/04, which was almost certainly drug-related.

[mousti]

Well Riis went from being an also ran to out sprinting Indurain on the climbs, I guess if Miguel was doping he might not have been vanquished quite so decidedly. Riis until recently was still hanging around like a bad smell too.
In those years you couldn't win the Tour without dope.. If people would knew how dirty are topsport.. It's not only cycling.

[Mark]

That's true. The only question is can you win now without dope?