Tour De France 2013

Extract of article from lance whistleblower journalist and ex professional cyclist paul kimmage....'In 2008 a new team was formed called Slipstream Sports, nowGarmin-Sharp. When they were founded they were making noises no one had ever heard before: ‘We’re clean, We’re clean’.“So I put it to them, if you’re clean then you won’t mind having a journalist with you for the duration of the Tour de France and they said no problem and I spent three weeks with them and we got on pretty well.“In 2010, there was another team founded in 2010 and like Garmin-Sharp they were making all the noises that people want to hear: ‘We’ll show you can win the Tour de France clean.“So like Garmin-Sharp, I made them an offer they could refuse. Will you take a journalist with you for the duration of the Tour de France?“They said it was fine and it was fine up until the eve of the race when Sky changed their mind.“That was three years ago and in that three years Sky have won the Tour and are poised to do it again. If you are going to cry wolf, there better be a wolf. If you are going to be transparent, you better be transparent.”
http://www.independent.ie/sport/kim...and-froome-better-walk-the-walk-29424052.html
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...s-interrogated-in-Belgian-doping-inquiry.html
Former Team Sky doctor Geert Leinders has been questioned for three hours by Belgian cycling authorities as part of their investigation into doping.Leinders was called before the inquiry after former Dutch cyclist Danny Nelissen and US rider Levi Leipheimer claimed that Leinders provided and injected EPO working with the Rabobank team between 1996 and 2009. Nelissen said: “I never had to spend a cent for EPO. That was arranged by team doctor Leinders.”
 
Didn't Sky film a tv series about Team Sky leading up to and the Tour last year?
 
Froome Armstronging yet another stage.

Never go full retard, Chris.
 
Zen said:
Didn't Sky film a tv series about Team Sky leading up to and the Tour last year?
Click to expand...


Yes, that is sure to be a fair and unbiased view.

I for one will also happily clear Riis of wrongdoing if he gets Tinkov to commision a documentary for his team showing how nothing wrong is happening.
 
Ringo 07 said:
MONT VENTOUX (last 15.65 km [from St. Esteve], 8.74 %, 1368 m)
D 1. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 48:33 | 2002
2. Chris Froome _________ GBR | 48:35 | 2013
3. Andy Schleck _________ LUX | 48.57 | 2009
D 4. Alberto Contador _____ ESP | 48:57 | 2009
D 5. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:00 | 2009
D 6. Marco Pantani ________ ITA | 49:01 | 2000
D 7. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:01 | 2000
D 8. Frank Schleck ________ LUX | 49:02 | 2009
9. Nairo Quintana _______ COL | 49:04 | 2013
10. Roman Kreuziger ______ CZE | 49:05 | 2009

Those with a D have been caught doping. Andy Schleck's brother was caught. Kreuziger worked with the infamous dope doctor Michele Ferrari. Froome beat the times of doped up riders Contador, Pantani and Armstrong.The only time better than that one Froome posted was by a doped up Lance Arnstrong. Quite an incredible ride.
Click to expand...
Was he doped in 2002? Anyway, clearly you should send this amazing data to WADA, they surely must have missed it. Then the obvious cheater Froome can be brough swiftly to justice.
Or, and bear with me on this, you could enjoy a great ride by a great rider, and basque in the glory, until someone tells us otherwise. You should try it. It makes it rather enjoyable to watch. I mean, it must be awful seeing the results and automatically thinking 'fecking cheating druggy bastard'.

Even if in the end it turns out they were all doped, I will have enjoyed it more at the time.
 
You can't really compare past performances and conclude Froome has doped. Too many variables to come to a definitive conclusion imo

Saying no to a kimmage seems a bit suspicious however
 
StuCol said:
Was he doped in 2002?
Click to expand...

Is this a trick question?

Anyway, clearly you should send this amazing data to WADA, they surely must have missed it. Then the obvious cheater Froome can be brough swiftly to justice.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, catching doping cheats is not nearly as developed as UCI wants you to believe. As long as McQuaid is in office there will always be opportunities for dopers to win grand tours and get away with it. UCI cares more about the image of the sport than they do the integrity of it and have shown time and time again that they are quite happy to compromise on ethics.

Or, and bear with me on this, you could enjoy a great ride by a great rider, and basque in the glory, until someone tells us otherwise. You should try it. It makes it rather enjoyable to watch. I mean, it must be awful seeing the results and automatically thinking 'fecking cheating druggy bastard'.

Even if in the end it turns out they were all doped, I will have enjoyed it more at the time.
Click to expand...


I generally do, but a certain level of suspension of disbelief is required. I could believe Evans or Wiggins rode cleanly, even if it isn't that likely. I can't take Froome seriously though. He is not a great rider any more than Armstrong was. Obvious cheat is obvious.
 
akash02 said:
You can't really compare past performances and conclude Froome has doped. Too many variables to come to a definitive conclusion imo
Click to expand...


Froome is the best rider in history if he is clean. He is performing feats no other clean rider can touch.
 
Ringo 07 said:
MONT VENTOUX (last 15.65 km [from St. Esteve], 8.74 %, 1368 m)
D 1. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 48:33 | 2002
2. Chris Froome _________ GBR | 48:35 | 2013
3. Andy Schleck _________ LUX | 48.57 | 2009
D 4. Alberto Contador _____ ESP | 48:57 | 2009
D 5. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:00 | 2009
D 6. Marco Pantani ________ ITA | 49:01 | 2000
D 7. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:01 | 2000
D 8. Frank Schleck ________ LUX | 49:02 | 2009
9. Nairo Quintana _______ COL | 49:04 | 2013
10. Roman Kreuziger ______ CZE | 49:05 | 2009

Those with a D have been caught doping. Andy Schleck's brother was caught. Kreuziger worked with the infamous dope doctor Michele Ferrari. Froome beat the times of doped up riders Contador, Pantani and Armstrong.The only time better than that one Froome posted was by a doped up Lance Arnstrong. Quite an incredible ride.
Click to expand...
Quintana did it within 2 seconds of doped up riders so why aren't people accusing him of doping

People don't seem to be considering the fact that bikes have evolved over the years and that riders these days are a lot fitter than they were back then
Colin129 said:
Maybe they should use one with a little motor on it for going up hill?
Click to expand...
Reminds me of when Cancellara got accused of using a motorised bike
 
I hope Froome dominates the double d'huez tomorrow......i mean by like 4-5 minutes here.

Just for the shitstorm.
 
B20 said:
Is this a trick question?



Unfortunately, catching doping cheats is not nearly as developed as UCI wants you to believe. As long as McQuaid is in office there will always be opportunities for dopers to win grand tours and get away with it. UCI cares more about the image of the sport than they do the integrity of it and have shown time and time again that they are quite happy to compromise on ethics.




I generally do, but a certain level of suspension of disbelief is required. I could believe Evans or Wiggins rode cleanly, even if it isn't that likely. I can't take Froome seriously though. He is not a great rider any more than Armstrong was. Obvious cheat is obvious.
Click to expand...

So if its that obvious, why aren't WADA camped with them then? I mean, if you can see its so obvious, surely these highly trained drug professionals can?!
 
B20 said:
I don't know if you are being deliberately thick. Because they don't have permission to do so, perhaps? And because UCI don't really want a scandal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=du0KxD-fjEI#t=52s
Click to expand...

David Brailsford said:
We'd let them have all of our data, have access to everything we have. They can have everything we've got. They can come and live with us
Click to expand...

referring to WADA. Some crazy Russian roulette if you are cheating that is.
 
StuCol said:
referring to WADA. Some crazy Russian roulette if you are cheating that is.
Click to expand...


except they aren't making it good on it.

And it's a hollow statement even if they did. It'd be akin to the Mafia offering to submit their accounts to the IRS. Proof of nothing at all.
 
vanthaman said:
Quintana did it within 2 seconds of doped up riders so why aren't people accusing him of doping

People don't seem to be considering the fact that bikes have evolved over the years and that riders these days are a lot fitter than they were back then
Click to expand...


Quintana is a good bet for doping too.

How much fitter are riders now than 5-10 years ago, exactly? I think the margins on gains from training methods have diminished a lot since the late 90s. There hasn't been any revolution in training methods, diets or rigour of implementation since then. There is just not enough margins here for a team to set themselves above the rest through this. The rest are investing substantial sums in these things as well.

What can be said is that you can't judge a doper on a single stage and that goes for both Froome and Quintana.

Basically, Froome just checks all the boxes:
1. inhuman performances.
2. Never been caught in the act.
3. Happens to cycle for the all-dominant team who argue they just train better than all the others combined ("Maybe Europeans are more lazy" was Armstrong's angle, combined with unique cadence training and other BS actual science shows to have little to no effect).
4. Was a donkey that turned into a race horse. Like a host of dopers before him, being cured of a disease was the magical pill that pushed him into the highest echelon.
5. His sudden rise coincided with known doping doctor Leinders joining the team.
6. Also begins mastering disciplines he was previously awful to mediocre in.

It's Armstrong 2.0 all over.
 
B20 said:
MONT VENTOUX (last 15.65 km [from St. Esteve], 8.74 %, 1368 m)
----TOP 50 LIST
-1. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 48:33 | 2002
-2. Chris Froome _________ GBR | 48:35 | 2013-
3. Andy Schleck _________ LUX | 48.57 | 2009
-4. Alberto Contador _____ ESP | 48:57 | 2009
-5. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:00 | 2009
-6. Marco Pantani ________ ITA | 49:01 | 2000
-7. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:01 | 2000
-8. Frank Schleck ________ LUX | 49:02 | 2009-
9. Nairo Quintana _______ COL | 49:04 | 2013
10. Roman Kreuziger ______ CZE | 49:05 | 2009
11. Franco Pellizotti ____ ITA | 49:15 | 2009
12. Vincenzo Nibali ______ ITA | 49:17 | 2009
13. Bradley Wiggins ______ GBR | 49:22 | 2009
14. Joseba Beloki ________ ESP | 49:26 | 2000
15. Jan Ullrich __________ GER | 49:30 | 2000
Click to expand...


To be fair, Armstrong was riding in a headwind at the time, whilst Froome with a tailwind. Probably makes a a minute or so difference.

I'm not saying that Froome isn't doping, I don't know. But to make these accusations without any proof what so ever is ridiculous.
 
Rams said:
I'm not saying that Froome isn't doping, I don't know. But to make these accusations without any proof what so ever is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


The same argument would exonerate Armstrong as well. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence. There is a reason people talk more about Froome than they did Wiggins and why people talk more about Wiggins than they talked about Evans.
 
B20 said:
except they aren't making it good on it.

And it's a hollow statement even if they did. It'd be akin to the Mafia offering to submit their accounts to the IRS. Proof of nothing at all.
Click to expand...

:lol: And now you are comparing team Sky to the Mafia :lol:

Rawk much?
 
I cannot wait for tomorrow's stage. It'll be the first one I can watch from start to finish. If Froome dominates tomorrow like he has been so far, the sceptics will have conniptions.
 
nahealai said:
I cannot wait for tomorrow's stage. It'll be the first one I can watch from start to finish. If Froome dominates tomorrow like he has been so far, the sceptics will have conniptions.
Click to expand...

I think Stage 19 could be just as tough if not worse. The peleton will be blown away long before the last climbs on 19.
 
I don't often agree with much Colin Murray says, but his article in today's metro hits the nail on the head for me -
There are differences between ‘Le Cheat’ in 2000 and the Froomedog 13 years on but sadly cycling has a long way to go before people trust it again. I’ve said it before, but I have to believe in the likes of Chris Froome and Usain Bolt, otherwise the cheats win.
If they break my sporting heart in the process then so be it, but I owe it to those who have done it, and are doing it, clean.
Click to expand...
 
If Froome maintains his lead tomorrow, this Tour is done, right?

Any gain by Contador or Kreuziger on tomorrow's stage could make it interesting yet. Very difficult to see, though.
 
The tour is already done and dusted. What will happen tomorrow is easy enough to guess. Porte will blow away the peloton to bits, Froome will then attack and take the stage with some competition from Quintana
 
Most likely done but as we saw yesterday and today a slip on a corner and you can end up over the edge with a broken collarbone. Around Beloki corner was dicey for sure! See their tyres twitch?

I think Froome will win by >6 overall. Perhaps gain 1 min on each of the next 2 stages. 2nd and 3rd will be the most interesting.
 
B20 said:
Quintana is a good bet for doping too.

How much fitter are riders now than 5-10 years ago, exactly? I think the margins on gains from training methods have diminished a lot since the late 90s. There hasn't been any revolution in training methods, diets or rigour of implementation since then. There is just not enough margins here for a team to set themselves above the rest through this. The rest are investing substantial sums in these things as well.

What can be said is that you can't judge a doper on a single stage and that goes for both Froome and Quintana.

Basically, Froome just checks all the boxes:
1. inhuman performances.
2. Never been caught in the act.
3. Happens to cycle for the all-dominant team who argue they just train better than all the others combined ("Maybe Europeans are more lazy" was Armstrong's angle, combined with unique cadence training and other BS actual science shows to have little to no effect).
4. Was a donkey that turned into a race horse. Like a host of dopers before him, being cured of a disease was the magical pill that pushed him into the highest echelon.
5. His sudden rise coincided with known doping doctor Leinders joining the team.
6. Also begins mastering disciplines he was previously awful to mediocre in.

It's Armstrong 2.0 all over.
Click to expand...

1. No
2. Isn't that a good thing?
3. Bollocks. Cycling is a very conservative sport. What Brailsford has done is bring modern & new idea's from other sports and implemented them in cycling. All the other teams are now playing catch up.
4. Again complete bollocks. For example, as a 22 year old coming from Africa, where the standard is very low, he won a mountain stage in his very first multi day race in Europe; a under 23 race, which featured the likes of Geraint Thomas and Ben Swift. Immediately everybody realised they had discovered a very special talent.
5. Again complete rubbish
6. It's just not true what you are saying.

To conclude, you obviously don't know anything about cycling or Chris Froome. You're an embarrassment. If you don't know what you are talking about then keep your trap shut.
 
B20 said:
The same argument would exonerate Armstrong as well. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence. There is a reason people talk more about Froome than they did Wiggins and why people talk more about Wiggins than they talked about Evans.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. In 1999 all knew EPO was rife in the peleton, that Armstrong had failed a dope test for cortisone just before the tour and that earlier in the decade he had try to persuade his team mates at Motorola to all use EPO (as was made public by Frankie Andreu's wife). These things were in the public domain at the time. Why don't you look up some articles from David Walsh (journalist and anti doping crusader) from that time?
 
Surprised that Froome won the time trial, particularly after he said he was saving himself for the next few stages. He really is a massive step above everyone at the moment, that it is hard to think that he isn't doping right now.

Porte looked like he took it fairly easy today, so we can expect a strong performance from him again before launching Froome to victory once again. Hard to see anyone really beating Froome today at all.
 
There's been so many cheating in this sport that it's made it completely unwatchable for me. I am surely being extremely unfair in regards to all the clean riders out there participating in the TDF but I don't care tbh. It's hard not to think that Froome isn't doped, Armstrong was just as convincing if not more in his denial.
 
Chris Froome's dominance has made this year's tour as boring as the Armstrong's years. You know who is winning the tour and you know none of his rivals will be able to take any good time off of him, if they do take an at all. In all likelihood it will be Froome blowing the competition to places again. This is without knowing how many of these riders are juiced up, that will come later on, if at all. Hats off to Froome though for the way he has dominated but it has made the tour very predictable.
 
Rams said:
1. No
2. Isn't that a good thing?
3. Bollocks. Cycling is a very conservative sport. What Brailsford has done is bring modern & new idea's from other sports and implemented them in cycling. All the other teams are now playing catch up.
4. Again complete bollocks. For example, as a 22 year old coming from Africa, where the standard is very low, he won a mountain stage in his very first multi day race in Europe; a under 23 race, which featured the likes of Geraint Thomas and Ben Swift. Immediately everybody realised they had discovered a very special talent.
5. Again complete rubbish
6. It's just not true what you are saying.

To conclude, you obviously don't know anything about cycling or Chris Froome. You're an embarrassment. If you don't know what you are talking about then keep your trap shut.
Click to expand...


For some reason, when I read this, it brought this to mind...

  1. listen cockface...you are the most vile cumstain I've ever encountered on this forum. You monopoloise every thread you come across with some half arsed one liner that would'nt qualify for the Joe Longthorne show and then present yourself like you are the King of comedy on American prime time. You epitimise most of what I detest about the internet...opinions formed at the drop of a hat....petty jokes at the expense of others with no thought for their feelings and most of all the self absorbing egotistical self correction of spelling that really points out to every other poster that the highlight of your day is a wank to "big tit weekly". You dont have the friends here you perceive yourself to have and have the intellect of a gnat and the culmanation of this sceario will be your demise in a slow and agonising manner.


    Be warned.​
 
Rams said:
1. No
Click to expand...

Yes, Rams. Yes.

2. Isn't that a good thing?
Click to expand...

Technically. I am simply forestalling the argument, given that "the most tested athlete in the history of sports" also turned out to be one of the worst cheats.

3. Bollocks. Cycling is a very conservative sport. What Brailsford has done is bring modern & new idea's from other sports and implemented them in cycling. All the other teams are now playing catch up.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true brit. :lol:

I think you are in fact taking the mickey with this one.

4. Again complete bollocks. For example, as a 22 year old coming from Africa, where the standard is very low, he won a mountain stage in his very first multi day race in Europe; a under 23 race, which featured the likes of Geraint Thomas and Ben Swift. Immediately everybody realised they had discovered a very special talent.
Click to expand...

Remind me how eager sky were to renew his contract? Oh, you mean they were stalling badly until he exploded on to the scene.

He was not a special talent, not even at Sky within his age group was he the most highly regarded.

5. Again complete rubbish
Click to expand...

No it's not. He joined Sky in 2011. And when did Froome turn into a racehorse? 2011.

6. It's just not true what you are saying.
Click to expand...

yes it is. He was a poor TT before.

To conclude, you obviously don't know anything about cycling or Chris Froome. You're an embarrassment. If you don't know what you are talking about then keep your trap shut.
Click to expand...


I am fairly confident I know more than you. If I had to guess, you began following cycling when Sky hit the scene.
 
B20 said:
good decision from Sky. Good to see.
Click to expand...


No Vo2Max though. And of course, only from the past two years where he made his improvement.

Shame. If they had measured Vo2Max, we could know now with a fair amount of certainty how clean he is.

It's a start though.

Will be interesting to see how the data matches the guestimate analyses made by various experts on the outside looking in.
 
Ringo 07 said:
Extract of article from lance whistleblower journalist and ex professional cyclist paul kimmage....'In 2008 a new team was formed called Slipstream Sports, nowGarmin-Sharp. When they were founded they were making noises no one had ever heard before: ‘We’re clean, We’re clean’.“So I put it to them, if you’re clean then you won’t mind having a journalist with you for the duration of the Tour de France and they said no problem and I spent three weeks with them and we got on pretty well.“In 2010, there was another team founded in 2010 and like Garmin-Sharp they were making all the noises that people want to hear: ‘We’ll show you can win the Tour de France clean.“So like Garmin-Sharp, I made them an offer they could refuse. Will you take a journalist with you for the duration of the Tour de France?“They said it was fine and it was fine up until the eve of the race when Sky changed their mind.“That was three years ago and in that three years Sky have won the Tour and are poised to do it again. If you are going to cry wolf, there better be a wolf. If you are going to be transparent, you better be transparent.”
http://www.independent.ie/sport/kim...and-froome-better-walk-the-walk-29424052.html
Click to expand...

Radio interview with Kimmage 26 mins in. He is highly sceptical about the performances of Froome.

http://www.newstalk.ie/player/listen_back/19/2395/06th_July_2013_-_Newstalk_Sport_Part_4
 
Colin129 said:
So what's the answer B20?

How did they catch Armstrong? Surely they are doing the same things to catch potential cheats now? How have they managed to hide it?
Click to expand...


"They", that is to say UCI, didn't catch him at all. On the contrary, there is significant witness testimony and even actual evidence (failed samples brushed under the carpet) to suggest that US Postal/Armstrong were in fact colluding with UCI to get away with it.

It was only years after when USADA conducted their own investigation that someone else caught him so comprehensively UCI had no choice but to accept it. And that took 14 years since his first TdF win.

If he is doping, I don't expect he will be caught unless British anti-doping authorities conduct a proper investigation. Or if he should get caught up in a police investigation of someone else (ie, another Operacion Puerto).

As long as there is not a significant change in leadership at UCI, the door is open for smart dopers who popularise the sport to get away with it.

People like Bjarne Riis continue to get away with it, despite the number of testimonies saying he had full knowledge of doping on his team and was an active part of it. It is only now Danish anti-doping authorities are investigating (they have also proven exceptionally weak in this department over the years). He also had special "anti-doping doctors" attached to his program and uses smart science, etc. to explain his results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.