Garmin's David Millar defends Sky's Chris Froome on Tour de France doping questions

You do get people who are naturally skilled but need the right training to bring it out, not drugs.

I have mentioned the likes of Messi and Ronaldo. No amount of drugs will give you the skill with a football that they have because its a natural ability. Perhaps Froome is of a similar breed and needed the right training / lifestyle regime to bring it out.

Yet again though we, as British, have a love of trying to put down anything or anyone who is successful in this country. To be honest its quite a sad reflection on who we are as a nation.

Decster, what proof do we have that your comments aren't doped? Until you can prove you are not doping, your comments will have to be disregarded.

Also, I think doping/cheating goes on in all sports, but I suspect that the levels of doping in cycling is less than generally perceived (i.e., "Every cyclist is doping") and in other sports, such as Tennis and Football, it is probably much more widespread than is generally perceived.

I don't think Froome doped and from the way he has been exposed by Sky falling apart on Sunday, I can't even understand why anyone would have suspicions of systematic doping at Sky.

If he gets the top spot on this board of times up the Alpe d'Huez (especially on the second go round), I'll be more cycnical!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_D%27Huez#Fastest_ascents

Takes me on average 1hr 10mins to cycle to work. The other day I did it in under an hour. Only one explanation - I must have been using EPO. Internet logic.

Just wondering could Froome be a freak/force of nature. One of those rare atheletes that has a physiological gift. Or are sky true professionals and use sports science in everything they do. A further question would the Sir Dai Brailsford risk everything for a maillot jaune. nah, think not as it destroy everything thats gone before. Sky cyclists train like swimmers!, which has big implications.

I'd say you can't tell anything from a single hill, because it all depends upon the past history and riding that went on from earlier that day to a few months, or even years before that. (The same goes not just for Froome, but for Contador and others also).

One must also consider whether a rider knew he was doped by his doctor. It have a strong suspicion that LeMond was doped by his doctor without his knowledge; the suspicion being the doctor having obtained prototype EPO just a year or two before the general release, it already having been in development for about 10 years (1989, 1990, not 85). Read LeMonds own words about his iron shots, and remember that while there are no other known cases of riders benefiting immediately from pure iron shots, iron must be taken in conjunction with EPO to allow new red blood cells to develop and make it effective:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/cycling/1998/tourdefrance/tourdefrancea...
(search for "iron shot")

Admittedly seems unlikely that Froome could have EPO doped without his knowledge; EPO requires careful microdosing injection and all injections are now illegal.

In any event if he didn't dope, it sure throws a spanner in the idea that you can detect doping by power output up hills.

Personally I would LIKE to believe that drugs are unnecessary to actually achieve an individuals ambitions; anything that can be achieved with drugs can be achieved by human willpower, perseverance, and faith alone; but once the drugs are used, the doorway back is closed.

decster you are one seriously cynical dude. I read you as saying that it doesn't matter if a rider doesn't test positive because he'll be doping anyway. Right ho....if you say so.
So nothing in the sport has changed and all the rhetoric is meaningless drivel? Right ho....if you say so.
You show all the signs of being a control freak.
I'd get a life if I were you but thank god I'm not.

Oh, there are non-hormone-abuse ways of stimulating red-blood-cell production, e.g. carbon-monoxide (CO) - which is how smoking can give you a performance boost (at expense of seriously increased risks of disease and degeneration):

http://bikepure.org/2012/08/5635/

decster,

I gather there's been improvements in the sensitivity of the test for exogenous EPO, by a german WADA-accredited lab. Which have been rolled out this year. This is why they caught 2 riders at the Giro, IIRC.

*IF* there are riders whose performance has suddenly gone down, and *IF* it has to do with EPO doping, it may well be because they've had to lower or stop their EPO doping due to that test improvement. One of the effects of hormone abuse is that the natural production of that hormone will be suppressed (you have more than enough due to the doping after all). This suppression continues for some time even after the hormone intake stops - which means the levels can fall well below normal (never mind doping), which presumably can affect performance. In severe cases, natural production never recovers.

I'm not saying this *IS* the case, I'm saying it's *possible* (as are many other things).

I don't know why I make myself read the 'comments' section because it is filled with cynical, mean spirited and depressing thinking. No wonder the world is in such a state of discord.

Soon the Sky fans will be shouting 'never tested positive' as they run out of excuses........quick Froome start a Bihazaria awareness charity with coloured bracelets, that should throw them off the scent for, oooh, about 15 years!

David Walsh was asked why he thought Armstrong was not the real deal. Walsh cited Armstrong's condemnation of Bassons. In that case Wiggin's condenmation of Landis should point to Wiggins as a doper, but Walsh chooses to ignore that.

When did the other teams stop doping so that Sky can beat them? Blood testing is down. Bernard Kohl had 200 tests under McQuaid and failed 1. This was due to Patrice Clerc, whom ASO removed as he didn't want Armstrong back in the TdF. UCI control testing and results in a room just down from McQuaid's office. So we can really trust all the Sky results coming out of Aigle cant we.

Fans dont want to see it for selfish reasons. It is simple, nothing in the sport has changed. We were told many times before the sport has cleaned up. They were lies then and now we are being told the same by the same people. Why believe them now? They lied because it benefitted them. Well it sure benefits them to lie again.

I am not waiting for a Sky rider to test positive before finding out Sky are doping. It doesn't work like that. Look at Armstrong. Look how many riders never tested positive or worse look how many tested positive after they left USPS and became a GT threat to Armstrong.

This is just some of the information that points to cycling not being a clean sport as it is still being run by the same people who oversaw the epo era, with the exceptions of a few who were part of USPS. Dr Ashenden has stated he believes that teams are still using dope. So again how does Sky beat the dopers without using dope.

Sky dope their A team. They have to to beat the doping teams of Astana, Movistar, BMC(exPhonak) and of course Radioshack to name a few.

I don't know if he is protesting the issue too much or he is being asked about it too much, but reading about it over and over the story starts to smell bad. He needs some PR training from politicians. Reporter: 'Froome, what are you thoughts on people saying you're doping' Froome: "The Tour de France is a wonderful race with the greatest sport supporters around the globe." ...and repeat stale sound bites over and over as necessary, the reporters won't have anything to work with then.

another very useful one here, if you're interested: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/tour-rest-day-pondering-unanswer...

paul will have read that already, of course

good piece on climb timings here: http://journalvelo.com/opinion/did-froome-climb-faster-than-armstrong-th...

bashthebox: How do Sky keep these things secret? They have had riders move to other teams. Unless of course some of their marginal gains are being kept for a select group of their riders.

Also, citing "attention to detail" and better "science" as a team's advantage has unfortunate historical precedent, you do realise, don't you?

Simon,

In '03 they had a few more stages in them. Ulrich and Armstrong times that day would have clearly beaten *everyone* on '13, *except* Froome. Ulrich would have been 43s ahead of Porte, 1m01s ahead of Valverde, but circa 4 to 6s behind Froome. Armstrong would have finished 37s ahead of Porte, 54s ahead of Valverde, but 14s behind Froome.

Can we draw any direct conclusions from this? No. However, if fatigued dopers from '03 can trounce all of the '13 field bar one, you at least have to ask questions.

If Froome is genuine, then he is a stunningly exceptional athlete. Not just capable of humiliating other top athletes, but even beating the best of the blood-doped generation.

The peaks and troughs in form argument - that by rights, for every good day Froome has, he should have a bad day?
DO you think that all the team doctors just lounge around all day? That the sports scientists text their mums? The dieticians just eat Big Macs whilst waiting for the riders to come home? Or do you think that all day, every day, they're working to eliminate the uncertainty of a rider's form and physiology?
Sky pay attention to every detail, no matter how small. It all adds up. Marginal gains isn't just about wearing aero helmets. It really works.

Doping has shown to give you an advantage of 15% over the non doping competitors, so when Sky set out to find that 15% through legal means, be that training, nutrition, recovery, equipment etc, why is it a surprise that they get the results they do?

Team Sky and British Cycling is kind of one and the same, are you all saying that all the success British Cycling has achieved in the last few years is because of doping? There is something wrong with the UK when we are ready to try and destroy the achievements of some of our cycling greats.

Is anyone asking the same of Andy Murray? A superhuman achievement to win in straight sets, why aren't we all slating him? Just because other heros that may have been worshipped have let us down does not mean they all are...

The one thing I don't get is this: why, if someone is convinced that the winners are all doped, do they bother watching the racing in the first place? Unless they don't care about the doping. In which case, why comment so forcefully on the Internet about it?

It's much more mystifying to me than any of the doping data/stories/questions that get asked. Maybe their enjoyment of the sport is being artificially enhanced?

Couple of observation of issues lost among the noise.

The Armstrong and Laiseka times in 2001 were set a couple of days after Alpe d'Huez, and the route to get there had more climbs (admittedly none of those as tough as the one preceding on Saturday).

But Ax 3 Domaines was the first mountain stage of this year's race, and one on which Sky clearly had a game plan.

Factor in other variables such as wind or the heat and a time gap of 12 years, and it's like comparing apples with oranges.

I'm all for healthy sceptcism; given what this sport has done to us over the years, it couldn't be otherwise, and its right questions are being asked.

Naked (and uninformed) paranoia, however, less so.

It seems by Decster's logic that we should just stop all pro racing for at least a decade, as anyone who beats anyone who used to be a doper must be a doper themselves ad infinitum.

And who appointed David Millar as the world authority on such issues? I am getting tired of his 'I am so sorry I doped, doping made me really unhappy, but please ask me about it all the time and buy my book,' schtick.

There seems to be a growing feeling that riders can't really make any significant improvements through better training, better focus and techniques and that all such improvement must be down to drugs. If that we're the case then lets just measure everyone's levels at age 24 and then just play Fantasy Cycling after that as they can't get better.

Fortunately riders can and do make improvements (and fall back) during their careers, during the season and during a single race. If you've ever been close to athletes then you might understand that very few (even among the well prepared pros) actually reach their maximum potential; all sorts of things stop them because they are actually human! As they strive towards that potential they have ups and downs and that combined with the fact that every race is different is what makes sport worth watching.

Am I the only rider who ever had some special days without drugs? Of course not, time triallists are familiar with special days, amateur road and track races know about those days when you feel invulnerable when the only drugs around are your body's own adrenaline and endorphins.

If you could spot the dopers by simply watching their performances think how much the UCI and WADA could save; but you can't and that's why we have drug testing and human nature is the reason why we'll always need it.

Shock horror, someone doing well gets slated!

I doff my cap to you mr froome

So many want to look for excuses to explain a guy who was not going to get a new contract suddenly explodes to 2nd on the 3rd biggest race in the calendar. A blood disease that miraclously only needs to be treated in the off season and never when he needs to ride a GT. That he was climbing sideways before and got kicked of il Giro for hanging on to cars on a climb all point to a climbing talent.

But the idea the Sky train harder than everyone else is true, just like Armstrong, ...."busting his ass 6 hours a day on his bike, what are you on?"

The UCI have not changed, still control dope testing, the ASO fired the guy who wanted to clean up the sport and appoint Prudhommme, all the other teams are full of dope enablers and Sky are winning on bread and water.

So many fall for the tricks that history has shown to be nothing more than smokescreens.

Dont buy too much Sky gear otherwise it will be hanging beside your USPS, Disco, Astana, Radshack gear pretty soon.