Froome & Brailsford speak out on doping, issue challenge for way to prove Sky is clean

Brialsford says he doesnt want to release his riders data and that makes it seem as if he wants to both somehow be able to persuade the hacks and the cycling fans that his riders are clean and also preserve some of the training secrets that he feels give his squad and edge. Is it unrealistic to expect to be able to acheive both be holding back rider data? Other riders on the tour are releasing their data though. Ten Dam is on Strava http://app.strava.com/pros/186522, so I could be wrong (please tell me if I am), but surely if one uses his data one can use the ratio of the time he took to get up a climb and the time it took Froome to work out Froomes w/kg.

I think that at the bottom of last Saturdays climb to Ax 3 Domaine and at the bottom of Ventoux Ten Dam and Frome started together in the remnants of the peleton. The tour website has Froome as weighing 72 kg and Ten Dam as 67Kg. For last Saturdays climb http://app.strava.com/activities/65157191#1251253455 Ten Dam's power output from his Garmin showed 404w which equates to 6.03 w/Kg (404/67). If Froome has taken the same time his w/kg would have been 5.61 w/kg (404/72). According to the tour website Ten Dam finished 1m 16s behind Froome and his strava data shows he took 24m and 9s to complete the climb. Cant one just use that ratio to calculate Froome w/kg? i.e. (24 + 9/60)/(22 + 53/60) = 1.05 giving Froomes w/kg for the climb as 5.61 x 1.05 = 5.92 w/kg

If one applies the same logic to Ventoux http://app.strava.com/activities/67057155#1287916934 Ten Dams w/kg for the climb was 388/67=5.79 w/kg. He completed the climb in 58m 17sec which was 1m 53 slower than Froome. So Froomes w/kg for Ventoux was (388/72)*(58 + 17/60)/( 56 + 24/60) = 5.58 w/kg

Both Ten Dam and Froome are therefore outputting far fewer w/kg than dopers like Armstrong did in their hay day. Or am I missing something?

Power and time calculations alone on climbs still don't add up.

Everyone is saying that Ventoux was really fast, faster than when Lance did it blah blah but you've got to look at all the factors - the break didn't have any EuropCar riders in it so they started chasing. The break, realising that if EuropCar caught them, the KOM leader Pierre Rolland would probably win, put all their effort into avoiding the catch.

There was a screaming tailwind. Sky and TST sat there behind EuropCar ready to unleash hell when EuropCar died (which they did) and then the pace went up another notch when Sky and TST got to the front and started jostling for position.

So to an outsider, it just appears that the pace was high therefore they must have been doping. Not true at all, got to look at all the factors involved.

Trying to second guess power from Strava estimates is probably worse than just sitting there and accepting what you saw - estimated data like that is likely to be WAY out, especially as it's derived to cope with normal riders, not TdF pros!

Posted this in another story by mistake but basically:

These guys are trying to bring some analysis to the argument which is similar to other posts where they try to analyse and compare against previous results:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/

particularly:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/mont-ventoux-preview-looking-for...

Well after reading all the attacks on the messenger, it seems the good people of the UK are not ready to let their Armstrong moment in the sun skip by without trying to make hay from it.

Not going to respond to each indivdual attack.

As for brailsford's quote.

here

"However Brailsford then mentioned WADA as perhaps a portal for the team to execute the analysis of data. There are currently no concrete plans to do anything of the sort, however Brailsford did admit that he'd talked to WADA about the idea."

Read carefully the line where Brailsford says, DID ADMIT THAT HE'D TALKED TO WADA, which WADA have denied any contact from Team Sky.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brailsford-how-can-we-convince-you-we-ar...

Please note that cycling was growing in the USA before Armstrong won a Tour and has continued despite him. Same all over the world. Cycling a bicyle and bicycle sales has little to do with the professional side of the sport. If it did the sport would be in an extremely healthy financial position. It isn't because the teams refuse to stop doping.

A dopo Sky fans.

PS Colin P made some great points and as a former Pro worth reading.

The article said it, no quote from DB there.

From someone that put their full address on their profile where it asks for location, I'd say reading isn't your strong point lol.

I'll leave it there, nothing more from me.

Perhaps we should stick a 'do not feed the trolls' sign up!

Contador said there's nothing suspicious about Froome's performance. And we all know his word is bond.

Sidenote: Right on schedule, after a grand tour rest day, Contador found a way to dance on those pedals like a brand new man. Where have we seen that phenomenon before?

Personally, I reckon you just have to look at Froome's pasty, lolling head to see that he's either just suffering big time, or having a massive whitey! So, he's either not doping or taking performance debilitating drugs!

On the Armstrong legacy, I'm happy to admit that I was naively or otherwise drawn into the myth of perseverance will triumph over adversity. But, then at the time, I hadn't really delved into cycling's history or read so deeply. So, it really rocked my confidence in pro-cycling. I am cynical, but am also prepared to see that there are teams out there who are really trying to race clean.

It's far too easy to be negative - it's the old "I'm happy to be a pessimist" argument. I'm optimisitic and am going to take solace from the lack of performance of those previously banned.

I had a moment where I thought having a monument to someone who died through doping (Tom Simpson) was a bit much. But, then remembered that it was the "done thing" to have a spot of coke and brandy to cope with the climbs on heavy, inefficient old horses!

Personally, I find a good lamb roast and 4 pints plenty to fuel a devastating ride....

[PS I may have drunk little too much wine!]

I am almost 99% certain that "Decster" is this same fool who who repeats the same bullshit he makes up in his bedroom.

http://durianrider.com/about/

http://www.youtube.com/user/durianriders?feature=watch

He is a mental case who craves attention. Full of lies and contradiction.

I don't understand why Armstrong's 'cynical manipulation' is worse than other doping. It's all bad. Doping is doping. There is no grey area in modern day sport - you know the rules, what over the counter medicines can and can't be taken. If you have drugs in your system, you're a cheat.

And I can't remember anyone actually admitting to doping before they were caught!

Decster - how sad do you have to be to make up quotes to try and prove DB said something he didn't. You really need to take a look at yourself if that's what you feel the need to resort to.

On DB's WADA suggestion, it seems like a good idea and one that I hope is explored. Somewhat begs the question of why it's left to him to do this, rather than the UCI driving it though...

Can there be a rule that if you are going to use road.cc to make accusations against someone you should back it up with some evidence?
There is no evidence that any cyclist has ever used Gas6 and I'm not sure where that Brailsford quote came from, but he certainly didn't say it in the press conference. I suspect Decster is a blind follower of the Doperati.
I like the road.cc forum because it's possible to have a debate with sensible, knowledgeable people. It's ok to be sceptical (all cycling fans should be), but if you're only interested in casting wild accusations there are plenty of other places to do it.

Even Alberto Contador believes Froome is clean - and there's a rider who'd know!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jul/15/sky-dave-brailsford-doping

Little bit more on the science behind those attacks on Ventoux:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jul/15/team-sky-chris-froome-tour-d...

And a rather pertinent piece about winning races post-Armstrong...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/1018...

Decster - let me point something out to your tiny thick mind, In 2012 Froome rode on the front of the tour to help Wiggins win and in doing so probably gave up his own chance of winning.

3 weeks after that he heads up the Vuelta team and you can only come up with he lost time to Bertie et al. Of course he bloody did, they had not raced the tour and were fresh whereas he had a few thousand Km's in his legs.

At times your stupidity knows no bounds. However due to your limited intelligence this will not sink in

The more I read this, the more I think it's a troll for sure.

You score 2 / 10 *

* marked down for lack of originality!

Decster, you're talking such utter shit that I'm actually wondering if you're deliberately trolling or if you really are that stupid...

Selective quotes, twisting words/phrases.
Can quite understand why DB doesn't want to release all the power and training data to internet snipers like you.

Decster???
You've maybe got nothing better to do with your time, but if you do a quick Google search on " EPO alternative" at least take the time to read the information;
"When mice with anemia are treated with Gas6, the red blood cells once again rise to their normal levels in the blood. In contrast to EPO, the use of Gas6 does not result in an excessive production of red blood cells..." I guess, and I'm no expert like you, that the blood passport would detect this rise back to normal levels, much like a blood transfusion.

Guys like you are exactly the reason why Sky shouldn't publish their data.

On yer bike, son!

Damn! I've just given him some of the attention he so craves!!

Reading some of the unsubstantiated stuff both here and on Twitter, there is only one conclusion I can come to...
-if Froome ever decided to do a Lord McAlpine, he would never have to turn a crank in anger again, able to live quite comfortably on the proceeds of hundreds of lawyers letters!

Hmmmm ...................pudding

"Brailsford did admit that he'd talked to WADA about the idea"

i've missed that one, where have you read that? wherever it was, i'm guessing brailsford has been misunderstood; he's making a suggestion rather than reporting on something that's already in progress. reading the velonation piece, WADA seem like they're interested in discussing it, anyway. that sounds reasonably positive to me. proof of the pudding, and all that.

you're not really adding much to the debate, decster. you've clearly made up your mind, whereas to his credit brailsford is attempting to engage with the people questioning the team to find a way forward. what do you suggest he does? after all, he's looking for suggestions.

picking two performances and claiming that's a trend is nonsense, obviously. Ten Dam has made up the same sort of time between the two races, so is he doping too? and if contador's still doping, which you clearly believe he is, why isn't he keeping pace? can we work out who's been doping, and how much, just by comparing those two races? no, of course not. a more in-depth analysis than that would be needed, carried out by independent experts. that seems to me to be what brailsford is suggesting. what's your take on that? can it work?

you're not moving the debate forward. i haven't seen you offer a single constructive suggestion. you're as dogmatic as the fanboys. neither of you are helping much. i find both positions both untenable and patronising. there's always room for doubt.

news just in.

Brailsford claims to have offered the data to Wada

"Brailsford did admit that he'd talked to WADA about the idea.

"We'd encourage WADA to appoint to some experts and they could have everything we've got. They could have all our information, all of our data. We could then compare are training files with the blood data, to the weight and WADA would be a good body to analyse that," he said."

Then this

Shane Stokes ‏@SSbike 28m

WADA confirms no contact with Team Sky thus far, will assess proposal

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15010/WADA-hasnt-yet-been-approached-b... …

So Brailsford lied, not Sir David Braislford of team sky telling porkies. Cant be!

Been here before, if i remember correctly sometime between 1999 and 2005.

Enjoy.

As Brailsford says, we have now arrived at a situation where riders can't prove they ride clean. If you test clean, it's because you're one step ahead of the tests.

Lamentable but I refuse to pander to that level of cynicism.

Keep shooting the messengers, those bone idle w**kers, who dont ride a bike 6 hours a day, what are you on?

Last year none of Sky's domestiques had an off day. This year they have had. So what it is guys, last year they doped because Wiggins was never alone and always had the blue and black train and this year because the peloton is playing catch up on last year the Sky doms look real so not dopng this year, but Froome doesn't look real, making dopers like Piti and Contador look like also rans.

Everyone forget how Froome finished 10mins down on these guys less than a year ago in Spain and now he is ahead of Contador by 4'25"? Taking back nearly 15mins on Contador in GT terms aint bad and on bread and water mixed with a bit of 'science'.

Enjoy your ride with Sky, if you are lucky it may last as long as Cancer Jesus's, nearly 15 years. Wait for the Bilharzia awareness charity and "I have done too much good for too many people" or similar.

Everyone needs to remember journalists survive on stories. It pays their wages. While there are some good/honest ones, the majority, in my opinion, don't care about anything else other than selling newspapers, getting hits on a site, freelancing their stories to whoever will buy them. It's their job. Most probably don't really care whether anyone is doping or not - as long as they can write as many articles speculating whether people are doping or not. And therefore gain more readership; earn more money; pay for nicer holidays; buy a new car.

Think how many more magazines and newspapers will have been sold with "Armstrong's Secrets Revealed Inside!" articles. Journalists love it.

I'm in no way acting as an apologist for Lance Armstrong. The guy was a cheat and let down a huge number of people (fans – myself included, sponsors, team mates, other competitors) but to blame the constant questioning of Team Sky solely on Armstrong is ridiculous.

Doping has been going on in our sport for decades. On yesterday's TDF stage we were constantly reminded of the Tommy Simpson tragedy - 46 years ago and drugs were involved there! This was not just an Armstrong issue.

We need to move on from the whole Armstrong affair and more collective responsibility needs to be taken by the current pro teams to prove they are clean. In an ideal world, it shouldn't be necessary but it is an unfortunate legacy of decades - not just the last decade or so – of cheating.

Watching that stage gave me goosebumps, I believe the right kind of history was being made. So sad that doubt seems to be the default reaction thanks to some of those who went before & basically pissed all over the sport...and that is not cool.

Lets see, he won by 30sec or so, after almost 6hrs racing with at least the top 15 coming in within 1% more of that time. Hardly a performance way outside what anyone else did, more like 15 runners finishing a 100m with 1m of each other!