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

Absolutely - the gaps weren't huge and he only built this up slowly over the last few km. Its the sudden acceleration part that's making everyone so suspicious. From everything I've read this is something innate - you've either got it or you haven't - and the best climbers generally have had it. No amount of training / practice would allow Wiggo for example do that - he's just not made that way.

Also, with the resources Sky have and their generally anal approach to everything in the cause of winning, why would they only chose to dope 3-4 of their team rather than all of them. Have we seen massed ranks of Sky riders at the business end of the mountain stages like Movistar?

For the the record, I'm generally pretty cynical about pro riding and was pretty sure LA was dodgy for years, so I'm no naive fan boy.

Ultimately we can't have it both ways - we want to watch transcendent rides like Froome's yesterday, but when we get it, we don't believe it and immediately cry 'it must be the drugs'. The alternative where there was no suspicion at all, where no one rode away from anyone else would be pretty dull - a bunch of guys grinding their way up a mountain in a group followed by a sprint over the last 200 meters! Not my idea of exciting.

JonMack wrote:

Surely Quintana must be doping too, as he was able to stick with Froome up until the last ~2km?

All the cynicism is just boring, it actually puts me off talking to and associating with other cyclists, which is such a great message to be sending to the people who might want to get involved with the sport after catching it on TV for the last few weeks - "there's no point in ever trying to be the best rider you can be because everyone will just assume you are on drugs". Yeah great work everyone.

JonMack, you beat me to it. It's not the doping history that's depressing me about this sport it's the commenters and journos.

I can completely understand why sky don't want to publish power data, I wouldn't! They have spent years (before and after they became a world tour team) perfecting the science behind it. And are the only team to have done it so systematically.

Brailsford has also proven that they they are the masters of peaking at the right time, proven by subsequent Olympic campaigns.

I expect their riders to be the best prepared, and riding at their physical limit AND potential. And as Geraint Thomas said, what the winner of a Grand Tour is doing, is NOT NORMAL. You have to be superhuman to be achieving what they do.

banzicyclist2 wrote:

I don't think Sky are doping, after a big effort they clearly need a couple of "rest days" before the next big attack, the press is then full of how the Sky team are coming apart! They then put in a big effort and the press is full of doping questions.

This, this, a hundred times this. This is why I think Sky aren't doping, because they are clearly taking it easier on some days and frankly, dropping like flies when they are on the big climbs. They are clearly dying on the hills!

It's the other reason why I don't think Cadel Evans dopes - because he looked like he was going to die on some of the hills!

therealsmallboy wrote:

To be fair, Sky do seem to do be totally and utterly committed to scientifically improving their riders. No other team has it down to such a tee.

Very specific training, lifestyle and diet programs with one goal: speed. Less weight, more power means winning on the big hills. It works.

Personally, I don't think they're doping, but thanks to Armstrong et al, I can forgive the cycling press for behaving the way they do. The french journos said for years and years that Lance had to be guilty and that his super-human efforts were just impossible.

Having been at it for so long and be told at the end of it all that they were correct, it's no surprise that Froome Dog is getting it from every angle.

Poor bugger.

i think your bang on!!

notfastenough wrote:

People aren't just accusing them of doping, but being f***ing stupid enough to think they could get away with it indefinitely.

+1 - I'd even take the "indefinitely" off the end. If they are doping (I choose to believe they're not, for so many reasons) they will be caught and caught soon.

notfastenough wrote:

Apply all this to your own job. If I put months of work into something which turned out awesome, only for people to make snide comments and suggest I cheated, I'd be mightily pissed off.

"I have never taken performance enhancing drugs". It's thing that is trawled out by every doper ever. I'm not saying that this condemns team Sky, but it's a record that has been spun over and over.

The cynics are correct to be cynical. Recent history says that there is a high likelihood that the winner of the TdF will have doped. And you know what, it was all the idiots who lapped up Lances 'I feel sorry for those that can't believe' cr@p that pissed me off as much as LA himself. They were as bad as he was in some ways. They didn't question him, and what he claimed and allowed him to spin on.

I admit that I don't like the way that Froome is unable to at least live in the moment without it being tainted - after all there is no proof. And you have to hope that for prosperities sake we find out which, categorically. I appreciate that being too cynical spoils things, but perhaps we need also to keep a healthy level of doubt. I am heartened that Team Sky have shown suffering. It makes them human. But equally, Froome has not suffered in the same way.

What I would like to see it the blood passport results. I would also like to see hematocrit results on a regular basis. What we know is that hematocrit falls, we also know about the predominance of young blood cells and old blood cells in clean blood and doped blood. But I don't see any of that being dished out - just power readings, which do little because it's the underlying mechanics that matter - though it is a clue at least.

One thing we know for sure is that no one dopes to finish last.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

"I have never taken performance enhancing drugs". It's thing that is trawled out by every doper ever. I'm not saying that this condemns team Sky, but it's a record that has been spun over and over.

OH MY GOD, F**K OFF!* What the F do you people want them to say?

*Is what I would say if I was Cav or Froome and answering this question for the one hundredth time.

Ghedebrav wrote:

Ultra-cynicism is clearly the new blind faith amongst cyclo-trolls.

Decster+co., you think you can prove that what you see isn't true by just saying it can't be so. You are not another Paul Kimmage sat on your laptop in your bedroom. The evidence isn't here.

"I have never taken performance enhancing drugs". It's thing that is trawled out by every doper ever. I'm not saying that this condemns team Sky, but it's a record that has been spun over and over.

.... I'm sure every CLEAN rider would have said the same thing during their career. Perhaps you can tell me how to differentiate between the saints and the sinners.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

notfastenough wrote:

Apply all this to your own job. If I put months of work into something which turned out awesome, only for people to make snide comments and suggest I cheated, I'd be mightily pissed off.

"I have never taken performance enhancing drugs". It's thing that is trawled out by every doper ever. I'm not saying that this condemns team Sky, but it's a record that has been spun over and over.

So what could he conceivably have said to satisfy people? There isn't an answer to that, so it's a complete non-question posed by crap journos who think that qualifies as 'asking the tough questions'. It doesn't.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I am heartened that Team Sky have shown suffering. It makes them human. But equally, Froome has not suffered in the same way.

Sorry, I think you're wrong. Froome (or the DS via the race radio) has shown tactical awareness by going hard on the important days. If he was invincible he wouldn't have conceded 51 secs on that flat stage to ACs breakaway. Also, on that super Sunday where he was outnumbered by Movistar, Quintana admitted Movistar were riding to distance Porte, not drop Froome. Half the time CF just sat amongst blue jerseys just like he would sit amongst black jerseys. Their mistake IMHO, but it flattered Froome.

As for Decster, you've just cited a race (2012 Vuelta) where CF, having finished the TdF and Olympics, was dropped by a trio that DID look turbocharged. They did that attacking shit day-after-day! Sky look like they're suffering for it at least. At that's your justification that CF must be doped?! I think it's you that's on the bloody drugs sunshine.

Decster - I've seen a number of your comments over the last few days making definitive statements that Sky are doping. You have no way of knowing this and you seem to revel in negativity and cynicism.

After Festina, Cofidis, Armstrong and the myriad other doping scandals to engulf the sport I can totally understand having doubts and the need for Sky to answer many questions but you're confusing conjecture with fact. There is no evidence that any Sky rider is doping.

Frankly, your cynicism is pretty ugly - I would rather watch Froome's stellar performances and believe in them than assume everything I see is a flat out lie. I'd be gutted if I was proved wrong but who wants to view the world through such cycnical eyes?

Now for some conjecture of my own - no doubt your response will be that I am naive and kidding myself. So be it, I think I've covered my stance above.

It really does seem like you're more concerned with being contrary and occupying some mythical high ground than the real state of the sport. It's sad that this is what the widespread cheating in the sport has done to some of the fans but drawing conclusions without evidence is unfair and a real leap from simply asking questions.

Decster wrote:

Aint easy to prove your innocent when you hire doping doctors for your team and then pretend you didn't know they were a doping doctor.

Have riders come from the grupetto to win GTs and think no one will be suspicious.

Dont release any info relating to riders.

Team Telekom had journalists embedded at the TdF when they had a team wide systematic doping program. Walsh is a patsy for Sky.

We have been here before and we already know the ending. Sky are doping.

Who is we? Don't delude yourself into thinking you speak for the majority because you don't. Brailsford has offered to have WADA live with Team Sky and have access to ALL their data. He isn't going to release data to numpties like you who see conspiracies coming out of every nook and cranny and who wouldn't know the slightest thing about analysing valid data. You boy need therapy.

Suggest you get yourself some accreditation and rock up to Sky's next press conference with your evidence in hand.

In the mean time, given the weight of evidence, I hereby accuse you of being a bell-end.

Beautifully put,Sir. It's sad really. I watched that stage twice and felt great for him. Maybe he's just that good? Well done Froome and f*#k you Armstrong!

Armstrong's legacy is one of the worst aspects of the whole affair. Even in the 1950s and 60s, it was being suggested that riders were "on something". I think it was Jacques Anquetil who said: "You don't expect us to do this on mineral water, do you?" But Armstrong's behaviour has changed all that, with his cynical manipulation of the system and its regulations. I really do think it's a terrible shame that Froome wasn't allowed to celebrate his victory on Mont Ventoux without having to face a barrage of questions about doping. Everyone needs to listen to people like Brailsford and work towards a way of making such "journalistic" questions a thing of the past.