Cycling

[yellowcard]

Lads ffs the glaring performance today was Thomas not froome. Not casting doubt on the man but he is transformed this year. Suddenly able to climb with the likes of Pierre Roland and valverde. Knock froome if you want but he has been up there for 3/4 years now consistently. If he tests bad I give up.

Thomas and Porte were equally as dominant. Porte done a big pull for Froome then unbelievably got back up to overtake Quintana who is a specialist climber and give a smirk on his way past. Thomas who has no climbing history got up the mountain quicker than a few former GT winners and ended up in 6th. If Lance was on the sky bus this evening he'd be saying 'not normal'.

[yellowcard]

Yellowcard, I have no intenion of engaging in anything with you, we've had this conversation 2 years ago & probably something similar the year before as well when you were on Wiggin's case. Your agenda is as clear as day and you work away as I dont really care what you think, i've made my point today and previously as evidenced below.

In general terms i try not to get involved in doping discussions anymore, as with work colleagues & the like the conversation normally halts at "sure they're all a bunch of druggies", cycling is what it is, but the general consensus would seem to be that it's definitely improving on the doping front (apart from the Astana fiasco). Cookson, while  doing some good things at uci, probably isn't covering himself in glory tbh, but he was never going to be the man Kimmage wanted him to be & Kimmage's standards tend to be the standards of people who know little about cycling but take the odd look in (Not a dig at you).

Benny it's not a dig at you ,cycling is a great sport but when I see performances like today it's only right to ask questions.  I would love to believe it's real but I'm afraid I can't. You claim I have an agenda, I'm not sure what that agenda is though. The same thing would have been levelled against me before Lance got busted as well.

[maddog]

Lads ffs the glaring performance today was Thomas not froome. Not casting doubt on the man but he is transformed this year. Suddenly able to climb with the likes of Pierre Roland and valverde. Knock froome if you want but he has been up there for 3/4 years now consistently. If he tests bad I give up.

Thomas and Porte were equally as dominant. Porte done a big pull for Froome then unbelievably got back up to overtake Quintana who is a specialist climber and give a smirk on his way past. Thomas who has no climbing history got up the mountain quicker than a few former GT winners and ended up in 6th. If Lance was on the sky bus this evening he'd be saying 'not normal'.

The difference is Porte has the form in the past to justify what he did today. Thomas has not. Mind you it didn't stop Bradley either😉

[gerry]

Great ride by G alright today maybe he will get his chance in the vuelta now with Porte going to BMC I can't see sky letting him being team leader and collecting uci points for his new team.  interesting to see how things pan out today maybe the GC guys will let a breakaway take the win today. 

[imtommygunn]

Interesting article:

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/07/froomes-ventoux-data-leak-analysed/

[Clov]

Does it not bother you that Froome's times are better than Armstrong's?

Obvious as hell's on the juice, just follow these two on twitter..

Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport
f**k the hypocrisy ‏@Digger_forum

Are they?

The time it takes someone to go up a climb relative to historical comparisons with confirmed dopers tells you very little as there are so many factors than are not controlled for across the comparisons. The technology, tire pressure differences, atmospheric conditions, headwinds, length of stage, position of stage within the overall tour etc. The idea that you can extrapolate from the minimal data available to the public a confident judgement about whether someone is doping or not is foolish.

Ross Tucker strikes me as a snake-oil salesman with a bee in his bonnet.

The other source you cite is a parody account.

The times are comparative studies not one stage.

What do you know about Ross Tucker, and Digger Forum is far from a parody account.

You are pretty naive so. Buying marginal gains BS. This is just Lance revisited.

Ok, well in that case may be you could educate me. What would a set physiological data that are indicative of doping look like? What is the power to weight ratio or the total power output for a given ride that would be diagnostic? Or to put it the other way round, what are the physiological limits beyond which it is not possible (even for an historically great athlete) to excel cleanly?

[majestic]

Just wondering is nibali's performance causing any questions regarding his win last year? I know most of the other big names were out of last years race, but to be so out of touch this year? Just wondering what you more educated cycling fans thought?

I'm wondering if Astana for struggling with the level of scrutiny they must be under given their rep!!

[CiKe]

Just wondering is nibali's performance causing any questions regarding his win last year? I know most of the other big names were out of last years race, but to be so out of touch this year? Just wondering what you more educated cycling fans thought?

I'm wondering if Astana for struggling with the level of scrutiny they must be under given their rep!!

That crossed my mind as well

[Dinny Breen]

Does it not bother you that Froome's times are better than Armstrong's?

Obvious as hell's on the juice, just follow these two on twitter..

Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport
f**k the hypocrisy ‏@Digger_forum

Are they?

The time it takes someone to go up a climb relative to historical comparisons with confirmed dopers tells you very little as there are so many factors than are not controlled for across the comparisons. The technology, tire pressure differences, atmospheric conditions, headwinds, length of stage, position of stage within the overall tour etc. The idea that you can extrapolate from the minimal data available to the public a confident judgement about whether someone is doping or not is foolish.

Ross Tucker strikes me as a snake-oil salesman with a bee in his bonnet.

The other source you cite is a parody account.

The times are comparative studies not one stage.

What do you know about Ross Tucker, and Digger Forum is far from a parody account.

You are pretty naive so. Buying marginal gains BS. This is just Lance revisited.

Ok, well in that case may be you could educate me. What would a set physiological data that are indicative of doping look like? What is the power to weight ratio or the total power output for a given ride that would be diagnostic? Or to put it the other way round, what are the physiological limits beyond which it is not possible (even for an historically great athlete) to excel cleanly?

https://m.soundcloud.com/offtheball/ross-tucker-on-chris-fromme

You sound like a fan boy interview with Tucker on the link above argues the case pretty well.

[gerry]

> nibali won last year because the other two fell off and his form has being poor this year, fuglsang to be the new team   
    leader

> rodgers said today the bertie is happy with a top 3 that leaves majka to go for the polka dots

> dan to go for the polka dots and stages for garmin as talansky went out the back door today

> the french have little to celebrate this year with ag2r and fdj no where to be seen

> quintana the only man left to take the race to froome

> unless froome falls off the tour is over

[redzone]

Is the Tour de France not the one to win. If so then why did contadour not leave the giro and leave himself fresh for the tour de France. Or did know deep down he couldn't beat froome.

Just watched a good show on froome on itv4. He seems to be pretty genuine

[gerry]

he was trying to do the double and win both tours

[bennydorano]

It must be 4/5 years since there has been a good/ exciting Tour, judging by today's lack of fight it's all but over, I'd imagine Nibali mite bow out and have a rattle at La Vuelta. Tomorrow's stage looks a beast, it has to be a do or die day for Quintana & Bertie.

Go TJ.

[muppet]

Does it not bother you that Froome's times are better than Armstrong's?

Obvious as hell's on the juice, just follow these two on twitter..

Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport
f**k the hypocrisy ‏@Digger_forum

Are they?

The time it takes someone to go up a climb relative to historical comparisons with confirmed dopers tells you very little as there are so many factors than are not controlled for across the comparisons. The technology, tire pressure differences, atmospheric conditions, headwinds, length of stage, position of stage within the overall tour etc. The idea that you can extrapolate from the minimal data available to the public a confident judgement about whether someone is doping or not is foolish.

Ross Tucker strikes me as a snake-oil salesman with a bee in his bonnet.

The other source you cite is a parody account.

The times are comparative studies not one stage.

What do you know about Ross Tucker, and Digger Forum is far from a parody account.

You are pretty naive so. Buying marginal gains BS. This is just Lance revisited.

Ok, well in that case may be you could educate me. What would a set physiological data that are indicative of doping look like? What is the power to weight ratio or the total power output for a given ride that would be diagnostic? Or to put it the other way round, what are the physiological limits beyond which it is not possible (even for an historically great athlete) to excel cleanly?

https://m.soundcloud.com/offtheball/ross-tucker-on-chris-fromme

You sound like a fan boy interview with Tucker on the link above argues the case pretty well.

At this stage I think they should have a year or two with no drug testing and no consequences. It would be far more interesting to see what happens.

They can always re-instate the shabby status quo whenever they want.

[guy crouchback]

the sad  reality is cycling is probably one of the cleanest professional sports out there, bad and all as it is. the level of testing and scrutiny in cycling far surpasses  other sports. then there is that fact that there is far far  more money to be made in other sports, football, tennis, golf, rugby etc,etc.

You would imagine that with far less drugs in the sport  it should become a more level playing field  and the kind of performance we saw from Froome would be unlikely to happen, But then again maybe the opposite is true. maybe froome is clean and that fact that his competitors can no longer juice means he can blow them away because he is legitimately the best, with the best team and the best tactics.

the alternative is that he and indeed the whole sky team are taking doping to a new level. i honestly don't believe  that is the case. anyone who follows cycling has been listening to the sky anti drugs mantra since the day the team was founded. there is no way that SKY would put their name to  what would in effect be a massive performance enhancing operation from its inception.