Professional Dopers - Forum Archive

Jul 07, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Maybe Moviestar took their blood bags a day before the rest day? Is there any explanation how Froome had the 3rd fastest time ever on that climb? He was just behind an in-his-prime and juiced Lance Armstrong. The blowback against what SKY did yesterday might explain how they raced today. What I propose is that the team was ordered to stand down by the director (it is what I would do if I were the director as I curled my mustache). I'm probably completely wrong on this but I will believe what I want to believe. I don't think SKY realized how obvious they looked yesterday....

Speaking of obvious....here is a picture of the guy who played safety on the Jets last year....it is as incriminating as Froome's power output yesterday....

Laron-Landry-Muscles.jpg

Ryan J

Jul 07, 2013 at 10:31 PM

I'm surprised that some of the regular posters here haven't got their knives out for Movistar and Belkin today. Surely they must all be doping to have put Sky to the sword today.
Also Cadel bounced back amazingly well from a shocking day yesterday, maybe he invested in the recuperative powers of beloved of BMC riders: a few beers and bourbon shots.

While I think its a bit naive to assume anyone is clean, those things are nowhere near as extraordinary as what happened yesterday.

Jules

Jul 07, 2013 at 10:39 PM

twoyacks said:

Maybe Moviestar took their blood bags a day before the rest day? Is there any explanation how Froome had the 3rd fastest time ever on that climb? He was just behind an in-his-prime and juiced Lance Armstrong. The blowback against what SKY did yesterday might explain how they raced today. What I propose is that the team was ordered to stand down by the director (it is what I would do if I were the director as I curled my mustache). I'm probably completely wrong on this but I will believe what I want to believe. I don't think SKY realized how obvious they looked yesterday....

I think that is exactly what happened. Froome & Porte just got excited and showed too much of their doped-to the-eyeballs-hand. I'm sure there was hell to pay as a result.

Frankly I find this even worse than the Armstrong era if only because IT WAS JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO that he made an ass of himself on Oprah.

Sadly, the inventives are only bigger now and the testing just as spotty and behind the curve.

mugwump

Jul 07, 2013 at 10:50 PM

Ian,

While I think I see what you're getting at, the biggest difference between today and yesterday was Porte getting dropped and Kennaugh flying off the road. Without those two, Froome wisely rode a defensive race. That he wasn't going on the offensive, and the long drop to the finish dramatically changed how people rode. When Quintana attacked, Froome was on him fast. What would have happened if Froome attacked? Would he have crossed to Martin and then held everyone off? What was in it for him? Even if he crossed the summit with Martin on his wheel, the two would have had to hold off the entire group to win. Froome, wiith his form, he can wait until the TT to extend his lead.

I think it fair to wonder how Porte was so good yesterday and so bad today. Maybe it's a sign he's not juicing.

Dan Reiners

Jul 09, 2013 at 02:54 AM

Movistar and Belkin are suspicious, with 3 and 2 guys respectively in the top 10, and both doing a ton of work yesterday, they held together very well for being the second very hard day of racing. Considering the only Movistar to attack was Quintana and not very convincingly at that. I think they tested Froome and found him harder to shake than they though.

I still can't believe Froome had two really good days back to back and still held onto position at the top of the pile. It is a little shocking, but then I remember he is sponsored by James Murdoch's company and I remember the ethical morass that is NewsCorp.

Jules

Jul 09, 2013 at 01:16 PM

Time will tell. Secrets are very hard to keep in this day & age where everyone has a camera phone.

What is most fascinating is the media silence on the issue. Everyone "shook their heads in the press room and laughed" when Armstrong won his first mountain stage EVEN AFTER Kimmage, et al have been vindicated the press are too gutless to say anything other than "the inevitable questions have been asked"

Add to the "soft of spine" are the many other DS's and riders who just a month ago were all "isn't it great that we see slower more human races - this just shows that we're all riding clean now" have suddenly gone quiet.

ian ellis

Jul 09, 2013 at 03:05 PM

I actually don't have a camera-phone, but I digress.

I'm with Jules insomuch that it is too early to tell, which by extension ought to mean it's too early to start throwing accusations around.

I'm no fan of Froome (his voice grates on me, and he is inelegant on a bicycle, and he is not in my fantasy team), but his real show of strength on the first day in the Pyrenees was early in the race and about the only time he had really stuck his nose in the wind since corsica. The second day he didn't look quite as strong and was contained within a large group of favorites.

Porte and Kirlyenka looked awesome that first day but they had gone too deep too soon since the next day they were poor - which would seem normal for a tired athlete who had not recovered well.

I know there are conspiracy theorist around who think that may have been a plan from Sky for them to lose some time and not be so obvious that they are juicing. Maybe if they had lost a little time, but for the 2nd placed rider on GC to lose 18 mins, a key mountain helper to get eliminated and to leave the yellow jersey without a team mate for the whole day - would seem a very extreme diversionary tactic.

mugwump

Jul 09, 2013 at 03:15 PM

While I'm no fan of Valverde's stance on doping, i think slamming Movistar is a bit premature. Same goes for Belkin.

While they did turn on the gas when Porte was dropped, they had help from Garmin when the blue team drilled it early. And even though Porte couldn't get back on, he had little help, other than from his teammates. And on the final climb, the Movistar pace-making was such that a pretty big group remained on their wheel the whole way up.

On the descent into town, Belkin's Gesink, who had been riding at the back of the group for a long time, came to the front.

Anyone have any w/kg estimates for the final climb on Sunday? So far, I haven't read any expert weighing in on the power requirements to climb it in the group.

Jules

Jul 09, 2013 at 03:22 PM

@Wump Science of Sport seems to have the most well-written wattage estimates in general

@Ian I agree it is too soon to know, and in a historical vacuum I'd agree with you about the seemliness of pitching accusations... but as a fan I've been fed so much bullshit by cycling press and riders alike that I feel entitled - actually I feel foolish unless I assume the worst when I see a performance as dominating as Froome's.

His total "pWnage" of the pro peloton combined with a curious silence (crickets?) from the pro ranks & journalists leave me feeling like I've seen this movie before.

mugwump

Jul 09, 2013 at 03:58 PM

Jules said:

@Wump Science of Sport seems to have the most well-written wattage estimates in general

His total "pWnage" of the pro peloton combined with a curious silence (crickets?) from the pro ranks & journalists leave me feeling like I've seen this movie before.

Yes, I know about SoS. He hasn't addressed Sunday's stage. I haven't seen anyone address it either.

I think the silence regarding Sunday is understandable.

I certainly agree that people should be skeptical and vocal.

Jeff Owens

Jul 09, 2013 at 04:17 PM

Not sure this is real for Valverde:

http://www.srm.de/news/road-cycling/le-tour-de-france-stage-9/

mugwump

Jul 09, 2013 at 04:30 PM

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/news/opinion-should-we-just-stop-asking-about-doping_294399

"Eyebrows will raise as long as cyclists climb mountains and as long as human beings improve, which is basic physiology."--Matthew Beaudin, VN

Maybe I don't understand basic physiology, but human beings can continually improve?

Good thing Beaudin is on the job.

mugwump

Jul 09, 2013 at 04:37 PM

Jeff Owens said:

Not sure this is real for Valverde:

http://www.srm.de/news/road-cycling/le-tour-de-france-stage-9/

I think it's supposed to be Valverde.

"Valverde and Nairo Quintana went on the offensive in the final climb, the Hourquette d’Ancizan. Valverde averaged 323.4 watts up the ascent with several power peaks between 600-800 watts."

the climb took 31:16

I don't know what Valverde weighs, but those numbers don't seem out of this world incredible for a guy I take to be in the 140lb range (63.63kg) Assuming he weighs that, his power was 5.07w/kg, if he's 135lb, then 5.28 wlkg. The spikes written of are four, are pretty short, like 10-20s in length.

Doesn't mean he wasn't doping. But it's hardly the 6.3-6.5 w/kg estimate of Froome.

Jules

Jul 09, 2013 at 06:05 PM

mugwump said:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/news/opinion-should-we-just-stop-asking-about-doping_294399
"Eyebrows will raise as long as cyclists climb mountains and as long as human beings improve, which is basic physiology."--Matthew Beaudin, VN
Maybe I don't understand basic physiology, but human beings can continually improve?
Good thing Beaudin is on the job.

That is absolutely jaw-dropping. I wonder if he's just trolling.

Craig Zolan

Jul 09, 2013 at 08:23 PM

I don't think the comment about humans improving is entirely off base. There are a variety of records in all sports, whether it be running, weight lifting, swimming, etc that we break from time to time. Sometimes it is attributed to doping, but there are other times that it is due to better training (think RPE, to HR, to Power), better technique (think straddle vs Fosbury Flop high jump), better equipment (lighter wheels, more hydrodynamic swimsuit, faster pool, etc) that is the reason a record is broken. It is human nature to want to progress and be better than the past (that goes for generational social, educational and financial attributes too).

I don't think that we'll see quantum jumps in performance and Froome's performance the other day seemed to be otherworldly. That said, there could be other facts like, off days for others and an on day for Froome. One thing I did notice about Froome vs the others was that he was consistently dousing himself with water to keep cool whereas I didn't see the others do that. I wouldn't be surprised if the cooling was one small part of the performance gain (and the other would be he had larger derailleur pulleys and waxed his chain).

Jules

Jul 10, 2013 at 12:17 AM

@Craig I don't agree. There is some pretty conclusive stuff on the "rate of progression" of world records in all sports with and without doping. As often, I'm a big fan of Science of Sport.

"First, consider that in men's athletics (we use men's because as shown above, women's progressions are dramatically skewed by doping), the typical rate of improvement in the 100m and marathon has been around 1% every ten years. That means 0.1 s or 90 seconds in the 100m and marathon, respectively, every decade.

If we apply this to cycling, once again setting aside technology and commercial factors, then we can begin to see where current performances should be, assuming they are non-doped.

I previously used three separate markers to suggest that doping might improve performance by approximately 5%. If that were true, and if the expected progression was 1% per decade as for running, then doping is worth 50 years of progression. I'd argue that because cycling has always had testing, it constrains the degree of doping, thus lessening the effect, and so a conservative assumption here would be that doping is worth 3%, and thus worth 30 years at that example rate of progression."

JoshuaC

Jul 10, 2013 at 01:24 AM

http://www.myfoxny.com/story/22798993/alex-rodriguez-to-face-suspension

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9464246/ryan-braun-refused-answer-mlb-questions-biogenesis-clinic-sources-say

mugwump

Jul 10, 2013 at 01:50 AM

My issue is with basic physiology and the idea that it can be improved. What's the chance that people will just come to have a VO2 max of 100? Or more people will happen to have a hematocrit of 49?

Maybe in the future, we'll have a better understanding of building lung capacity or find a combination of legal foods that can increase hematocrit. But right now, I doubt those things are possible. Yes, better training can make a difference, but the better training is probably more about taking more people closer to their physiological limits than it is about improving pysiology. The people who are riding the tour already represent the smallest cohort of cyclists in the world. My guess is that most are pretty close to their physiological limit, and the big improvement that has come from better training methodologies is that more people come to the tour in better shape.

It's possible that some person who has a genetic anomaly will show up with these traits. It's possible that with better identification earlier, more might end up in endurance sports. Or maybe with better identification people with multiple genetic anaomalies that predispose them to success at endurance sports will show up.

But the idea that within the cycling world, someone, just with better training, can ride 7 w/kg for 25 minutes, even if it means they're cooling themselves better, seems far-fetched.

As you point out with the larger derailleur pulleys (which he doesn't ride) and the chain waxing (possible, but sky would almost certainly have to use a non sponsor-compliant chain), equipment can be some of the story, but that has nothing to do with physiology. And Froome was riding the same frame as Valverde and the same components as Evans. He probably had aftermarket bearings that the other guys had. And many of his competitors have a team of "performance managers" whose job it is to figure out how to go faster with the given equipment.

Jules

Jul 10, 2013 at 01:58 AM

@Wump did you every listen to this Podcast? Fascinating study on gut bacteria and how it changed endurance capacity for mice.

mugwump

Jul 10, 2013 at 02:07 AM

Interesting.

At the same time, I'd sooner believe that dopers have access to a replicated anemia drug that was stopped after clinical trials than the parasites in Froome's stomach is the cause of his climbing prowess.

Jules

Jul 10, 2013 at 02:11 AM

@ Wump I don't think it's being used to dope but it does give hope to those of us *without* a 350 watt threshold

I think that sophisticated masking agents on tried & true doping methodologies are more likely than pre-release custom drugs but who really knows.

It is always cheaper to just bribe the person(s) testing ...

mugwump

Jul 10, 2013 at 02:23 AM

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-issues-warning-on-black-market-gw501516

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-issues-warning-on-black-market-fat-burning-drug

btw, Jad and Robert's schtik gets tiresome, which is why I only listen to radiolab by accident.

Jules

Jul 10, 2013 at 02:30 AM

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-issues-warning-on-black-market-gw501516

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-issues-warning-on-black-market-fat-burning-drug

btw, Jad and Robert's schtik gets tiresome, which is why I only listen to radiolab by accident.

Wow

twoyacks

Jul 10, 2013 at 02:37 AM

This guy makes Ferrari look like Einstein

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=9228673

neilx

Jul 10, 2013 at 02:46 AM

Wow! Does he take Empire Blue Cross? Seems like a an SNL spoof.

mugwump

Jul 10, 2013 at 02:38 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2013/07/09/lance-armstrong-lawsuit-to-proceed/2501755/

Who needs Oprah or TRC?

Jeffrey White

Jul 10, 2013 at 03:49 PM

Bike technology progresses FAR more than 1 percent a decade. Put LeMond in his prime on a modern bike and watch his times on some of these climbs start overlapping with the dopers.

I understand SoS mentions the technology caveat, but I think it makes cycling advances far different, prima facia, from those in other sports.

Jules

Jul 10, 2013 at 05:45 PM

With weight limits on bikes the only changes to going uphill will be friction & aerodynamics. I think the point stands, with a very fair caveat about bike technology.

We're not going to see "advances in training" that come even close to the 6+ w/Kg for 40 minutes that we saw in the height of the O2 Vector doping era anytime soon.

mugwump

Jul 12, 2013 at 02:59 AM

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-dismisses-vayers-power-estimates

"In an article for Le Monde earlier this week, for instance, former Festina trainer Antoine Vayer estimated that Froome produced an average power output of 446 watts on the final climb to Ax 3 Domaines on Saturday, but the yellow jersey dismissed the figures when they were put to him during his press conference after stage 12 to Tours.

""I don't think it's humanly possible to average 440 watts for a whole stage so that's out of the question. That's far, far from what I think is possible," said Froome."

--so did Froome misunderstand the comment or did the reporter blow the quote?

Marc Bertucco

Jul 12, 2013 at 03:21 AM

Either way, it's annoying. What I find most perplexing is Froome's improvement in the TT.

"Interpreting Froome's improvement against the watch in recent years is no simple matter either. Prior to the 2011 Tour de Suisse, Froome had never finished in the top 10 in a time trial in a WorldTour event, yet a little over two years later, the 28-year-old put two minutes into his overall rivals in a 33-kilometre time trial at the Tour de France."