reminded me yesterday, the way he left some top climbers for dead, like Bjarne Riis, Marco Pantani, Armstrong and Vinokourov.
Yesterday was a real tough one for me in terms of suspicion. On paper his dominance screams doping but then I see riders like Gallopin, Yates & Rolland who I'd put money on been clean out performing lots of big names so I wonder is Froome so dominant or are the guys who'd normally challenge (Nibali, Pinot, Contador, Peraud etc) under performing making it look worse. On top of that Quintana tends to improve as a Tour goes on & is never normally on top form on the first mountain stage. I'd say lets see what happens today. A big sign of doping is been able to repeat it day after day & not suffer from your efforts. If Sky are as dominant today questions rightfully will be asked. I'd hate Sky to be proven dirty as I desperately want Thomas to be clean, I'd be gutted if he was doping, probably my favourite rider.
well, you'd have to say based on him not being tested otherwise. that's kinda how it works. but it's a sad reality, that many people will naturally assume he's doping. and i understand why. shame but that's just how it is.
There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest otherwise and I believe David Brailsford would only run a clean team. As for the examples you have given above, I would put Pierre Rolland in the same class as Pinot and Peraud (and Bardet and Barguil) who are having poor tours so I don't think that adds anything to the debate. No idea what's going on with Gallopin however.
I must admit, I was very surprised how much better than the opposition he was. Because of the history of cycling, you always have a niggling suspicion that may be down to doping. Thing is, you never know if it's because the leader is having an amazing ride or if the others are under par. It looked to me that if Richie Porte and Geraint Thomas had been riding for themselves, team leaders in a different team rather than running themselves in to the ground protecting Froome, they would have been capable of staying with Froome. That's a scary proposition in itself: Sky had the three strongest riders on the day, which could suggest the whole team are doping. Or, and this is what I choose to believe, Sky have prepared and trained much better for this race than any other team. Yesterday it was revealed that after the tour Froome will allow an independent assessor to take any tests he or she likes. He'll also hand over his medical, training and performance records from his entire career for anyone to scrutinise. I'd have to question why anyone who is doping or has ever doped would do that. I can only conclude that they wouldn't.
I hope that as part of that assessment he lets them take blood and store it for future testing. It's one thing being confident that they won't find owt with current testing methods, but being happy to have it tested in the future would be a much bigger gesture.
Zero evidence? Geert Leinders? Michael Rogers? Sergio Henao? Tiernan-Locke? Beating times set on mountains by riders that were fuelled with EPO & blood transfusions, use of cortisone, the use of inhalers by Froome for Asthma when Scientists have shown its impossible to have that & Bilharzia at the same time. Let's not forget Dave Brailsford was with David Millar at his place in France when it was raided & EPO was found & he was coaching Rob Hayles who returned dodgy blood values. None of it proves Froome dopes but there's a lot of evidence that suggests Froome & Sky could well be up to no good. I hope they're clean because of the damage it would do to the sport if they're doping. I think it'll be interesting over the next week because you often get strange results on the first big mountain stage of a grand tour but if he and Sky are as dominant over the next few mountain stages questions will rightfully be asked.
To be honest I don't think Nibali's took it serious this year. He's won one race all year & not even been in contention in nearly all the races he's entered. Apparently Vinokourov's told him to find a new team for next year. It sounds like he's done a Wiggins & lost a lot of his motivation after winning the tour
Unfortunately the testings virtually useless at catching the top riders with organised doping structures in place. A lot of riders who were with Armstrong at US Postal, Heras, Landis, Hamilton, Beltran etc all got away with it because it was monitored by the team but when they all left and joined other teams & had to do everything themselves, transfusions, EPO etc they all got caught. If Sky are doping then they're much more likely to get caught out by a whistleblower than the testing. It's a shame but it's just the reality of it
Innocent until proven guilty, but for anyone to say 'definitely 100% clean' is just naive. The cycling world need to accept the onus is on them to prove they're clean. And will be for some time to come. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is exactly it. No way you can say he's 100% clean & no way you can say he's 100% doped. I'll just enjoy watching it & hope for the best
After enjoying watching the above mentioned, except Armstrong who I always thought was a doper, and then later seeing the doping scandals of those riders it just made me think is Froome another that we will find out about years down the line. I dont know if he is or he isn`t doping, it was just the manner of victory that reminded me of the other riders mentioned. As for others excusing the not so remarkable performances of other contenders, aint that always been the case. Its such a shame that something I`ve watched since Big Mig beat Tony Rominger is making me question what may merely have been just an outstanding performance by a rider who maybe head and shoulders above the rest.
I think we're in a dangerous game if we automatically equate amazing performances with assumptions of doping.
