[Closed] Froome's Test Results

interesting but it wont sway the doubters

How do you prove a negative?

Glad to read the article. I've just posted it on f/b with no little satisfaction.

interesting but it wont sway the doubters

Exactly. Sadly there's no way you can just pop into the lab on one occasion and prove yourself 'clean'.

What you need is a governing body and dope-testing programme which inspires confidence over the longer term, and allows the statement 'I've never tested positive' to actually mean something.

Folks like Vayer were so immersed in the cycling world at the moment of its worst corruption that they can't conceive a universe where riders don't dope.

So Tour de France winner Chris Froome has the physiology of a Tour de France winner.

I'd love to see the other GT riders tested - Nairo, Contador, Nibali - along with some of the "nearly" riders like Valverde, Van Garderen. Not because of any particular suspicion (although I have some) but to see if there is any noticeable differences in the very basic numbers they've given.

Dr Hutch has pointed out that his VO2 Max was measured as higher than Froome when he was at his best. There's a lot more to it than just that figure.

I'd be interested to know if there was a way that DNA markers could be tested for use of EPO and other steroids. I know just about every other chemical added to the body will result in some sort of feedback to the genome, somewhere, so it may be possible (in time) to find out what was taken and for how long.

You would need to find people that had not taken anything though (possibly difficult) and compare them with people that had (possibly difficult, but for different reasons).

Ah, if only I owned a DNA research lab...

Thanks for posting this. Quite a motivator to train more!

they only way we'll find out is using old fashioned tried and tested methods.
Tie his hands and feet, throw him in a pond. If he floats he's guilty, if he drowns, well we all thought he was an honest guy.

What a shocker, data shows exactly what he wants it to show. No manipulation there oh no!

I dont think you are really a Doctor 🙄

As I said whatever he does you will just get comments like that that do nothing but fling mud and present no evidence

I feel sorry for Froome as he will get dragged into engaging with these folk and nothing will satisfy them NOTHING

What about that comment from Vayer?

“Nothing would convince me,” he says. “He should have called me a year ago and said, ‘Vayer, you make me angry, let’s sit together.’ If you are clean and you have doubters, you phone your doubters, don’t you think? Because I am quite influential.”

Arrogant sod.

What a shocker, data shows exactly what he wants it to show. No manipulation there oh no!

Just as a matter of interest, what would sway your opinion?

Yes why has froome not approached the one who wont be convinced by anything?
Makes you think eh

TBH the sport was clearly riddled with cheats and now we are starting to get clean riders and some just wont believe this

It's not going to change the opinion of anyone whose opinion won't be changed, but it is a very interesting read and in my view quite convincing. Obviously the only way you'd ever get someone like Vayer to change his mind would be to have him glued to Froome's side for a month or more... even then somehow I suspect he'd still find a flaw to pin his attention-seeking soundbite on...

I take the simplistic view that all sports participants are clean until they are proven otherwise. Makes life a whole lot simpler!

What a shocker, data shows exactly what he wants it to show. No manipulation there oh no

By insinuation you are also calling GSK Human Performance Lab cheats too.

Can you back up that claim? It's a bold one..

Personally it looks & sounds believable even if at the upper end of what thoughts to be achievable, but then thats what you'd expect from a TDF winner.

What really needs doing is other riders to release the same data, otherwise there's nothing to compare it against. The longer such data is withheld the longer suspicion will remain.

What really needs doing is other riders to release the same data, otherwise there's nothing to compare it against.

This would help, but as others have said you still won't convince some people as they've made their mind up already and won't be swayed.

It was pretty clear that he would post high vo2 and power numbers.

The most interesting thing is the 2007 test. It shows there's much more to being a top pro than a lab test like this can quantify.

Eg still performing at a high level 4 hours into a tour stage.

does seem to me that a lot of the "what is humanly possible" data are taken from, well, err, second-rate performers

... second-rate isn't intended as an insult but they may have to rethink some of their benchmarks when/if [b]truly clean[/b] and genuinely world-beating individuals step up in sufficient numbers

I hope Froome's clean but recent (and not-so-recent) history has made me a sceptical bastard 🙁

Vayer, though, sounds like a truly peak performing bell-end

I'd be interested to know if there was a way that DNA markers could be tested for use of EPO and other steroids. I know just about every other chemical added to the body will result in some sort of feedback to the genome, somewhere, so it may be possible (in time) to find out what was taken and for how long.

How so? Genuine question, I thought DNA/genes were pretty much fixed for life - you inherit a set from your parents and other than some random mutations from chemicals / radiation / virus etc. in a small number of cells, you keep the same set throughout.

I know you can change how the genes are expressed / which ones are active etc. but I didn't think you'd see a change in the DNA

Froome engaging with this Vayer guy just sounds like it would be a great example of the wrestling with pigs thing- all you get is covered in crap, and the pig enjoys it. Can't see it's worth his while, totally understandable if he just gets on with it and leaves the doubters to doubt IMO.

Same could be said of releasing the data in the first place, it's never going to convince anybody who isn't already on board.

VO2Max is just one part of the system though, you need to determine how efficient the body is at utilising that oxygen and transporting it to where it's needed. Then there is economy, i.e. how efficient you are mechanically.

Ultimately I suspect (sadly) that people will see in the figures what they want to see which reflects more on them than it does on Froome.

How so? Genuine question, I thought DNA/genes were pretty much fixed for life - you inherit a set from your parents and other than some random mutations from chemicals / radiation / virus etc. in a small number of cells, you keep the same set throughout.

I know you can change how the genes are expressed / which ones are active etc. but I didn't think you'd see a change in the DNA

A non-inherited (somatic) change is unlikely to be seen unless it causes a real problem (ie cancers). Epigenetic factors and the transcriptome might be more likely. There's a bit of evidence linking EPO to epigenetics in cancers [url= http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21779481 ]linko[/url], but a quick google doesn't give much more that would be relevant to sporting use.

Vayer had nothing to do with doping at Festina and hates doping so much that despite knowing about it he continued working there. The bloke is a hypocrite who loves publicity.

If you are clean and you have doubters, you phone your doubters, don’t you think? Because I am quite influential.

[img] [/img]

I think Froomes biggest problem is that there are other others in the pro field who are [b]highly[/b] likely to be cheating *looks in Astana's direction*.

Also the current WADA drugs tests have been shown to be woefully inadequate. This was highlighted in the BBC panorama programming where a Joe blogs reporter doped, saw a 8%(?) Increase in performance yet his known tainted sample was not found to contain banned substances in testing.

Whether or not froome is clean (I would like to think he is) the whole set up is undermined with patent flaws in the system.

does seem to me that a lot of the "what is humanly possible" data are taken from, well, err, second-rate performers

When I was watching the tour this year I started to think that maybe we are now beginning to see the effects of an effective anti doping programme. It felt that Froome was only able to muster a couple of attacks. On other days he was just the teams last survivor as the rest of the team had ridden themselves into oblivion keeping him in contention. It had quite a different feel to just a few years ago when it felt that the teams were just teeing up the big guns to constantly attack. In some ways the old drugged racing was bigger entertainment and the clean sport feels more real, its not an action film of exploisions and car chases, but real life drama, I prefer it I feel I can connect (in a small way) with the struggles and pain of the athletes.

But as someone said above what it comes down to is believing that the sports authorities are really trying to catch the cheats. I think there are now some people in influential positions within cycling that genuinely want to tackle the problem. And while the sports governance is moving in the right direction, it is probably the teams hierarchy and some of the athletes that want the old ways to continue.

Just as a matter of interest, what would sway your opinion?

What would you do if someone questioned the quality of your work? Would you attack, avoid or obsfucate? Or would you sit down and explain the results show your working out and calling on mutually respected colleagues if required?

This is assuming that your detractor is incorrect and you haven't been sending crap and lies out of the door.

Therein lies my issue with Sky (and all of pro cycling in general). I do not believe a dickybird of it (Froome / Wiggo) not because of physiological testing or iffy w/kg estimates on twitter, but because they have given me zero reasons to trust them.

Other things that get my spidey senses going are the timing of Froomes transformation, the appointment of a team doctor that has been subsequently banned for life the abuse of cortisone and AICAR for weight loss (raised in the CIRC).

It's also been said that the faster Wiggo rode the less outspoken about doping he got. His MO when dealing with doubters was straight out of the Armstrong textbook (attack attack attack). Oh and his coconut hairdo and crappy clothes also p155 me off too 😀

What would you do if someone questioned the quality of your work? Would you attack, avoid or obsfucate? Or would you sit down and explain the results show your working out and calling on mutually respected colleagues if required?

I can't seem to find the handbag emoticon 😆

they have given me zero reasons to trust them.

No that would be the previous cheats that mean you have decided to distrust them
As for wiggo FFS he was always outspoken about drug cheats. His kids had to change school because of the shit they got about his dad ...he may well have thought that it was just pointless as some folk would not listen...remind you of anyone nearby?

As for disclosing their meticulous training regime to the internet ...I think you would need to be on drugs to think that will ever happen and not see the reason why.

TBH there is no point having these discussion when folk talk about their "spidey senses tingling" what you mean is you have **** all evidence but you wont be convinced because you have a hunch. Just say that then and admit your view is not evidence based.

Or would you sit down and explain the results show your working out and calling on mutually respected colleagues if required?

Froome: You don't see that big needle full of EPO on the sideboard, I'm not going to inject the EPO that doesn't exist.

Gypsumfantastic : Prove it.

How exactly can he prove a negative? It's not like you can take a training plan, crunch some numbers and come out with Froome, even if they released the data for every ride he's been on in the last decade it wouldn't show that he was clean, someone would say he's having a good response to XYZ block of trainng, someone else would just say he was microdosing.

It's also been said that the faster Wiggo rode the less outspoken about doping he got. His MO when dealing with doubters was straight out of the Armstrong textbook (attack attack attack).

Everyone else just saw that as he was getting peeved off with the questions over a long period of time, during which time he got faster, same as anyone else who trains that much.

[troll] How many blood tests did armstrong pass? [/troll]

I don't get what this stuff proves. They didn't catch Lance because of doping tests, his power output and VO2 max would be pretty good too.

I enjoy watching Froome so will be hoping all turns out good in the end, though I must say he's doing well to be thrashing the dodgy riders who are still suspected of doping

How many blood tests did armstrong pass?

Loads - the lying, cheating bar steward.

Armstrong, though, never offered himself up for testing in the same way Froome has.

One thing I will say:

All of you who are doubting this data - you are also questioning the viability of the GSK Lab? Care to substantiate that part of your claim too? Why is the GSK Lab worthy of suspicion? Any evidence?

I think if you're going to point fingers at Froome then you must also be pointing fingers at those doing the testing.

Froome by association, sadly, is worthy of some suspcicion.

What has the GSK Lab done to be perceived as tainted?

Clearly my refusal to believe has touched a raw nerve with some 😀

What would you do if someone asked you to divulge all of the training and preparation processes that you use to remain clean but compete even with opponents who you believe to be dopers?
Would you sit down and explain in intricate, comprehensive detail your working out ?

Simply put, Yes. If it absolved me of cheating or even the suspicion of cheating then it's worth doing especially when you're asking people to believe you.

No that would be the previous cheats that mean you have decided to distrust them

Replied to any 419 emails lately? I'm sure the latest one is genuine.

TBH there is no point having these discussion when folk talk about their "spidey senses tingling" what you mean is you have **** all evidence but you wont be convinced because you have a hunch. Just say that then and admit your view is not evidence based.

Wow! These things don't even make you even slightly suspicious, in a sport that's got serious form? You lap it up unquestioningly? I couldn't give two hoots if they're doping or not but if you want me to trust you, support your team and buy the bikes and kit you're peddling (not just pedalling) then you're going to have to at least attempt to allay my fears.

Gypsumfantastic : Prove it. How exactly can he prove a negative?

You can't hence the arguments all over the interwebs.

Everyone else just saw that as he was getting peeved off with the questions over a long period of time

Did the questions come out of the blue? Did they honestly think that people would disrergard the previous 100 tours worth of drug use and take them at their word? Did they completely fail to anticipate and prepare for the relentless doping questions that inevitably follow the leader around every single tour? Actually that might have been a genuine oversight from a team that failed to do basic background checks on staff (Lienders / Julich / Yates / Rogers / etc).

I'm not here to convince anyone one way or another, I don't mind what you believe. The question was what would sway my opinion and the answer was deal with doubters head on at the time the questions are asked, the Vuelta 2011 would have been a great place to get on the front foot. Also don't take people for mugs, did you not even google who Geert Lienders was before hiring him?

Doubt remains ergo I remain suspicious.

Would the arguments be so vociferous if the thread was about Contador and Tinkoff or Nibali and Astana?

They didn't catch Lance because of doping tests, his power output and VO2 max would be pretty good too.

They did, actually. Unfortunately, they didn't do anything about it.

Or would you sit down and explain the results show your working out and calling on mutually respected colleagues if required?

You mean like the GSK Lab?

Therein lies my issue with Sky (and all of pro cycling in general). I do not believe a dickybird of it (Froome / Wiggo) not because of physiological testing or iffy w/kg estimates on twitter, but because they have given me zero reasons to trust them.

You mean like releasing data and testing themselves at the GSK Lab?

The trouble is that it's such an emotive topic amongst fans that it comes down to faith rather than science. You want to hold your opinion and believe it to be the case regardless of anything that people (be they Team Sky, doctors in labs, or forumites) say, therefore you do.

When you start in the negative, and discount any possible evidence that might improve their standing because it doesn't stand up to the spidey sense, you're always going to believe the worst. Unfortunately it's history that's put us there.

Truth is, none of us know, nor are we likely to for at least 7 or 8 years when the drugs tests catch up with the drugs.

[url= https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=fg+4592&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari ]New drug..[/url]

comes down to faith rather than science

This x 1000 and when the science has been abused in the past (by both sides, think Armstrongs physiological testing that got savaged and the W/Kg brigade on twitter) all you have to go on is faith. Sky, through their inaction and absfucation do not have my faith

Unfortunately it's history that's put us there.

If you want to prove you're different from those that went before then act differently. Pro cycling remains resolutely the same as it's ever been.

If you want to prove you're different from those that went before then act differently

I think it's fair to say that they (along with people such as Garmin-Slipstream) have been different, just perhaps not different enough for some people.

Personally, I grew up and originally got into cycling watching Lance win the Tour, so his fall from grace had an effect for sure. I do however remain an optimist, so will cheer for Froome, Thomas and Cavendish until science says otherwise.

Which of course is the great thing about science, it can change its mind.

Pro cycling remains resolutely the same as it's ever been.

I don't think that's true at all. Look at the fastest times up Alpe d'Huez, who did them, and when.

You can't get away with a Pantaniesque 60% Hct these days though therefore they're unlikely to be beaten. Much like athletics in the 70%.

[Troll]Although doesn't Paula hold the Marathon world record [/troll]

it doesn't stand up to the spidey sense

Until there is evidence of him being a doper I'll give him the benefit of the non-existant doubt.

[url= http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-tour-de-france-leader-chris-froome-would-be-well-advised-to-invite-questions-31386946.html ]Paul Kimmage's thoughts[/url]

Though not on the newly released data - more background info.

You can't get away with a Pantaniesque 60% Hct these days though therefore they're unlikely to be beaten. Much like athletics in the 70%

Fair point, but again how do you prove a negative? The argument goes round & round & round.....

Or is the only way to clean up pro-cycling to throw out anyone who has ever taken anything stronger than paracetamol out of the sport & start again?

I'm no rocket scientist but if independent & to my knowledge impartial & unbiased scientific observations say its all okey dokey then I'm inclined to believe that science.

Guilty by association? No.

Worthy of questioning? Yes.

Clearly my refusal to believe has touched a raw nerve with some

yeah I think you have touched a nerve, but not specifically about Froome. it's the fact that it appears that nobody can [b]prove [/b]themselves clean in some peoples eyes.

Simply put, Yes. If it absolved me of cheating or even the suspicion of cheating then it's worth doing

except that it wont will it, doubters still gonna doubt...

whatever anyone does is always being poo poo'd, and until the ones slinging accusations around can actually articulate what what would sway them there's little anyone can do, especially since it seems that all you have to do to be accused of being a cheat is ride quickly a few times.

if there is actual evidence of cheating then present it, if all you've got is such a severe case of cynicism that you can't entertain the possibility that someone can win clean then you need to just keep quiet.

what's the alternative, we forever assume that the winners are cheating? in perpetuity, forever?

at some point we (as a sport and as fans) have to push the reset button and start form the assumption that people are clean unless proven otherwise, and drop this idea of cheat unless proven clean, because that appears to be impossible (nor fair).

if you want to direct your anger about previous transgressions, and doubts about the current checks then direct them at the governing bodies and at the testing regimes, pour your scorn on them and demand better, not becasue you think everyone is cheating and want to expose them, but becasue you want to prove the sport [i]is [/i]clean (or at least getting cleaner), don't direct your hate and doubt at the riders until you have an actual proven cause to.

yours optimistically,
a cycling fan

You can't get away with a Pantaniesque 60% Hct these days though therefore they're unlikely to be beaten. Much like athletics in the 70%.

But you were saying that pro cycling is the same as it's always been. Now you're saying that they can't get away with stuff the likes of Pantani used to get away with. I'd call that progress.

Until there is evidence of him being a doper I'll give him the benefit of the non-existant doubt

There may have been evidence if he didn't swerve a random test!

Did the questions come out of the blue? Did they honestly think that people would disrergard the previous 100 tours worth of drug use and take them at their word? Did they completely fail to anticipate and prepare for the relentless doping questions that inevitably follow the leader around every single tour?

What answer would you like them to have prepared that would satisfy you though?

Journalist: You're a doper.
Wiggo: No I'm not.
Journalist: You're a doper.
Wiggo: No I'm not.
Journalist: You're a doper.
Wiggo: No I'm not.
Journalist: You're a doper.
Wiggo: No I'm not.
Journalist: You're a doper.
Wiggo: No I'm not.
Journalist: You're a doper.
Wiggo: No I'm not.
Journalist: You're a doper, everyone on the internetz says you are.
Wiggo: 'I say they're just f*** w. I cannot be doing with people like that.

'It justifies their own bone-idleness because they can't ever imagine applying themselves to do anything in their lives.

'It's easy for them to sit under a pseudonym on Twitter and write that sort of s, rather than get off their a* in their own lives and apply themselves and work hard at something and achieve something.

'And that's ultimately it. C*.'

Journalist: You're a doper.
Froome: No I'm not.
Journalist: You're a doper.
Froome: No I'm not.
Journalist: You're a doper.
Froome: No I'm not.
Journalist: You're a doper.
Froome: No I'm not.
Journalist: You're a doper.
Froome: No I'm not. Here's a ****load of data from an independent lab to prove it.
Journalist: You're a doper.

But you were saying that pro cycling is the same as it's always been. Now you're saying that they can't get away with stuff the likes of Pantani used to get away with. I'd call that progress.

Same as it's always been as in taking whatever you can get away with.

Same as it's always been as in taking whatever you can get away with.

Doing what you can get away with applies to most professional sport, so I'd say your point is moot.

I guess that because he is beating a convicted drugs cheat then there is suspicion. As said earlier it would be interesting if the other contenders subjected themselves to the same tests and released their data.

Doing what you can get away with applies to most professional sport, so I'd say your point is moot.

Why stop at pro sport? It's human nature to try and win at all costs, it's in our genes.

What would you do if someone questioned the quality of your work? Would you attack, avoid or obsfucate? Or would you sit down and explain the results show your working out and calling on mutually respected colleagues if required?

This is assuming that your detractor is incorrect and you haven't been sending crap and lies out of the door.

Therein lies my issue with Sky (and all of pro cycling in general). I do not believe a dickybird of it (Froome / Wiggo) not because of physiological testing or iffy w/kg estimates on twitter, but because they have given me zero reasons to trust them.

Other things that get my spidey senses going are the timing of Froomes transformation, the appointment of a team doctor that has been subsequently banned for life the abuse of cortisone and AICAR for weight loss (raised in the CIRC).

It's also been said that the faster Wiggo rode the less outspoken about doping he got. His MO when dealing with doubters was straight out of the Armstrong textbook (attack attack attack). Oh and his coconut hairdo and crappy clothes also p155 me off too

The trouble is that if Froome and Wiggo are doping that is that's the whole house of cards falling down isn't it. So your saying Dave runs a doping tour team but british Cycling is clean? Wiggo joins SKY and Dave says here are the drugs? Or are you saying Britsih cyling Vickey and Hoy all doped as well?

Oh and no I wouldn't respond to every critic. I certainly wouldn't use their lab.

Oh and Armstrong failed tests in retrospect, after the tests improved

What answer would you like them to have prepared that would satisfy you though?

It's not a question of having an answer prepared for them, it was more about anticipating the questions and keeping calm rather than kicking off.

Oh and Armstrong failed tests in retrospect, after the tests improved

This test was never going to prove anything to either side.

It doesn't prove he's clean or doping - it's just a snapshot of what his capabilities were at a certain point in time (assuming he tried his hardest etc)

If it was cross referenced with his climbing data from notable performances and additional test data from his past, as well as biological passport etc then it would have far more impact.

Seems more of a PR stunt than anything - doubters will continue to doubt, and supporters will continue to claim his innocence.

Why stop at pro sport? It's human nature to try and win at all costs, it's in our genes.

Well no, we don't, and no it isn't.

It's not a question of having an answer prepared for them, it was more about anticipating the questions and keeping calm rather than kicking off.

Why stop at pro sport? It's human nature to try and win at all costs, it's in our genes.

No that's psychopathy/sociopathy, the rest of the human race sticks to a code of moral conduct based on empathy. The elephant in the room being that often the best do 'win at all cost', because of their psychopathy/sociopathy.

why don't we just turn all this on its head and allow doping? Give up second guessing and trying to catch the cheats?

If I was doping on a regular basis I would want to live near the Doctor who could provide me with stuff. Somewhere that doesn't have the same laws to abide by as anyone else. Somewhere that money rules all

I live near Monaco and I see Team Sky, and Paula and the Astana team whizzing along. Lance used to have a place nearby and pedalled around here a lot, probably loads more about who I wouldn't recognize.

I wonder if anyone else has ever looked into peoples locality when they are suspected of being involved in this type of thing.

It may all just be coincidence. I wonder where Dr Ferrari is based nowadays?

If you question the data, then by inference you are questioning the testers.

What do you base your suspicions of GSK's lab on?

Being "clean" in pro cycling is a relative term. What matters is a appearance and saying the rights things (in the uk anyway) to keep the funds coming in. Best example of this is a previous poster being impressed with the likes of Garmin Slipstream.... JV has the media and sponsorship game dialled although I think even the most casual fan has probably finally caught on to him. Don't care either way, just enjoy the racing

If I was doping on a regular basis I would want to live near the Doctor who could provide me with stuff.

You have that backwards. The doctor could more easily move to where the cyclists are, so that would prove nothing.

Best example of this is a previous poster being impressed with the likes of Garmin Slipstream

That was me, and was more based on David Millar than JV. And if memory serves they've fallen out anyway.

As I said, different, but not different enough.

You have that backwards. The doctor could more easily move to where the cyclists are, so that would prove nothing.

Far easier to do it all yourself and spend most of your time deep in South America or somewhere remote in Colorado where the testers don't bother to come .... tried and tested

If you question the data, then by inference you are questioning the testers.

What do you base your suspicions of GSK's lab on?

GSK have never been up to anything underhand and are squeaky clean, the coup of getting Froome in isn't worth anything and/or a cycling team has never been organizing doping it has always been naughty individuals so nothing at all to be slightly skeptical of at all 😀 As I said, I don't care either way and let's be honest our opinions count for nothing but let's not be tooooooo naive 😀

The problem cycling has is that drug taking was embedded into the culture of cycling all through its history, whether it is alcohol to dull the pain on the tour or amphetamines. Some of the glorious heroes of the by-gone ages were openly taking substances which today would be banned in competition.

So a sport with a long history of doping has a lot to do to get its culture entirely clean.

Froome is clean until a test proves otherwise, as are all other pro cyclists. If being the best at a sport immediately makes you guilty of doping there's not much hope for the future is there...

Maybe I'm wrong, sure. But the laws, such as they are in Monaco aren't as portable

why don't we just turn all this on its head and allow doping? Give up second guessing and trying to catch the cheats?

Not everyone responds to medication in the same way, but at least it would do away with the lies / percieved lies and would make for some crazy racing.

No that's psychopathy/sociopathy, the rest of the human race sticks to a code of moral conduct based on empathy. The elephant in the room being that often the best do 'win at all costs', because of their psychopathy/sociopathy.

Exactly.

If he posts up a carbon isotope ratio test I'll believe him especially with that impressive vo2 max. The other tests are a joke and very easy to pass. The cir test is the gold standard but the accused always seem to avoid that one.

The data release doesnt prove anything other than Froome is physiologically exceptional, which we knew anyway.

What this does do, however is open the door for more transparency from riders. Would be interesting to see a comparison of Froome and his closest rivals

Not everyone responds to medication in the same way, but at least it would do away with the lies / percieved lies and would make for some crazy racing.

And people dying.

Considering all the phone tapping News Corp did, I expect they knew exactly who was doing what, and wouldn't be sponsoring if they thought that Brailsford was anything but clean...

I like that logic of shady people giving credibility to others by association

@ pitchpro, it is almost like all of this is a pr exercise or something

its almost like some of you will insinuate he is a cheat no matter what he does or what he says or what happens.

After he passes each test you will always have another.

There's a clearly juiced up 'natural'body builder doing the same thing at the moment and paying for all these 'tests' to prove he's natural. He too avoids the cir test

Well if that insinuation does not prove Froome cheats then what will?

TBH he does look remarkably like a juiced upo boddy builder

Your "evidence" is a collection of,laughable, non sequiturs

TBH i dont know why we pay for tests when you can see "clearly" who juices.

Its sometimes hard to remember it adults who are discussing things on here