Tour De France 2013 thread (1 Viewer)

oh shit

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Messages
9,584
Location
Bethnal Green
clean(er)

Contador has lost the right to have the benefit of the doubt.

Glad we're not having an argument anymore, and I don't mean to provoke another torrent of short posts because I can see that this is not going anywhere, but I can't understand what you and some other posters here mean by 'benefit of the doubt', and I would like to again set out what my position is because I see Scutter still thinks it's necessary to go for the belittling comments.

Which is understandable, because alongside secondhand quotes from Kimmage and a report of the mood of the French en generale, it seems the reason for his certainty comse down to nothing more than his own opinion, which has been reinforced by talking to and listening to sources that confirm his own existing bias.

I've repeatedly said that I won't be shocked if Froome is doping. I am not blind, I can see how utterly dominant he was day after day. You look at those results and you have to say he probably is doing something to enhance the advantage unfairly. Aside from performances though, there's nothing else to go on. So I think in fairness I have to reserve judgement.

If he is doping, after all that's gone on recently, it will be much worse than the Armstrong case in cycling terms (although not in absolute terms - fewer people if any have had their lives destroyed by the cover-up, so far).

I just wonder why there's no doubt in any of your minds that he's doping. no possible benefit of doubt, because you are completely certain - regardless of Dave Walsh's view, regardless of power output analysis.

nuke terrorist - why was he not dominant pre-2011? A good question. We know he definitely has the bilharzia parasite though, and that bilharzia actively destroys red blood cells. That seems like a plausible explanation to me.

Just to be clear, 'plausible' doesn't mean a complete answer or even a fully satisfactory one. It means an explanation that is not so fanciful that it can be dismissed without any contrary evidence. In other words, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, plausible evidence cannot be dismissed out of hand.

I think that's relevant to any conversation about reasonable doubt, but clearly I am in the minority here.

Leaving it at that.
 

rettucs

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
22,280
Location
Post of the week winner: 22nd March, 2013
I just wonder why there's no doubt in any of your minds that he's doping. no possible benefit of doubt, because you are completely certain - regardless of Dave Walsh's view, regardless of power output analysis.

because of 2 things;

1: history
2: there hasn't been an argument/explanation put forward that hasn't been full of holes

nuke terrorist - why was he not dominant pre-2011? A good question. We know he definitely has the bilharzia parasite though, and that bilharzia actively destroys red blood cells. That seems like a plausible explanation to me.

I was at the Vuelta in 2011 so details of that season are still fairly clear in my mind. Kimmage brought it up on secondcaptains last night (the latest podcast). He mentioned Froome's form immediately prior to that Vuelta. To his getting thrown out of a race for holding onto cars. How the Vuelta came right at the time his contract was about to expire. I recall that spat between him and Wiggins (I remember talking to some Team Sky staff about it). I recall how Froome was most likely being let go from Sky until that 'remarkable' performance. Remember Pena Carbaga? I do. I was there. What I saw was an absolute con. Froome and Cobo pedalling up a hill I could barely walk up, faster than I could pedal down it.

That was the start of the Froome 'miracle'. Very convenient timing really. And whatever happened to cause that sudden utter transformation in form (and it would be hard to argue that it wasn't sudden), has carried on since.

If you want to talk 'plausible', there is only one plausible explanation in my mind. Derived from points 1 and 2 earlier in my post.
 

oh shit

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Messages
9,584
Location
Bethnal Green
I just had a listen to Kimmage there, interesting tweet you had about the Alpe d'Huez too. Thanks for coming back and explaining it.
 

oh shit

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Messages
9,584
Location
Bethnal Green
And yes I remember the Vuelta and that stage. He'd have won that whole tour if he'd not been sitting back with Wiggins on the early stages.
 

CinnamonBoy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
3,769
Location
Pumping away
Superb posting Scuts, me old bean.

Riding up mountains as quick as guys who have admitted they were on EPO, HGH, testosterone, corticoids.....I mean, what more evidence is needed??
 

CinnamonBoy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
3,769
Location
Pumping away
Also, Jacky Durand tested positive for EPO for the 98 Tour today. He was the Lanterne Rouge in, what, 99 or 2000? He was (most likely) on drugs and still finished last. I remember seeing a Channel 4 spot on Jay Sweet of Big Mat when he was Lanterne Rouge. He looked like basically a Kimmage. Struggling up the mountains the way a normal guy should be, trying to keep inside the time barrier. He drifted out of the sport soon afterwards.
 

nuke terrorist

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
1,529
Location
'north munster'
the thing that gets me about the virus Froome had was why did he only reveal he had this after the 2011 Vuelta when it was diagnosed in 2010 ?
Froome was in 104th place in the 2010 Giro when he left the race after holding on to a motorbike on stage 19.

poor old Jay Sweet, a promising sprinter whose battle to try and finish the 1999 Tour won him a cult following and got plenty of coverage.
he's spoken in recent years about being told he had the potential but refused to consider the doping that would make winning regularly possible. sounds like he's still angry about having to walk away from the sport.

i'm going to pick just one guy out of the 1998 EPO crew. i could criticize most of them but Jens Heppner is the worst for me .
how many chances to confess is he going to ignore ?
he should be blacklisted from working in cycling. how can he work as a DS at this stage ?
no actually while i'm at it Jalabert, Olano, Stephens, Cipollini etc. aren't any better.

i have long hoped the maybe someone like Marc Madiot who had an epiphany long ago might come clean about his own doping past but since FDJ started in 1997 that might be awkward.
that Amnesty word again.
 

rettucs

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
22,280
Location
Post of the week winner: 22nd March, 2013
Anyone catch Sean Kelly on yesterday's Second Captains podcast? Was quite unconvincing on the subject of doping, and his own failed tests.
I couldn't listen to it. I was actually afraid to. As strong as my opinions about doping and dopers in cycling (and sport in general) are, I don't want to believe it when it comes to Kelly.

Yes, I know how that sounds...

Maybe when I've read the book I'll go back and have a listen
 

oh shit

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Messages
9,584
Location
Bethnal Green
I like Kelly, but he's so shifty on doping even when it comes up in commentary on Eurosport. But then they all are.

related subject, I have a 94 Squadra from a small time Belgium pro called Dirk Ramen. The paint's got a lot of chips and I keep thinking of getting it redone in PDM colours. Pedals and cages too, natch. Maybe a leather helmet.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

We're listening to...

  • Hatchback
    Hatchback
    Cochise
    Hatchback

Support thumped.com

Support thumped.com and upgrade your account

Upgrade your account now to disable all ads... If we had any... Which we don't right now.

Upgrade now

Latest posts

Trending Threads

Latest threads

Top