A couple of week’s ago Chris Froome had a Q&A session on his already very busy Twitter page. One of the tweets asked him if his published training time up the Col de la Madone of 30:09 was ‘a wind-up.
Froome’s reply got the Tweeters tweeting (tweet embedded below).
It wasn’t long before Ritchie Porte put his hand up as being the man to have beaten the former Tour de France winner’s time by a rather hefty margin of 29 seconds, at 29.40.
“Yes,” he said, “That would have been me. I don’t think anyone is going to beat that.”
All very good and well, one may think, and great to see the top guys having fun and also posting times for the amateurs to have a crack at. However the admission by Porte got the comments section below the article (on Cycling Weekly, where it appeared) was all abuzz within no time at all.
Why? Well, Porte’s time was not only almost half a minute better than Froome’s but over a minute ahead of Lance Armstrong’s, set back in 1999. In between the Texan and Froome was another rider who dabbled in the dark arts, Tom Danielson.
Behind Lance lies Tony Rominger, another juicer, and finally everyone’s favorite boy wonder, Tyler Hamilton. Thick as thieves, then, you might say, behind Porte and Froome.
Top 6 times up the Col de la Madone
Richie Porte 29:40
Chris Froome 30:09
Tom Danielson 30:24
Lance Armstrong 30:45
Tony Rominger 31:30
Tyler Hamilton 32:32
The Madone was Armstrong’s benchmark hill, one he would use to help gauge whether he had Tour-winning form or not.
Porte explained to Cycling Weekly that he nailed his top mark to the summit post in 2014.
“I think the previous time I set was a 30-14, or 30-24, in 2013. Then Froomey got 30-09, and I did 29-40 last year,” said Porte. “That was just before the Tour, so I actually was in good form going into the Tour.”
And so, yes, the comments flowed, half or more condemning Porte’s and Froome’s times as unnatural, the rest in support.
Maarten Bressinck kicked things off with:
One has to be a little suspicious when the time of a heavily doped Armstrong gets beaten by nearly a minute.
Billy then hollered a retort:
How doped was Armstrong when he set his time? Do you know? Was he doped at all? The level of assumption in your comment is staggering.
MDF plowed in with a bit of science on his stick:
From page 57 of the CIRC report, we read:
“It has been reported that increases in performance by micro dosing EPO (as one form of continued doping) are now perhaps between 3-5%.”
It must clearly be just an amazing coincidence that the new record is almost exactly three per cent more than Armstrong’s assumed “clean” performance.
For me, seeing Porte and Geraint Thomas hammer home together on Stage Four at Paris-Nice brought back memories of US Postal.
This was not some mean, petty little reminiscence but one bolstered by the sight of Wiggo and Froome in the 2012 Tour and also by Sky’s dominance for long periods then and in 2013, and at the start of this year too.
Am I saying they are doping?
No.
What I am saying is that we have seen dominant team performances before and that is one of them. Remove Sky from the equation for the moment and look back over the past 20 years then one sees a pattern of dominance brought about by doping.
I want Sky to be clean. I want to believe Geraint Thomas when he says he’d pout every penny he has on Froome and Wiggo being clean. I like that Froome is asking for 24 hour testing.
However, I have loved this sport since I was 15 and over those nearly 30 years I’ve had my teeth kicked in, lost an eye, one lung, have three ribs left and am waiting for a new kidney – in other words, I’ve taken a proper kicking.
It’s not up to me to believe you anymore. It’s up to you to show me the change.
In the comments of Porte and indeed in the style of reporting that defines the Cycling Weekly piece, we can see much that is wrong with pro cycling and the sycophantic journalism that still laps up its crumbs.
First of all, the readers’ ire would be better directed not through allegations of Porte being a doper, of which they have no proof that I am aware of, but rather at the fact that he seems totally unaware – or uncaring – of the reaction many will have to him revealing that he’s smashed the time of the greatest doper of all time.
How about some recognition of that? It so rarely comes, and though it might seem harsh to expect every rider to explain every time they out in a remarkable ride, it is equally as ridiculous to expect the informed cycling fan to not have questions.
Finally, the fact that the journalist who write this piece brings up Armstrong’s time carrying it to anything even close to a conclusion of any sort and steers well clear of having an opinion – well, it’s cowardly.
I don’t care if it’s ‘just’ your job. Leaving commentators to do your work is a dereliction of duty.
schtumpy
Guest
I had a similar, visceral, gut reaction when seeing the comparable times. I always prefer to assume an athlete is clean until proven otherwise, but it's astonishing how often these little reactions prove to be true. I had the same reaction when Usain Bolt beat Ben Johnson's time by over 0.2 of a second and when Justin Gatlin returned from his doping suspension and ran faster than when he was cheating.
Klaas Faber
Guest
Hi, hi, It was never 12-15%. Can you now finally move on from primary school arithmetic? Kind regards, klaas Faber
drwok
Guest
Whilst I acknowledge the suspicions, a few thoughts in defence of Porte, 1. By the end of Armstrong's career, his doping of choice was blood bags (plus likely microdosing epo). It is very unlikely he had a blood bag on board during his last training rides. These would be saved for just before the prologue and the rest day. So, during his periods where he tested himself, he may not have been on peak doping. 2. The CIRC report says current doping gives 3-5% increase, whereas the 90's early Armstrong era doping gave ?12-15% (from memory, and if you believe the CIRC informants). So even if the SKY boys were doping to the current maximum, the majority of improvement would have to be from non-doping methods. (eg bike technology,, training methods, body weight). So if the majority of improvement is non-doping, is it such a leap to think that possibly all the improvement is non-doping?
lefthandside
Guest
And yes, I'm aware that my reply is slightly off-point re your piece. I'm not sure Porte needs to hold a press conference every time he sets a good time up a hill, but the CW piece is pretty poor. What was the forum for his response? An interview with cycling weekly? I mean, what probing questions did CW ask him about the time? You are right to criticize the lazy journalism because they would have been writing the piece hoping for this sort of reaction.
lefthandside
Guest
I noticed the article and comments section (shudder) last week and am glad you picked this up. I do have a few thoughts: firstly, Richie could be lighter, his bike is no doubt lighter, the conditions could have been better, his training methods might be better, it's only a 30 minute effort so it's pure power to weight, not a great test of endurance, perhaps the benefits of doping would really come out on a 200km alpine stage of Le Tour when compared to everyone else, maybe another test might be to do a longer climb etc etc In other words it's impossible to know for sure, but a fast time up one 30 minute hill tells us nothing conclusively other than Richie Porte is fast up that hill. It's one number compared against a few past performances and only one recent performance (Froome). I would be absolutely devastated to find out if he's up to something but why would I think that based on his time up the madone? I wonder how fast others go up the hill these days - how would Quintana go?
Justin Curran
Roar Rookie
That's an interesting point. I wonder if anyone has thought about that in their calculations?
Rob
Guest
Froome alludes to these times potentially making people wonder about dopeing in his book "The Climb", surely its possible they are just training better now? If Lance wanted to see where he was before the tour, surely he would do this ride without drugs? Ie reduce the variables. I don't think Lance would have been a good climber if he wasn't on EPO & Bloodbags. There is no way he could beat Pantani if he was drug free. So perhaps his times wern't as amazing as other can now do?
Aljay
Guest
A bike from today is a very very different beast compared to one from 16 years ago.
Klaas Faber
Guest
From page 57 of the CIRC report, we read: “It has been reported that increases in performance by micro dosing EPO (as one form of continued doping) are now perhaps between 3-5%.” CIRC was a total waste of money. Can we agree about that? The primary goal was to rewrite history when it comes to the achievements of Verbruggen and McQuaid. Compare historical climbing times on Alpe d'Huez and you will see a 5% gain of EPO (~2 minutes). Micro dosing gives far less. However, the TdF is nowadays typically decided with less than 1%, right? Can we move on from primary school arithmetic?
damo
Guest
I really want to believe that it's all good & the advances in sports science etc are leading the way, & I try not to be cynical, but the small part of my brain that uses logic, keeps tapping me on the shoulder. Faster than Lance, the king of doping ? I don't know how accurate the times stated are, but given the state of the art training & equipment these teams have I going to asssume they are very accurate. Now Lance isn't necessarily the fastest ever climber, so it is entirely possible that others are faster. Conditions on the day may have played a part, so again, there's a fudge factor to take into account. Equipment is advancing constantly, so even in the space of a year or two, bikes are getting lighter & stronger, etc. But Richie is Australian & we don't cheat ?! There's that annoying tap on the shoulder again.... I get it, even though one would think prudence would see such stats kept within the team. Ego, even between team mates, must play a part & there isn't much room at the top dog hotel. Every little thing that gets you ahead must be exploited to it's fullest potential. He did something really awesome, of course it's natural to want to share it. Why have a Twitter account if you don't want twits following you ? I guess that's why I try & ignore the tapping on the shoulder & just hope that innocent until proven guilty is something we can still count on. That Porte, & his colleagues, are all making the most of their natural gifts & the sports technology available, to scale new heights of performance. Legally.