Chris Froome open to physiological tests to counter doping claims

The Briton astonished rivals and pundits on Tuesday's 10th stage with a brutal attack in the final climb that left him

nearly three minutes clear of his closest rival in the overall classification.

After being lied to for more than a decade by Lance Armstrong, the American who later admitted to cheating his way to seven Tour de France titles, fans easily doubt top performances.

"Right here at the moment my focus is on the race but certainly I'm open minded to potentially doing some physiological testing at some point after the Tour or whatever point suits," Froome told a news conference after retaining his overall leader's yellow jersey in Wednesday's 11th stage.

"There would be interesting things coming out of it, maybe the team might even learn something from it."

Froome faced a barrage of doping questions in 2013 when his impressive attack in the ascent to the Mont Ventoux raised questions.

A data file from that ascent was leaked on the internet this week with Team Sky manager Dave Brailsford saying the data had been hacked into.

The file was used by critics to say Froome's performance was suspicious, notably a recorded maximum heart rate of about 160 beats per minute -- which is low -- as he powered away from his rivals on the lung-busting climb.

"My maximum heart rate is only about 170," said Froome.

"So after two weeks on a grand tour, I'm quite surprised it went as high as 160."

Brailsford said he understood why great performances are often questioned.

"With the past that cycling has, it is reasonable (to have doubts)," he said.

"My job is to come here, be open and talk to everyone. We've been trying to be at the forefront of anti-doping. My job is to come here, stay calm and answer all the questions."

Brailsford suggested all the riders' power data should be analysed by experts in order to detect possible suspicious variations, echoing French coach Frederic Grappe's call on Tuesday.

"We have the biological passport, why not have a power profile for the riders?," he said, adding he was more surprised by the performance of Team Sky's rivals than by Froome's on Tuesday.

"I think that the surprise was the others' performance. They were not at the level they were expected to be," he explained.

"Yesterday we did not see the true Contador, we did not see the true Nibali, and Quintana maybe was not as brilliant as before."

Froome is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. Release his data and his detractors will use it to fit with their narrative; keep hold of it and he has something to hide. The problem he – and Sky – face is how can they prove a negative? They shouldn’t have to – but because of cycling’s climate and the inherent, totally understandable, scepticism in the sport, this is exactly what is being required of them by an army of wannabe Paul Kimmages hiding behind pseudonyms on social media. So much for the idea of being innocent until proven guilty.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not defending Froome or saying he’s clean. I just think that – supposing he is clean – he’s in a very nasty situation. Like most journalists, I have questions that I’d like seen answered and I can’t help but see similarities with previous controversies that have dogged the sport. And Sky could certainly do themselves a favour by improving their public relations and tearing down the wall they have build around their riders.

But supposing this is a new, cleaner era for cycling, then it would be very sad if the excellence of one team and their success of finding the right formula – in training and in races – should be dismissed out of hand purely because of what went on in the not-so-distant past. In any endurance sport, there are going to be exceptional performers and unbelievable performances. That’s the way it works. It’s not so ridiculous to accept that Froome could be one of these outliers. And even if he is, he’s hardly dominating the sport with the same aura of invincibility as Armstrong. He and his Sky team may be winners – but they’re neither infallible nor invulnerable. Just look at last year’s shambolic Tour.