Log in:  

Register

Froome Talk Only

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

Re: Re:

14 Nov 2017 08:29

The Hitch wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
deviant wrote:A programme on British TV last week about the murder of a 16 yr old girl (Becky Watts) was interesting, the police released tapes of the suspect's interviews for the first time.
When the head investigating police officer was asked by the TV presenter how he came to suspect Becky's step brother and the girlfriend, he said that during the interviews of family and close friends the step brother and his girlfriend's stories were so consistent, precise and well matched that he believed they'd obviously got their heads together to concoct a perfect account of their whereabouts during her disappearance...he said this is unusual as most people are having a normal boring day when something like this happens and end up giving a much more vague account of their day and whereabouts.
It is a known phenomenon and the police in this case used it to correctly identify the step brother and his girlfriend and focus the investigation on them.
Nobody, in his experience as a police officer, (especially a couple) can recollect a story that accurately unless they've prepped themselves for it and are colluding in a lie.
The Froome/Bilharzia story and his and Michelle's recollection of it can be taken either way...they're vague because its the truth and it's just part of his life and some people tend not to bookmark these things mentally...or he's vague because he's lying and cant remember the lie properly and apply any kind of consistency to it....entirely down to the individual's suspicion and opinion really.


Excellent. Thankyou; and i didn't even need to spend years at Harvard studying and teaching lying studies to come up with similar thoughts of my own :cool:


You guys have similar thoughts on this? Did you plan this by pm or something. Because there is like a very obvious flaw in your argument.

The fact that occasionally someone who is very convincing is caught lying, does not under any circumstances prove that people who are very clearly lying are, errr telling the truth.


Did that small counterpoint not cross your mind before developing that "thought"?


Nope. Came up with this alternative viewpoint all by myself. Go me :cool:

Guess that means Deviant must have too. Two people, without consulatation, both having similar thoughts that don't necessarily echo the majority. Incredible eh?!

I don't recall either of us mentioning the word or theory of 'proof' in any of our posts, just alternative theories for discussion.

Look forward to your next overly aggressive response which aims to belittle me or anyone else for daring to challenge the status quo on here.

It's ok, i don't take it personally, its just an internet forum after all
brownbobby
Junior Member
 
Posts: 57
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re:

14 Nov 2017 08:37

42x16ss wrote:WTF? Having inconsistencies of nearly 12 months is a sign of a plausible story now? This is taking clutching at straws to a new level - even for the clinic.

I’m with The Hitch here, not sure that even BikeRadar would buy that argument :lol:



I wasn't here for the whole of the Lance wars but did the Lance bots ever go this far?

"We know Lance is telling the truth because he looks so dodgy. If he was really lying he would have looked clean".

I guess if you believe in an implausible theory, any argument looks as if it is clever
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,701
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

Re: Froome Talk Only

14 Nov 2017 08:46

deviant wrote:The TV program and the thoughts of the police officer I referenced are available online and can probably be viewed on ITV's internet/catch-up services.
His thoughts on liars and how he spotted them in relation to the Becky Watts murder come quite early in the program so it's worth watching...just thought I'd share a different point of view as it gets like an echo chamber on here otherwise...there's only so much "Sky are ruining cycling...Froome has a motor...the Bilharzia story is a lie" talk before it just looks like a circle jerk in here with all the big hitters patting themselves on the back for their theories...offering up something different is good and also lets me identify those in here with a closed mind and no appetite for discussion...thank you.


And sometimes people who appear guilty, are guilty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzCJFGFxZRg
(there's plenty more where that came from).

The rest of your posts just seems like classic ad hominem on the clinic. yeah we are all losers, yeah we pat ourselves on the back. Great that you got that out of your system.

But you seemed to end your post just before you were about to go after the actual substance.
funny that :o
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,701
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

Re: Re:

14 Nov 2017 08:47

The Hitch wrote:
42x16ss wrote:WTF? Having inconsistencies of nearly 12 months is a sign of a plausible story now? This is taking clutching at straws to a new level - even for the clinic.

I’m with The Hitch here, not sure that even BikeRadar would buy that argument :lol:



I wasn't here for the whole of the Lance wars but did the Lance bots ever go this far?

"We know Lance is telling the truth because he looks so dodgy. If he was really lying he would have looked clean".

I guess if you believe in an implausible theory, any argument looks as if it is clever


Ha ha classic....we're now sky/froomebots if we don't share every one of your opinions, or even if we do probably agree with most of your opinions but dare to occasionally go off script :lol:
brownbobby
Junior Member
 
Posts: 57
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Re:

14 Nov 2017 09:35

brownbobby wrote:
The Hitch wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
deviant wrote:A programme on British TV last week about the murder of a 16 yr old girl (Becky Watts) was interesting, the police released tapes of the suspect's interviews for the first time.
When the head investigating police officer was asked by the TV presenter how he came to suspect Becky's step brother and the girlfriend, he said that during the interviews of family and close friends the step brother and his girlfriend's stories were so consistent, precise and well matched that he believed they'd obviously got their heads together to concoct a perfect account of their whereabouts during her disappearance...he said this is unusual as most people are having a normal boring day when something like this happens and end up giving a much more vague account of their day and whereabouts.
It is a known phenomenon and the police in this case used it to correctly identify the step brother and his girlfriend and focus the investigation on them.
Nobody, in his experience as a police officer, (especially a couple) can recollect a story that accurately unless they've prepped themselves for it and are colluding in a lie.
The Froome/Bilharzia story and his and Michelle's recollection of it can be taken either way...they're vague because its the truth and it's just part of his life and some people tend not to bookmark these things mentally...or he's vague because he's lying and cant remember the lie properly and apply any kind of consistency to it....entirely down to the individual's suspicion and opinion really.


Excellent. Thankyou; and i didn't even need to spend years at Harvard studying and teaching lying studies to come up with similar thoughts of my own :cool:


You guys have similar thoughts on this? Did you plan this by pm or something. Because there is like a very obvious flaw in your argument.

The fact that occasionally someone who is very convincing is caught lying, does not under any circumstances prove that people who are very clearly lying are, errr telling the truth.


Did that small counterpoint not cross your mind before developing that "thought"?


Nope. Came up with this alternative viewpoint all by myself. Go me :cool:

Guess that means Deviant must have too. Two people, without consulatation, both having similar thoughts that don't necessarily echo the majority. Incredible eh?!

I don't recall either of us mentioning the word or theory of 'proof' in any of our posts, just alternative theories for discussion.

Look forward to your next overly aggressive response which aims to belittle me or anyone else for daring to challenge the status quo on here.

It's ok, i don't take it personally, its just an internet forum after all


Maybe its not the majority. The majority like to just see the circus(aka Clinic) :lol:
SeriousSam wrote: Peña Cabarga is like Froome's Mount Doom, the place where his great power was forged into fearsome weapon. He was never going to lose here
User avatar silvergrenade
Member
 
Posts: 1,139
Joined: 23 Jan 2016 17:30

Re: Re:

14 Nov 2017 10:09

brownbobby wrote:
The Hitch wrote:
42x16ss wrote:WTF? Having inconsistencies of nearly 12 months is a sign of a plausible story now? This is taking clutching at straws to a new level - even for the clinic.

I’m with The Hitch here, not sure that even BikeRadar would buy that argument :lol:



I wasn't here for the whole of the Lance wars but did the Lance bots ever go this far?

"We know Lance is telling the truth because he looks so dodgy. If he was really lying he would have looked clean".

I guess if you believe in an implausible theory, any argument looks as if it is clever


Ha ha classic....we're now sky/froomebots if we don't share every one of your opinions, or even if we do probably agree with most of your opinions but dare to occasionally go off script :lol:


Lets just discuss the substance of your argument then. Does a murder trial some poster watched in a documentary, really back up the idea that Froome must be telling the truth about Bilharzia?

No it doesn't. People lie for a reason.
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,701
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

14 Nov 2017 10:48

According to the flat TT analysis I made quite some time ago, Froome made an approximately 15% boost to his FTP. Error bars are pretty big, ~5%, but the results were statistically significant based on a paired T-test. This change occurred over a three week period and was permanent. The only thing left to fight over is which explanation fits best.

A) Bilharzia. Nope. For all the mentioned reasons from implausibility to absence of markers in his passport.
B) Lost the fat. That's one hell of a diet!! But also one of the reasons I chose flat TTs to analyze. It removes the confounding factor of W/kg. Flat TTs are all about W/CdA.
C) He improved his TT position. Possible, but we know he never went to a wind tunnel. It also doesn't account for the fact that he transformed into one of the world's best climbers.
D) He improved W/kg and W/CdA simultaneously. Perhaps... But means a big weight loss and some big position/equipment improvements in a 3 week span. So very, very unlikely.
E) Doping of whatever form. Maybe, but the transition was awfully quick. Without blood passport data, it'd be difficult to zero in on what substances are plausible.
F) Motors. Maybe, but his performance is very consistent which means he's using them on a near daily basis. Risky!!!

So in the end, I'd go with a multivariate combination of D, E, and F with E being most likely though we don't know what form that takes.

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,464
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

Re:

14 Nov 2017 11:12

ScienceIsCool wrote:According to the flat TT analysis I made quite some time ago, Froome made an approximately 15% boost to his FTP. Error bars are pretty big, ~5%, but the results were statistically significant based on a paired T-test. This change occurred over a three week period and was permanent. The only thing left to fight over is which explanation fits best.

I've told you the best explanation several times. Riders who aren't specialists or challenging for GC don't ride full gas in Time Trials. Your analysis is fatally flawed. The fact that you won't even consider this option says more about you than it does about Froome.
Parker
Member
 
Posts: 1,241
Joined: 04 Mar 2011 01:20

Re: Re:

14 Nov 2017 11:45

The Hitch wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
The Hitch wrote:
42x16ss wrote:WTF? Having inconsistencies of nearly 12 months is a sign of a plausible story now? This is taking clutching at straws to a new level - even for the clinic.

I’m with The Hitch here, not sure that even BikeRadar would buy that argument :lol:



I wasn't here for the whole of the Lance wars but did the Lance bots ever go this far?

"We know Lance is telling the truth because he looks so dodgy. If he was really lying he would have looked clean".

I guess if you believe in an implausible theory, any argument looks as if it is clever


Ha ha classic....we're now sky/froomebots if we don't share every one of your opinions, or even if we do probably agree with most of your opinions but dare to occasionally go off script :lol:


Lets just discuss the substance of your argument then. Does a murder trial some poster watched in a documentary, really back up the idea that Froome must be telling the truth about Bilharzia?

No it doesn't. People lie for a reason.


Brilliant. you ask me a question and then answer it yourself on my behalf.

I'll leave you to continue this argument (which started as debate) with yourself.
brownbobby
Junior Member
 
Posts: 57
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Re:

14 Nov 2017 11:51

silvergrenade wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
The Hitch wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
deviant wrote:A programme on British TV last week about the murder of a 16 yr old girl (Becky Watts) was interesting, the police released tapes of the suspect's interviews for the first time.
When the head investigating police officer was asked by the TV presenter how he came to suspect Becky's step brother and the girlfriend, he said that during the interviews of family and close friends the step brother and his girlfriend's stories were so consistent, precise and well matched that he believed they'd obviously got their heads together to concoct a perfect account of their whereabouts during her disappearance...he said this is unusual as most people are having a normal boring day when something like this happens and end up giving a much more vague account of their day and whereabouts.
It is a known phenomenon and the police in this case used it to correctly identify the step brother and his girlfriend and focus the investigation on them.
Nobody, in his experience as a police officer, (especially a couple) can recollect a story that accurately unless they've prepped themselves for it and are colluding in a lie.
The Froome/Bilharzia story and his and Michelle's recollection of it can be taken either way...they're vague because its the truth and it's just part of his life and some people tend not to bookmark these things mentally...or he's vague because he's lying and cant remember the lie properly and apply any kind of consistency to it....entirely down to the individual's suspicion and opinion really.


Excellent. Thankyou; and i didn't even need to spend years at Harvard studying and teaching lying studies to come up with similar thoughts of my own :cool:


You guys have similar thoughts on this? Did you plan this by pm or something. Because there is like a very obvious flaw in your argument.

The fact that occasionally someone who is very convincing is caught lying, does not under any circumstances prove that people who are very clearly lying are, errr telling the truth.


Did that small counterpoint not cross your mind before developing that "thought"?


Nope. Came up with this alternative viewpoint all by myself. Go me :cool:

Guess that means Deviant must have too. Two people, without consulatation, both having similar thoughts that don't necessarily echo the majority. Incredible eh?!

I don't recall either of us mentioning the word or theory of 'proof' in any of our posts, just alternative theories for discussion.

Look forward to your next overly aggressive response which aims to belittle me or anyone else for daring to challenge the status quo on here.

It's ok, i don't take it personally, its just an internet forum after all


Maybe its not the majority. The majority like to just see the circus(aka Clinic) :lol:


Ok, on this we agree. Maybe i am with the majority after all :lol:
brownbobby
Junior Member
 
Posts: 57
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Re:

14 Nov 2017 11:58

Parker wrote:
ScienceIsCool wrote:According to the flat TT analysis I made quite some time ago, Froome made an approximately 15% boost to his FTP. Error bars are pretty big, ~5%, but the results were statistically significant based on a paired T-test. This change occurred over a three week period and was permanent. The only thing left to fight over is which explanation fits best.

I've told you the best explanation several times. Riders who aren't specialists or challenging for GC don't ride full gas in Time Trials. Your analysis is fatally flawed. The fact that you won't even consider this option says more about you than it does about Froome.


You describe this as “law”, which of course it’s not. Froome by his own admission in his book rode TTs to the best of his abilities pre-transformation. Yes, in set circumstances a rider may rest in a ITT to help their leader the next days.

One look at the 2011 Vuelta and Froome even though he was helping Wiggins rode “full gas”.

Your argument is paltry at best.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,372
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

14 Nov 2017 12:09

thehog wrote:
You describe this as “law”, which of course it’s not. Froome by his own admission in his book rode TTs to the best of his abilities pre-transformation. Yes, in set circumstances a rider may rest in a ITT to help their leader the next days.

One look at the 2011 Vuelta and Froome even though he was helping Wiggins rode “full gas”.

He was fifth on GC only seven seconds off the lead. Of course he would go full gas in that case. He wouldn't have done if he was ten minutes down.

Have a look at Kiryienka's TT results - very inconsistent. Or Moscon at the Vuelta - he came second last in the TT two weeks before coming 6th at the World Champs.

Or better still ask any pro.
Parker
Member
 
Posts: 1,241
Joined: 04 Mar 2011 01:20

Re: Re:

14 Nov 2017 12:12

Parker wrote:
ScienceIsCool wrote:According to the flat TT analysis I made quite some time ago, Froome made an approximately 15% boost to his FTP. Error bars are pretty big, ~5%, but the results were statistically significant based on a paired T-test. This change occurred over a three week period and was permanent. The only thing left to fight over is which explanation fits best.

I've told you the best explanation several times. Riders who aren't specialists or challenging for GC don't ride full gas in Time Trials. Your analysis is fatally flawed. The fact that you won't even consider this option says more about you than it does about Froome.

Yo are the one not getting it or adressing it. How did Froome go from pack fodder to GC contender in three weeks so that all of a sudden he needs to now go for it in TT instaed a saving energy to be a good domestique for Wiggins
User avatar veganrob
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,320
Joined: 29 Aug 2010 23:15
Location: The D

Re: Re:

14 Nov 2017 13:05

Parker wrote:
ScienceIsCool wrote:According to the flat TT analysis I made quite some time ago, Froome made an approximately 15% boost to his FTP. Error bars are pretty big, ~5%, but the results were statistically significant based on a paired T-test. This change occurred over a three week period and was permanent. The only thing left to fight over is which explanation fits best.

I've told you the best explanation several times. Riders who aren't specialists or challenging for GC don't ride full gas in Time Trials. Your analysis is fatally flawed. The fact that you won't even consider this option says more about you than it does about Froome.


Seems appropriate to post this again:

'Full gas' TT results (championship or final stage):

B World Championships 2007 - 2nd (behind TT monster Mai Haijun)
U23 World Championships 2007 - 41st
Giro del Capo 2008 Stage 5 - 7th
Giro 2009 Stage 21 - 31st
World Championships 2009 - 17th
Eneco Tour 2010 Stage 7 - 71st

UK National Championships 2010 - 2nd (no World Tour/Pro Continental riders outside the top three)
Commonwealth Games 2010 - 5th (behind a 19-year-old Durbridge and 'Dr Hutch')
Vuelta a Murcia 2011 - 18th
Tour de Suisse 2011 - 9th


One top ten against strong opposition (bolded). Failed to win a single TT against even relatively weak opposition.

By way of comparison, his Grand Tour ITT results from the 2011 Vuelta onwards: 2, 11, 2, 3, 2, 1, 10, 63, 39, 2, 1, 1, 6, 3.

Nothing short of a Jekyll and Hyde transformation.
Bronstein
Junior Member
 
Posts: 282
Joined: 30 Jun 2009 18:05

Re: Froome Talk Only

14 Nov 2017 13:26

Nobody is denying a transformation, that part seems to be ignored in here...any dissention is taken as defending Froome as clean...thats not the case, all thats up for discussion is how and why the change?

Some on here favour the motor explanation, i dont....some believe the Bilharzia explanation, its a possible contributor in my opinion....others feel good old fashioned doping, this is my stand point, with the multitude of new compounds and methods on the market (peptide this, SARM the other, micro-dosing, use of TUEs, Telmisartan, Tramadol etc) it seems possible to dope now with legal (or at least not banned yet) compounds and lose fat, increase power...the holy grail for GC riders.

I think Sky have the money and resources to conduct their own research into doping and skirting controls and how to bend and twist legal methods like the TUE system and use prescription meds like Telmisartan, Tramadol etc for better performance....for me theres no mystery, the drip drip of research papers into drugs like this that have appeared on the internet over the last few years means that people with money and ambition have probably had access to this information years earlier, once again it comes down to being one step ahead of the testers...in the way that US Postal used the best DR in Michele Ferrari to beat the tests i believe Sky do a similar thing with their own research....admittedly not as cloak and dagger or exciting as motor-doping but far more believable for me.

...and given the way riders, DRs, DSs and Soigneurs move between teams i expect all the top teams do a similar thing these days, the thread about Sagan being clean is laughable for example...yeah, a rider as successful as him in this day and age is clean!...that thread should've been one reply long...is Sagan clean?...hell no.
deviant
Junior Member
 
Posts: 132
Joined: 18 Dec 2013 19:31

Re: Froome Talk Only

14 Nov 2017 13:44

deviant wrote:Nobody is denying a transformation, that part seems to be ignored in here...any dissention is taken as defending Froome as clean...thats not the case, all thats up for discussion is how and why the change?

Some on here favour the motor explanation, i dont....some believe the Bilharzia explanation, its a possible contributor in my opinion....others feel good old fashioned doping, this is my stand point, with the multitude of new compounds and methods on the market (peptide this, SARM the other, micro-dosing, use of TUEs, Telmisartan, Tramadol etc) it seems possible to dope now with legal (or at least not banned yet) compounds and lose fat, increase power...the holy grail for GC riders.

I think Sky have the money and resources to conduct their own research into doping and skirting controls and how to bend and twist legal methods like the TUE system and use prescription meds like Telmisartan, Tramadol etc for better performance....for me theres no mystery, the drip drip of research papers into drugs like this that have appeared on the internet over the last few years means that people with money and ambition have probably had access to this information years earlier, once again it comes down to being one step ahead of the testers...in the way that US Postal used the best DR in Michele Ferrari to beat the tests i believe Sky do a similar thing with their own research....admittedly not as cloak and dagger or exciting as motor-doping but far more believable for me.

...and given the way riders, DRs, DSs and Soigneurs move between teams i expect all the top teams do a similar thing these days, the thread about Sagan being clean is laughable for example...yeah, a rider as successful as him in this day and age is clean!...that thread should've been one reply long...is Sagan clean?...hell no.


Peptide hormones, SARMs and micro-dosing (?) are all banned.

TUE abuse is doping, it's not a grey area.

Telmisartan and tramadol are still legal.

So Froome went from being a nobody to one of the strongest GC riders in the world on telmisartan, tramadol and weight loss?
Bronstein
Junior Member
 
Posts: 282
Joined: 30 Jun 2009 18:05

Re: Froome Talk Only

14 Nov 2017 14:42

I know micro-dosing is banned...it doesnt mean it gets detected in tests and i believe current riders still do it.

I also think riders dope in chunks through the season, like when Froome disappears to Africa for the winter and rarely gets tested, or when teams decamp to Tenerife for a month...ideal for doping in training, new research suggests that use of PEDs even for a brief period of someone's sporting career can yield positive results for years later.

Re. the TUE system...if the panel approve it then its all good, grey area?..no, it legal or not and manipulating the TUE system appears to be all good among the pro teams who seem to have pretty much all their cyclists registered as asthmatic, who'd have thought a load of asthmatics would've made it to the Pro Tour?!...laughable but legal unless they restructure the process and make it more robust.

Go on the DRS-labs website...have a look, and thats what's just available to the public and perfectly legal in the UK...i'd imagine in sporting circles there are more compounds available that continually change their molecular structure and avoid the tests...look at the variations of Opioids based on Fentanyl that are coming out of China at the moment, stuff so strong the authorities reckon a dose larger than a grain of sand can be fatal...in the UK (and probably the rest of the world) legal highs have skirted the law and drug tests by doing just that, i've no reason to think PEDs are any different....like i said, just stay one step ahead of the tests or come off whatever it is the rider is taking a safe amount of time before a test.

With the DRS website there are nearly 40 compounds available, while stuff like GHRP-2 and GHRP-6 and the like have been around for a while and can be tested for i'm not convinced all the substances on there have a test for them yet...having a quick look through the WADA-2017 list it would seem some substances have been left out, in that case its a virtual free-for-all with regards that substance.

I think that rather than huge doses of EPO back in the 90s that the approach now is use a scatter-gun approach of using many compounds (legal and banned) in smaller doses to avoid detection, there is also the change in physique of cyclists today...Armstrong and Ullrich look like bodybuilders compared to the skeletons riding bikes today, todays riders cant hold that mass and just load up on EPO anymore...weight loss and the methods used to do that (legal and otherwise) is also a huge factor these days.
deviant
Junior Member
 
Posts: 132
Joined: 18 Dec 2013 19:31

14 Nov 2017 15:18

With respect to the TUEs, there was no panel in relation to Froome and Wiggins. Only the known doping enabler Zorzoli, which is why Sky applied for the bogus TUEs in the first place.

Peptides that are legal to buy in the UK? Stating the obvious here, but that doesn't mean they can be used by professional cyclists, as I've already said.

Even if a particular substance isn't specifically prohibited, there is a catch-all provision in the WADA Code:
The following substances, and other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s), are prohibited
.
Which means that a substance can still be regarded as prohibited even though it isn't listed in the WADA Code.
Bronstein
Junior Member
 
Posts: 282
Joined: 30 Jun 2009 18:05

Re: Re:

14 Nov 2017 16:41

Parker wrote:
ScienceIsCool wrote:According to the flat TT analysis I made quite some time ago, Froome made an approximately 15% boost to his FTP. Error bars are pretty big, ~5%, but the results were statistically significant based on a paired T-test. This change occurred over a three week period and was permanent. The only thing left to fight over is which explanation fits best.

I've told you the best explanation several times. Riders who aren't specialists or challenging for GC don't ride full gas in Time Trials. Your analysis is fatally flawed. The fact that you won't even consider this option says more about you than it does about Froome.


Ok, but if we follow your logic (which I agree with) then we also have to admit that Froome was both a) riding full gas and b) well rested compared to rivals and c) focusing entirely on that stage in the 2008 Alpe d'huez stage. And yet he only came 32nd and considered that some sort of great accomplishment.

A few years later he is very ill, so much so that he is just "hanging on" and is focusing on the gc the entire race, and has expanded a lot of energy riding harder throughout the race. And on the same mountain he rides both much better relative to his competition and faster objectively speaking.

Its cos everyone else stopped doping right?
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,701
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

Re: Froome Talk Only

14 Nov 2017 16:49

deviant wrote:Nobody is denying a transformation, that part seems to be ignored in here...any dissention is taken as defending Froome as clean...thats not the case, all thats up for discussion is how and why the change?

you guys post this "oh but are are just offering an alternative view point" defense, as if what was being offered was a well reasoned rational analysis of the situation.

This defense ignores the fact that many of these arguments are literally more dumb than what Walsh and Cound came up with.

I mean yesterday we literally saw multiple posters claiming that Froome might be telling the truth about Bilharzia, because if he was lying it wouldn't look so dodgy.

The evidence for this was that a policeman in a murder trial found out a suspects behaviour was too conveniently well prepared.

And so all 25 of Froome's contradictions on the Bilharzia question are to be conveniently forgotten.
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,701
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], silvergrenade and 9 guests

Back to top