Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1110 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
brownbobby said:
red_flanders said:
Parker said:
TheSpud said:
So the test would be to see if there was an increase of 2000, or whether he would go over 2000?

Whats to stop him popping some oral sal in the carpark as he arrives, gives a sample straight away. A few hours later after some puffs in the lab he'd be glowing like a lightstick.
And what's to stop him getting a hypnotist to hypnotise the tester into filling in false results. Or what about kidnapping him and replacing with friend wearing one of those latex masks from Mission: Impossible.

Don't you think the people who run and analyse these tests know what they are doing? At least more than people who have no idea how the test is done.
These seem like normal questions about the process. While I want to assume the system is foolproof, I'm not a big "faith" guy myself. Not sure why the constant defense of this rider, who has been proven to lie about a great many things.
I don't see there is any 'constant defending of anybody.

All Parker, and on òccasions myself, are doing is challenging some of the increasingly speculative theories that are being thrown about in the last few days in the absence of any new information or hard facts for us to get stuck into in recent weeks.

It's just debate, this is a public forum which thrives on debate and differences in opinion. Without that it just becomes a closed group for like minded individuals to wallow in the comfort of mutual self affirmation.
We could not disagree more. I'm simply reacting to a long string of posts which call into question and as such attempt to refute, without reason or evidence, any suggestion that Froome might not be all on the up and up.

The group isn't closed, the forum isn't like-minded. There is simply a mountain of evidence which has led many reasonable people to the same conclusion, that Froome and Sky are certainly engaged in disinformation campaigns and overwhelmingly likely to be doping.

That the massive preponderance of evidence points to a fairly obvious conclusion is not evidence of groupthink. It's evidence of rationality. Attempts to paint it as something else are self-congratulatory deflections. IMO.
On the subject of our disagreement, this appears to be a constant which I'm sure doesn't and indeed shouldn't worry either òf us at all.

You're reference to self congratulatory deflection is equally applicable to those who attempt to shut down any theories presented by those who don't agree with them whilst happily considering any theories, no matter how wild or speculative, should they happen to err on the side of potentially supporting your own beliefs.

Blind faith or blind hatred. Take your pick, the net effect is the same, yoù still end up blind and unable to see.
 
There is document I saw somewhere (if I find I will post the link) that describes the protocol for experimental testing. The rider comes to lab venue and is monitored and chaperoned, for the whole time and that is when the baseline and subsequent testing is done. He might be searched I would have thought too. I doubt he will be able to game the experimental tests but I am sure if he does demonstrate similar results to his AAF result which I doubt he will but for sake of argument he does you can say he has I am sure..
 
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
"Science for Performance" blog downloaded Froome's GPX file from his 164-kilometer ride posted on Strava

https://science4performance.com/tag/cycling/

https://www.strava.com/activities/1343171851

... and analyzed it to guess at the wattage based on speed, gradient, air conditions, etc. Coming up with an estimated 205 watts average, including a 1-hour segment at 321 watts average, which was the part when Froome was really 'trying'
Running the same analysis over the “Empty the tank” ride gives an average power requirement of 373W for six hours, which is obviously suspect.
Yeah, I would say that is "suspect", in fact there has never been such a thing, that wattage figure is in an 'extraterrestrial' zone...

Urán and Froome crossing the finish line at the same time...
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/tour-de-france/rigoberto-urans-power-output-stage-9-tour-de-france-analysed-343585

... in a Tour stage for which Urán's real power-meter data (not estimated) was an average of 219 watts.
So, Froome's long Strava ride must have been motorpaced all the way, and the assumptions in the calculations may also be flawed. 244 watts average would be very inefficient for a rider who sits in the peloton and is deliberately relieved of work by a whole team contingent

More importantly, why has Froome been doing these rides, in this way? Is the intent really to make their best effort at a Vuelta simulation, while avoiding real lab testing? Or just to give the impression that's what they may be doing. Some people have pointed out that 25 - 30 hours on the bike per week seems like overtraining for very early in the season. According to the rules of the Anti-Doping Tribunal, all evidence to be used in Froome's argument is supposed to have been submitted already...
Article 17 Further submissions and additional evidence
1. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by the Single Judge, the UCI and
the Defendant shall not be authorised to supplement or amend their submissions, nor
to produce new exhibits or further evidence after the submission of the petition and the
answer, respectively.
... so any kind of testing or hypothetical reconstruction at this point is not necessarily admissible as evidence - only if the UCI agrees or if the judge requests it
But this ride was January 28th . according to the tweet posted by Pastronef, he was in a lab the 19th . so the rides
after have no links to the test? And when he said emptying the tank , he wanted to say emptying the tank of all the salbutamol he took during 18 days :lol:
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Red Rick said:
If tests are so great

Then why are there so many dopers around?
First of all - different tests. This is testing something is deliberately going to take in a control environment.

Secondly - are there so many around? Perhaps you should point them out to the authorities. Don't confuse you opinions with fact.
Hmmm...isnt it an opinion either way until a test says they dope. Its clearly not a fact they don't dope when they pass a test as we know tests can be beaten easily. Much harder to have a false positive for EPO/Steroids and drugs of note.

Over the years we have always had dopers at the top. You could never get to the top without doping as the old guard are always there .....so its more likely that there are loads of dopers as you need it to win than not.
 
Aug 20, 2009
97
0
8,680
Re: Re:

Parker said:
53*11 said:
since when does honour feature in professional sports with millions of €€€ at stake?
Sometime after the 2012 Giro, for sure.At that time it was certainly honourable to celebrate a Giro with a rider he knew had doped and not been punished
Can't let this one slide by Parker.
Contador HAD been punished by the Spanish Fed. already. WADA appealed because of the short length of said ban. So he was free to ride and had been punished. (BTW Mick Rodgers was let off scott free for the same infraction as Contador).
This is a whole different scenario with Froome Nice try though.
Look at the facts with objectivity instead of trying to distort everything to twist them to your implausible. narratives.
ClassicoManoLuigi gives you way too much credit(apologies ClassicoManoLuigi for the shrapnel)
What is past is prologue.
 
I think Froome and Sky fans are exploiting the fact that there is still unknown things to prevent anyone from calling them what they really are.
What we really know is:
The amount of Salbutamol is not therapeutic use.
The one-day kidney failure and other stupid stories are poor excuses.
There are serious indications of Sky having a doping program... Call it TUEs, bags or links to tainted people.
To make things worse there are attitudes in Sky that are perceived as offending:
- The holier than thou attitude
- Not suspending a rider who has a confirmed positive
- Delaying the process.

While I agree than coming to hypotheses on how much and for how long Froome doped is speculation, the only fact is that he broke the rules and he's a confirmed doper

What would you, Sky fans, think is the subject was Nibali or Quintana or any other GC rider? Then apply the same concept here
 
Re: Re:

papisimo98 said:
Parker said:
53*11 said:
since when does honour feature in professional sports with millions of €€€ at stake?
Sometime after the 2012 Giro, for sure.At that time it was certainly honourable to celebrate a Giro with a rider he knew had doped and not been punished
Can't let this one slide by Parker.
Contador HAD been punished by the Spanish Fed. already. WADA appealed because of the short length of said ban. So he was free to ride and had been punished. (BTW Mick Rodgers was let off scott free for the same infraction as Contador).
This is a whole different scenario with Froome Nice try though.
Look at the facts with objectivity instead of trying to distort everything to twist them to your implausible. narratives.
ClassicoManoLuigi gives you way too much credit(apologies ClassicoManoLuigi for the shrapnel)
What is past is prologue.
Contador wasn’t punished by the Spanish Federation. They were going to ban him for a year but he appealed and was cleared of all charges.
 
Re: Re:

papisimo98 said:
Parker said:
53*11 said:
since when does honour feature in professional sports with millions of €€€ at stake?
Sometime after the 2012 Giro, for sure.At that time it was certainly honourable to celebrate a Giro with a rider he knew had doped and not been punished
Can't let this one slide by Parker.
Contador HAD been punished by the Spanish Fed. already. WADA appealed because of the short length of said ban. So he was free to ride and had been punished. (BTW Mick Rodgers was let off scott free for the same infraction as Contador).
This is a whole different scenario with Froome Nice try though.
Look at the facts with objectivity instead of trying to distort everything to twist them to your implausible. narratives.
ClassicoManoLuigi gives you way too much credit(apologies ClassicoManoLuigi for the shrapnel)
What is past is prologue.
Contador didn't win the 2012 Giro. Ryder Hesjedal did. Nice try though.
 
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
"Science for Performance" blog downloaded Froome's GPX file from his 164-kilometer ride posted on Strava

https://science4performance.com/tag/cycling/

https://www.strava.com/activities/1343171851

... and analyzed it to guess at the wattage based on speed, gradient, air conditions, etc. Coming up with an estimated 205 watts average, including a 1-hour segment at 321 watts average, which was the part when Froome was really 'trying'
Running the same analysis over the “Empty the tank” ride gives an average power requirement of 373W for six hours, which is obviously suspect.
Yeah, I would say that is "suspect", in fact there has never been such a thing, that wattage figure is in an 'extraterrestrial' zone...

Urán and Froome crossing the finish line at the same time...
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/tour-de-france/rigoberto-urans-power-output-stage-9-tour-de-france-analysed-343585

... in a Tour stage for which Urán's real power-meter data (not estimated) was an average of 219 watts.
So, Froome's long Strava ride must have been motorpaced all the way, and the assumptions in the calculations may also be flawed. 244 watts average would be very inefficient for a rider who sits in the peloton and is deliberately relieved of work by a whole team contingent

More importantly, why has Froome been doing these rides, in this way? Is the intent really to make their best effort at a Vuelta simulation, while avoiding real lab testing? Or just to give the impression that's what they may be doing. Some people have pointed out that 25 - 30 hours on the bike per week seems like overtraining for very early in the season. According to the rules of the Anti-Doping Tribunal, all evidence to be used in Froome's argument is supposed to have been submitted already...
Article 17 Further submissions and additional evidence
1. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by the Single Judge, the UCI and
the Defendant shall not be authorised to supplement or amend their submissions, nor
to produce new exhibits or further evidence after the submission of the petition and the
answer, respectively.
... so any kind of testing or hypothetical reconstruction at this point is not necessarily admissible as evidence - only if the UCI agrees or if the judge requests it
I just don't get all of the intrigue and analysis over what our man has been doing in South Africa. To me, it looks like nothing more than a cĺassic block of base endurance training. Old school.

Yes, the hours spent and mileage completed is on the high side of normal, but we're talking about the dominant GC rider of his generation here, moreover a GC rider who this year has genuine and realistic ambitions of a Giro/Tour double. Doping or no Doping, the training still has to support the ambition, so why on earth is anyone surprised that his training is outside 'the norm'?

Saying that 25-30 hours is overtraining is too much of a generic statement. You've got to consider the circumstances and the individual ....one man's overtraining is another man's undertraining.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
brownbobby said:
I just don't get all of the intrigue and analysis over what our man has been doing in South Africa. To me, it looks like nothing more than a cĺassic block of base endurance training. Old school.

Yes, the hours spent and mileage completed is on the high side of normal, but we're talking about the dominant GC rider of his generation here, moreover a GC rider who this year has genuine and realistic ambitions of a Giro/Tour double. Doping or no Doping, the training still has to support the ambition, so why on earth is anyone surprised that his training is outside 'the norm'?

Saying that 25-30 hours is overtraining is too much of a generic statement. You've got to consider the circumstances and the individual ....one man's overtraining is another man's undertraining.
Yeah... this is not even close to a normal block of training. Training isn't about working out as hard as you can all day every day. It's about stressing the body and getting a positive response during recovery. If you push too hard and don't allow for recovery, there's no positive benefit.

I've posted a few studies before (I have no idea where the links are anymore) that show metabolic signs of catabolism in the second week of a GT. That is, blood samples show the byproducts of your muscles being broken down. That's also why, historically, riders are starting to struggle in the third week. There simply isn't enough recovery between those long days.

So Froome riding the Tour de South Africa has nothing to do with training. He's going to need a decent recovery period after that (unless he's doping with recovery products). Why did he do it? Who knows. Easy to speculate that it has something to do with his doping positive.

John Swanson
 
Re:

slosada said:
I think Froome and Sky fans are exploiting the fact that there is still unknown things to prevent anyone from calling them what they really are.
What we really know is:
The amount of Salbutamol is not therapeutic use.
The one-day kidney failure and other stupid stories are poor excuses.
There are serious indications of Sky having a doping program... Call it TUEs, bags or links to tainted people.
To make things worse there are attitudes in Sky that are perceived as offending:
- The holier than thou attitude
- Not suspending a rider who has a confirmed positive
- Delaying the process.

While I agree than coming to hypotheses on how much and for how long Froome doped is speculation, the only fact is that he broke the rules and he's a confirmed doper

What would you, Sky fans, think is the subject was Nibali or Quintana or any other GC rider? Then apply the same concept here
I´d buy a bucket of popcorns and enjoy the show. I am a Sky fan and I am interested in Sky and try to remember clinic posts and tweets and defend them (rightly and wrongly, I know)
I am not a hater nor focused on cyclists I dont like (or despise). I dont know what Nibali, Quintana, Sagan, Aru or other GC guys are doing, if they are on Strava, what they said in the interviews these years, if they wrote a book, the finish orders of the races they raced 2-3-4-7-10 years ago, where are they training every day, I dont check theit twitter or instagram, I dont know how many doctors their team have, if they train with motorpacing, if they use the same kit every day, if they are thin or fat, I dont know the average speed of their training, the zones of training power, their hearthrate etc. I dont care.
so I couldnt be on here analyzing their every action, words, pedal stroke, race finish and so on.
I would enjoy the show and read the reactions on here, but I can´t contribute to the accusations, or defence of these riders, because I dont know very much. I know it´s subjective.
I am a Sky defender but I wouldnt have the same drive in accusing any rider. sure, I would enjoy very much if Nibs or Sagan got caught, not for them, not because I want them to be erased and never see them ride, but for the fans, to see the fans reactions.
 
ScienceIsCool said:
brownbobby said:
I just don't get all of the intrigue and analysis over what our man has been doing in South Africa. To me, it looks like nothing more than a cĺassic block of base endurance training. Old school.

Yes, the hours spent and mileage completed is on the high side of normal, but we're talking about the dominant GC rider of his generation here, moreover a GC rider who this year has genuine and realistic ambitions of a Giro/Tour double. Doping or no Doping, the training still has to support the ambition, so why on earth is anyone surprised that his training is outside 'the norm'?

Saying that 25-30 hours is overtraining is too much of a generic statement. You've got to consider the circumstances and the individual ....one man's overtraining is another man's undertraining.
Yeah... this is not even close to a normal block of training. Training isn't about working out as hard as you can all day every day. It's about stressing the body and getting a positive response during recovery. If you push too hard and don't allow for recovery, there's no positive benefit.

I've posted a few studies before (I have no idea where the links are anymore) that show metabolic signs of catabolism in the second week of a GT. That is, blood samples show the byproducts of your muscles being broken down. That's also why, historically, riders are starting to struggle in the third week. There simply isn't enough recovery between those long days.

So Froome riding the Tour de South Africa has nothing to do with training. He's going to need a decent recovery period after that (unless he's doping with recovery products). Why did he do it? Who knows. Easy to speculate that it has something to do with his doping positive.

John Swanson
But he hasn't been pushing hard all day every day. Look at the actual stats not sensationalist rumour and conspiracy theory.

The majority of the rides have been controlled endurance rides, classic 'zone 2'. LSD. Old school base training. Just the odd effort mixed in infrequently.

Aerobic training to develop mitochondrial function is very different to the repeated hard efforts you refer to when discussing the breakdown and repair of muscle tissue during GT's.

So thanks for the brief lesson on training, recovery and how the body reacts to GT style loads. If you don't mind I won't bother searching out the links, I've read a bit about that stuff before....it's just that it's not relevant to this discussion.
 
Aug 20, 2009
97
0
8,680
Re: Re:

Parker said:
papisimo98 said:
Parker said:
53*11 said:
since when does honour feature in professional sports with millions of €€€ at stake?
Sometime after the 2012 Giro, for sure.At that time it was certainly honourable to celebrate a Giro with a rider he knew had doped and not been punished
Can't let this one slide by Parker.
Contador HAD been punished by the Spanish Fed. already. WADA appealed because of the short length of said ban. So he was free to ride and had been punished. (BTW Mick Rodgers was let off scott free for the same infraction as Contador).
This is a whole different scenario with Froome Nice try though.
Look at the facts with objectivity instead of trying to distort everything to twist them to your implausible. narratives.
ClassicoManoLuigi gives you way too much credit(apologies ClassicoManoLuigi for the shrapnel)
What is past is prologue.
Contador didn't win the 2012 Giro. Ryder Hesjedal did. Nice try though.
So Ryder doped and won big but hadn't been punished? Or are you referring to his Chicken dance?
So you are really reaching now because logically Contador is the only winner who could really even come close to the scenario that you are implying whether I got they year correct or not.
Not analogous at all. Bad try on your part.
Gotta give you credit for perpetuating your spin.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Fanboys' last stand!

Or maybe fanboys' penultimate stand...!?

Perhaps I'm being optimistic... this is going to go on for months :eek:

But let them have their fun :D
 
Re: Re:

papisimo98 said:
Parker said:
papisimo98 said:
Parker said:
53*11 said:
since when does honour feature in professional sports with millions of €€€ at stake?
Sometime after the 2012 Giro, for sure.At that time it was certainly honourable to celebrate a Giro with a rider he knew had doped and not been punished
Can't let this one slide by Parker.
Contador HAD been punished by the Spanish Fed. already. WADA appealed because of the short length of said ban. So he was free to ride and had been punished. (BTW Mick Rodgers was let off scott free for the same infraction as Contador).
This is a whole different scenario with Froome Nice try though.
Look at the facts with objectivity instead of trying to distort everything to twist them to your implausible. narratives.
ClassicoManoLuigi gives you way too much credit(apologies ClassicoManoLuigi for the shrapnel)
What is past is prologue.
Contador didn't win the 2012 Giro. Ryder Hesjedal did. Nice try though.
So Ryder doped and won big but hadn't been punished? Or are you referring to his Chicken dance?
So you are really reaching now because logically Contador is the only winner who could really even come close to the scenario that you are implying whether I got they year correct or not.
Not analogous at all. Bad try on your part.
Gotta give you credit for perpetuating your spin.
The 'honourable' bit came from Vaughters's comments today. Back in 2012 Hesjedal won the Giro and Vaughters presented him as a clean champion, knowing full well he had doped in the past and never been punished. When other riders testified to USADA, Hesjedal, who had been at Postal/Discovery didn't. Then it all came out in 2013 (by which time the statue of limitations had passed).
Basically Vaughters kept Hesjedal away from USADA to keep the lustre of his Giro win and keep him from a ban.

Which is all far from honourable. And that's before we start with getting riders to sign contracts without telling them the was no sponsor lined up for the next year.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
The 'honourable' bit came from Vaughters's comments today. Back in 2012 Hesjedal won the Giro and Vaughters presented him as a clean champion, knowing full well he had doped in the past and never been punished. When other riders testified to USADA, Hesjedal, who had been at Postal/Discovery didn't. Then it all came out in 2013 (by which time the statue of limitations had passed).
Basically Vaughters kept Hesjedal away from USADA to keep the lustre of his Giro win and keep him from a ban.

Which is all far from honourable. And that's before we start with getting riders to sign contracts without telling them the was no sponsor lined up for the next year.
thank you Parker.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
papisimo98 said:
Parker said:
papisimo98 said:
Parker said:
Sometime after the 2012 Giro, for sure.At that time it was certainly honourable to celebrate a Giro with a rider he knew had doped and not been punished
Can't let this one slide by Parker.
Contador HAD been punished by the Spanish Fed. already. WADA appealed because of the short length of said ban. So he was free to ride and had been punished. (BTW Mick Rodgers was let off scott free for the same infraction as Contador).
This is a whole different scenario with Froome Nice try though.
Look at the facts with objectivity instead of trying to distort everything to twist them to your implausible. narratives.
ClassicoManoLuigi gives you way too much credit(apologies ClassicoManoLuigi for the shrapnel)
What is past is prologue.
Contador didn't win the 2012 Giro. Ryder Hesjedal did. Nice try though.
So Ryder doped and won big but hadn't been punished? Or are you referring to his Chicken dance?
So you are really reaching now because logically Contador is the only winner who could really even come close to the scenario that you are implying whether I got they year correct or not.
Not analogous at all. Bad try on your part.
Gotta give you credit for perpetuating your spin.
The 'honourable' bit came from Vaughters's comments today. Back in 2012 Hesjedal won the Giro and Vaughters presented him as a clean champion, knowing full well he had doped in the past and never been punished. When other riders testified to USADA, Hesjedal, who had been at Postal/Discovery didn't. Then it all came out in 2013 (by which time the statue of limitations had passed).
Basically Vaughters kept Hesjedal away from USADA to keep the lustre of his Giro win and keep him from a ban.

Which is all far from honourable. And that's before we start with getting riders to sign contracts without telling them the was no sponsor lined up for the next year.
100% right.

Don't know what angle you are trying to pull that yiy are saying something true for once (I'm assuming jv said something bad about froome hence becomes the enemy) but I hope this experience will change you for the better
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
brownbobby said:
red_flanders said:
Parker said:
TheSpud said:
So the test would be to see if there was an increase of 2000, or whether he would go over 2000?

Whats to stop him popping some oral sal in the carpark as he arrives, gives a sample straight away. A few hours later after some puffs in the lab he'd be glowing like a lightstick.
And what's to stop him getting a hypnotist to hypnotise the tester into filling in false results. Or what about kidnapping him and replacing with friend wearing one of those latex masks from Mission: Impossible.

Don't you think the people who run and analyse these tests know what they are doing? At least more than people who have no idea how the test is done.
These seem like normal questions about the process. While I want to assume the system is foolproof, I'm not a big "faith" guy myself. Not sure why the constant defense of this rider, who has been proven to lie about a great many things.
I don't see there is any 'constant defending of anybody.

All Parker, and on òccasions myself, are doing is challenging some of the increasingly speculative theories that are being thrown about in the last few days in the absence of any new information or hard facts for us to get stuck into in recent weeks.

It's just debate, this is a public forum which thrives on debate and differences in opinion. Without that it just becomes a closed group for like minded individuals to wallow in the comfort of mutual self affirmation.
We could not disagree more. I'm simply reacting to a long string of posts which call into question and as such attempt to refute, without reason or evidence, any suggestion that Froome might not be all on the up and up.

The group isn't closed, the forum isn't like-minded. There is simply a mountain of evidence which has led many reasonable people to the same conclusion, that Froome and Sky are certainly engaged in disinformation campaigns and overwhelmingly likely to be doping.

That the massive preponderance of evidence points to a fairly obvious conclusion is not evidence of groupthink. It's evidence of rationality. Attempts to paint it as something else are self-congratulatory deflections. IMO.
First, please let me man up to a sometimes uber sarcastic shamiing type banter ( although fun, to be expected in these circles) ... it goes nowhere. Convincing people? Like trying to convince students in HS that cell phones are evil.

What you have going hear, RF, is Mode of Persuasion that borders on Appeal to Freight Train. No facts ... just a collection of spiralling mob-type hysteria about the evil Sky network. Fill your boots. You’re in too deep to turn back now.
 
ScienceIsCool said:
brownbobby said:
I just don't get all of the intrigue and analysis over what our man has been doing in South Africa. To me, it looks like nothing more than a cĺassic block of base endurance training. Old school.

Yes, the hours spent and mileage completed is on the high side of normal, but we're talking about the dominant GC rider of his generation here, moreover a GC rider who this year has genuine and realistic ambitions of a Giro/Tour double. Doping or no Doping, the training still has to support the ambition, so why on earth is anyone surprised that his training is outside 'the norm'?

Saying that 25-30 hours is overtraining is too much of a generic statement. You've got to consider the circumstances and the individual ....one man's overtraining is another man's undertraining.
Yeah... this is not even close to a normal block of training. Training isn't about working out as hard as you can all day every day. It's about stressing the body and getting a positive response during recovery. If you push too hard and don't allow for recovery, there's no positive benefit.

I've posted a few studies before (I have no idea where the links are anymore) that show metabolic signs of catabolism in the second week of a GT. That is, blood samples show the byproducts of your muscles being broken down. That's also why, historically, riders are starting to struggle in the third week. There simply isn't enough recovery between those long days.

So Froome riding the Tour de South Africa has nothing to do with training. He's going to need a decent recovery period after that (unless he's doping with recovery products). Why did he do it? Who knows. Easy to speculate that it has something to do with his doping positive.

John Swanson
Straight up question, John. (Apologise if I’ve missed your amateur or pro career as an athlete). Aside from the studies you indicate ... which I’m sure have validity. What’s your own sense ... as an athlete... that Froome’s SA training would seem, to you, to be so anomalous and harmful, even?
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
What you have going hear, RF, is Mode of Persuasion that borders on Appeal to Freight Train. No facts ... just a collection of spiralling mob-type hysteria about the evil Sky network. Fill your boots. You’re in too deep to turn back now.
Near as I can make out this post is a collection of words intended to make anyone calling out Sky on their incessant BS sound like they're purveyors of nonsense. No? Sorry if I'm not getting it right, it is hard to follow.

Sky amassed enough BS by the end of their second year of their existence to let anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex know they're full of it. They've only added to it since then and plenty has surfaced to support that conclusion. The facts are listed over and over in this and the Sky thread. I won't recap it for you, but to state "no facts" simply shows ignorance on the topic.
 
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
brownbobby said:
Saying that 25-30 hours is overtraining is too much of a generic statement. You've got to consider the circumstances and the individual ....one man's overtraining is another man's undertraining.
Could be lots of reasons
- work ethic, show he's spending a lot of time on the bike
- real preparation for earliest race debut
- intimidation factor to show he's coming prepared
- official Sky narrative is he is doing something related to physiology simulation, could be true, or they want to give that impression

The drafting the motorbike for 271 kilometers is weird. "Empty The Tank" could mean to empty the fuel tank of the motorcycle, but Froome didn't mention that part
It could also be his only self defence mechanism against Michelle - spend all day on the bike
to escape her fury and her hairy schemes to get him off.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
100% right.

Don't know what angle you are trying to pull that yiy are saying something true for once (I'm assuming jv said something bad about froome hence becomes the enemy) but I hope this experience will change you for the better
I understand what you mean Hitch and we talked about it before. but this also makes me think about this: the Sky-Froome experience and existence, for fans and non fans, has become something beyond cycling.
sentences like I hope this experience will change you for the better seem like we are not anymore in the anti-doping matters, it´s about people´s character, feelings, way of thinking, life.

isn´t it a bit too much? wtf, you are telling a forum member that something will change him for the better, like if he has to open his mind or hearth and see he was wrong before, but now we all hope he has understood, seen the light.

ffs it´s cycling, it´s racing, top fuelled sportmen racing each other. entertaiment, nothing more. life goes on anyway, with or without froome or sky. Parker´s posts are not aggressive or full of disdain towards any member, or any rider or any rider´s wife. he writes his own view and tries to read the facts and reply to the questions and posts.
he does not want to change us for the better
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
Alpe73 said:
What you have going hear, RF, is Mode of Persuasion that borders on Appeal to Freight Train. No facts ... just a collection of spiralling mob-type hysteria about the evil Sky network. Fill your boots. You’re in too deep to turn back now.
Near as I can make out this post is a collection of words intended to make anyone calling out Sky on their incessant BS sound like they're purveyors of nonsense. No? Sorry if I'm not getting it right, it is hard to follow.

Sky amassed enough BS by the end of their second year of their existence to let anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex know they're full of it. They've only added to it since then and plenty has surfaced to support that conclusion. The facts are listed over and over in this and the Sky thread. I won't recap it for you, but to state "no facts" simply shows ignorance on the topic.
Let’s assume, as you implore, there have spoken many lies, about many things. Sky’s incessant BS. Fine. So what is it you want? You want something right? You sure as F seem like you want something. Quest-ce que c’est?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts