Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1113 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

The Dawg is truly a thing of wonder the ill-er he gets the quicker he rides!
See, the thing is, casual cycling fans really cannot truly appreciate the heroism of Froome as he conquers grand tour after grand tour despite his many, many afflictions. Few may be aware of the lung transplant that he endured between the TDF and the Vuelta, and the fact that both knee joints had to be replaced mid-season after another bilharzia outbreak had affected circulation to the joints. Kidney failure? Well of course, that too. Sky worked overtime to make sure that the priest who administered the last rites to Froome before stage 18 was ferried out of the team bus unseen by the press.
 
Re: Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
dacooley said:
thehog said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Rollthedice said:
Thanks Classicomano. Looks like the bus is waiting for Froome to be thrown under.
Yep

So far whatever happens Brailsfraud comes out not exactly smelling of roses but not entirely drowning in manure either

Each time the gullible fanboys bless em keep the faith gotta respect that combo of naivety and stamina

But really Brailsfraud is not as clever as he thinks as a political operator he's slime-tastic

Imagine having that as an epitaph

Legacy of ashes
Froome is a rather forgettable character though. I don't think anyone would miss him. I actually don't blame Brailsford dropping him, he'd better off with going with another rider, he has plenty to choose from who could all win 28 GTs with the Sky formula.
you will be missing him actually. once froome gets banned and quits, there will be no one to hate with passion. the sense of following cycling is getting lost. ;)
Not the done thing here
to attribute hate to other posters
Retract.
Who the hell do you think you are
 
Re: Re:

JosephK said:
The Dawg is truly a thing of wonder the ill-er he gets the quicker he rides!
See, the thing is, casual cycling fans really cannot truly appreciate the heroism of Froome as he conquers grand tour after grand tour despite his many, many afflictions. Few may be aware of the lung transplant that he endured between the TDF and the Vuelta, and the fact that both knee joints had to be replaced mid-season after another bilharzia outbreak had affected circulation to the joints. Kidney failure? Well of course, that too. Sky worked overtime to make sure that the priest who administered the last rites to Froome before stage 18 was ferried out of the team bus unseen by the press.
Froome broke his his leg as well but thankfully Mr. Miyagi was on the Sky medical team and was Miyagi able to use an old Japanese technique of physiotherapy and bring him back life.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
JosephK said:
The Dawg is truly a thing of wonder the ill-er he gets the quicker he rides!
See, the thing is, casual cycling fans really cannot truly appreciate the heroism of Froome as he conquers grand tour after grand tour despite his many, many afflictions. Few may be aware of the lung transplant that he endured between the TDF and the Vuelta, and the fact that both knee joints had to be replaced mid-season after another bilharzia outbreak had affected circulation to the joints. Kidney failure? Well of course, that too. Sky worked overtime to make sure that the priest who administered the last rites to Froome before stage 18 was ferried out of the team bus unseen by the press.
Froome broke his his leg as well but thankfully Mr. Miyagi was on the Sky medical team and was Miyagi able to use an old Japanese technique of physiotherapy and bring him back life.
So Mr Miyagi must have worked for Tinkof .....
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
TourOfSardinia said:
pastronef said:
why retract? The Hog´s hate for Sky-Froome-DB is genuine
:confused:
that's not what you say
it's due diligence
I’ve said a million times, I love Froome, I think he’s the funniest & most ridiculous cyclist I’ve ever witnessed. I’m actuslly shocked he has lasted as long pretending to be clean. I do miss his zig zagging and crashing but I’m sure it will be back soon after his ban for Salbutamol.
loving froome as loving seeing him crashing, zig zagging and lusting him getting caught and shamefully exiled from cycling, reacting with sarcastic ' :eek:' and ' :eek: ' on any occasion when he does well is clearly something new. ;)
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
JosephK said:
The Dawg is truly a thing of wonder the ill-er he gets the quicker he rides!
See, the thing is, casual cycling fans really cannot truly appreciate the heroism of Froome as he conquers grand tour after grand tour despite his many, many afflictions. Few may be aware of the lung transplant that he endured between the TDF and the Vuelta, and the fact that both knee joints had to be replaced mid-season after another bilharzia outbreak had affected circulation to the joints. Kidney failure? Well of course, that too. Sky worked overtime to make sure that the priest who administered the last rites to Froome before stage 18 was ferried out of the team bus unseen by the press.
Froome broke his his leg as well but thankfully Mr. Miyagi was on the Sky medical team and was Miyagi able to use an old Japanese technique of physiotherapy and bring him back life.
The Dawg's head fell off as well. Just fell right off

Luckily it grew back. Very quickly

While headless the stump ingested excess salbutamol. Beamed down from an alien spaceship
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
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.
thats a little hypocritical dont you think? eg you defend CF/sky (when it appears indefensible, and they cant explain the AAF, even after 5 months!) yet you would enjoy seeing other riders fail tests and go through same process? at least you are honest i guess
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
brownbobby said:
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.

froomes january/feb training has been far more than normal! on strava hes posted over 6400kms , at altitude, many weeks doing 6 x 200++ kms , and many rides being motor paced @ 45kph + average speed, seemingly trying to replicate a grand tour pace. hes posted very few recovery rides. he also made a point of posting his rides on strava whihc is unusual for him (previously he had only 2000km on strava. if you compare his rides with other riders on strava like gesink, thibaut, ten dams and others, they are on targeted training camps with a lot of recovery rides also. it appears that CF was trying to replicate some aspect of a GT to try to shore up a defence ont he #AAF, and also to get ready for the ruta del sol, and maybe mostly to increase pressure on race organisers and UCI, eg to make UCI call his bluff.
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
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
its all they have got left at this stage! the excuses are pretty thin right now (im only on this forum a week and ive seen some pearlers, some of my favourites are uci broke the rules by leaking his test (3 months after the test), froome got poisoned, froome had a cold, froome took a few extra puffs, froome has bad kidneys, froomes unique physiology meant he stored up a weeks salbutamol, every other team is doing it (though not at 2000 ng levels!), attack any critics of CF/sky at every turn, and the old fallback of any hopeless, desperate cause, ''look over there thats a more interesting than this story'' - which if i recall, is exactly what douchebag dave offered matt lawton when he started probing DBs story about wiggo's package/bus etc
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
pastronef said:
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
It’s NOT about doping ... it never was ... on this thread.

This thread, the Armstrong thread ... are about the politics of envy; camel through the eye of the needle; Emperor’s New Clothes; 7th deadly sin .... voodoo.

Cycling, corporate teams, uppity sports pros .... they’re just the actors for the Theatre of Frustration.

i disagree , its about a team sanctimoniously proclaiming their innocence while being caught out numerous times doing the opposite, its about due process; they have had an AAF, after 5 months they cant explain it and are trying to string out the process until the giro/tour. shame on them and shame on uci if they allow sky another 3 months; no other team would be given such latitude in constructing their defence.
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Re: Re:

Parker said:
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 tend to be centerist on most issues. I don't posture on any issue. I tend work on facts not opinion. In general I am on the side of most cyclists whom I don't feel owe me anything. I've been watching cycling since the 80s. I have a good idea of what a proper doping scandal is. And I have seen enough not to need to seek out another.

If Froome had tested positive for a 'proper' drug I wouldn't defend him. But he hasn't. When I first heard the news I thought 'salbutamol, is that it?'

For the record:

I don't think he or any other cyclist are using salbutamol as a doping product. Just as I don't think people build houses out of Lego. It's possible (James May did it), but it's stupid.
I think he may very well have taken too many puffs, Maybe deliberately in reaction to a genuine attack or desperately trying to tackle a problem that should have been dealt with by a TUE. Or maybe inadvertently by negligence or by swallowing or by faulty equipment.
Even if he is completely innocent, I don't think he will be able to prove it. And will be banned for 6-9 months
He will ride the Giro due the length of times these things take. He even get to ride the Tour.
He will keep these results.
Many, most even, on this forum had determined whether he was guilty or innocent before he had even taken the test.

Now unlike you I start everything from a position of 'I don't know' and build up from there. And always start from the point of view that humans are good people. You should try it. It will change you for the better (in the real meaning, not the 'I'm better than you, be like me' meaning)

And always remember the old adage that what can be stated without evidence (which is the baulk of the Clinic) can be rejected without evidence

IMO that is some very strange, twisted logic. so if he was caught blood doping or with high testo or EPO then you would not defend him, but because its 'only' salbutamol you do? even though he has exceeded the limit twice over (and must have taken a very high dose originally to even come close to 2000ng in both urineg samples? and even though other riders have been sanctioned after being found with much lower levels?? or do you think that froomes unique physiology actually means he is manufacturing salbutamol/albuterol naturally in his body?!! i jest, but that to me is only slightly more ridiculous than your statement above.
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
Parker said:
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 tend to be centerist on most issues. I don't posture on any issue. I tend work on facts not opinion. In general I am on the side of most cyclists whom I don't feel owe me anything. I've been watching cycling since the 80s. I have a good idea of what a proper doping scandal is. And I have seen enough not to need to seek out another.

If Froome had tested positive for a 'proper' drug I wouldn't defend him. But he hasn't. When I first heard the news I thought 'salbutamol, is that it?'

For the record:

I don't think he or any other cyclist are using salbutamol as a doping product. Just as I don't think people build houses out of Lego. It's possible (James May did it), but it's stupid.
I think he may very well have taken too many puffs, Maybe deliberately in reaction to a genuine attack or desperately trying to tackle a problem that should have been dealt with by a TUE. Or maybe inadvertently by negligence or by swallowing or by faulty equipment.
Even if he is completely innocent, I don't think he will be able to prove it. And will be banned for 6-9 months
He will ride the Giro due the length of times these things take. He even get to ride the Tour.
He will keep these results.
Many, most even, on this forum had determined whether he was guilty or innocent before he had even taken the test.

Now unlike you I start everything from a position of 'I don't know' and build up from there. And always start from the point of view that humans are good people. You should try it. It will change you for the better (in the real meaning, not the 'I'm better than you, be like me' meaning)

And always remember the old adage that what can be stated without evidence (which is the baulk of the Clinic) can be rejected without evidence
I will apply this adage to the views you've offered on Salbutamol. There is tremendous evidence that cyclists have used this drug for performance enhancement. To believe otherwise is to be ignorant of or reject the facts.

Let's also not confuse proof and evidence. The evidence against Froome is overwhelming. We know he tested positive to twice the limit. The burden of proof to avoid sanction lies (pun intended) with Froome and his team to prove this was some kind of accident. There is more than enough evidence for thoughtful, reasonable and rational people to form a view on whether Froome doped, and ther has been for many years.

Good people dope, bad people dope. Asserting this is a criteria for evaluating the question is a logical fallacy.
100% agree
 
53*11 said:
brownbobby said:
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.

froomes january/feb training has been far more than normal! on strava hes posted over 6400kms , at altitude, many weeks doing 6 x 200++ kms , and many rides being motor paced @ 45kph + average speed, seemingly trying to replicate a grand tour pace. hes posted very few recovery rides. he also made a point of posting his rides on strava whihc is unusual for him (previously he had only 2000km on strava. if you compare his rides with other riders on strava like gesink, thibaut, ten dams and others, they are on targeted training camps with a lot of recovery rides also. it appears that CF was trying to replicate some aspect of a GT to try to shore up a defence ont he #AAF, and also to get ready for the ruta del sol, and maybe mostly to increase pressure on race organisers and UCI, eg to make UCI call his bluff.
Amazing. A GT rider trying to replicate some aspect of a GT in training. Yikes, whatever next? Marathon runners running long distances in training?? :confused:

Who are we to judge what's normal and not normal, when it comes to what training looks like for the greatest (or at least most successful) GT rider of a generation, and one of the most successful of all time. Why on earth would you expect his training to look the same as the riders you've listed above, riders without a GT success to their name? Froome is probably doping....doping doesn't just allow you to turn up on race day and smash everybody, its the ability to train harder and recover faster where the biggest gains are seen.

Here's a quote from some estimation of Froomes Strava data that someone posted earlier up this thread:

... 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'

For someone with a threshold far north of 400w at peak, 200w is pure aerobic endurance pace, even 321 watts is barely breaking a sweat. One of the first rides he posted, the one where he included his HR data (before hurriedly realising this was a mistake and removing it) showed similar stats and levels of exertion. Most of his rides have been at similar pace with a few increases in effort towards the end of the block. The ratio of recovery rides required for this type of training is much lower than when doing interval type sessions near and above threshold.

I guess this is just going to come down to opinion, unless Froome himself comes out and tells us why he's been doing this block of rides in the way he has (even then would anyone believe him?). But the refusal to accept that this could possibly, just possibly be a 'normal' block of training, for someone who is by definition a freakishly 'abnormal' athlete surprises me.
 
Latest brainstorm from Rai's Beppe Conte:
The Giro's lawyer should send a legal letter to Team Sky
passing on responsibility to them in the
case if CF wins the Giro then gets banned.
Team Sky would have to pick up the tab for any
legal challenge by any sponsors for any damage to their image.
Froome wouldn't start if Sky refused that indemnity clause.


Sounds just to me.
 
brownbobby said:
53*11 said:
brownbobby said:
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.

froomes january/feb training has been far more than normal! on strava hes posted over 6400kms , at altitude, many weeks doing 6 x 200++ kms , and many rides being motor paced @ 45kph + average speed, seemingly trying to replicate a grand tour pace. hes posted very few recovery rides. he also made a point of posting his rides on strava whihc is unusual for him (previously he had only 2000km on strava. if you compare his rides with other riders on strava like gesink, thibaut, ten dams and others, they are on targeted training camps with a lot of recovery rides also. it appears that CF was trying to replicate some aspect of a GT to try to shore up a defence ont he #AAF, and also to get ready for the ruta del sol, and maybe mostly to increase pressure on race organisers and UCI, eg to make UCI call his bluff.
Amazing. A GT rider trying to replicate some aspect of a GT in training. Yikes, whatever next? Marathon runners running long distances in training?? :confused:

Who are we to judge what's normal and not normal, when it comes to what training looks like for the greatest (or at least most successful) GT rider of a generation, and one of the most successful of all time. Why on earth would you expect his training to look the same as the riders you've listed above, riders without a GT success to their name? Froome is probably doping....doping doesn't just allow you to turn up on race day and smash everybody, its the ability to train harder and recover faster where the biggest gains are seen.

Here's a quote from some estimation of Froomes Strava data that someone posted earlier up this thread:

... 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'

For someone with a threshold far north of 400w at peak, 200w is pure aerobic endurance pace, even 321 watts is barely breaking a sweat. One of the first rides he posted, the one where he included his HR data (before hurriedly realising this was a mistake and removing it) showed similar stats and levels of exertion. Most of his rides have been at similar pace with a few increases in effort towards the end of the block. The ratio of recovery rides required for this type of training is much lower than when doing interval type sessions near and above threshold.

I guess this is just going to come down to opinion, unless Froome himself comes out and tells us why he's been doing this block of rides in the way he has (even then would anyone believe him?). But the refusal to accept that this could possibly, just possibly be a 'normal' block of training, for someone who is by definition a freakishly 'abnormal' athlete surprises me.
its news management...nothing more...his strava records are very sporadic and very scant...up until he is embroiled in a doping scandal.....those with inquiring minds might wonder if this sudden and uncharacteristic release and a ongoing doping investigation are associated.......................

he's bustin' his ass...what are you doing

we've seen the narrative before and we'll see it again...
 
Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
Latest brainstorm from Rai's Beppe Conte:
The Giro's lawyer should send a legal letter to Team Sky
passing on responsibility to them in the
case if CF wins the Giro then gets banned.
Team Sky would have to pick up the tab for any
legal challenge by any sponsors for any damage to their image.
Froome wouldn't start if Sky refused that indemnity clause.


Sounds just to me.
Sounds very easy to challenge and get dismissed in court to me.
 
PS if you want to know how that works just google strava and Chris Froome...the banners links tell their own story "huge" miles, "massive" runs, "seriously impressive", "smashing big rides", "crushing massive Kms"....."emprty the tank"...to the non-cycling public that's how he wins GTs

we saw it before with the headlines generated by Swart....google that and see how many are for the esquire article and how many the subsequent 'paper'.

there are the clinic cycnics and their ilk, the knowledgeable fans and the fans that know little...the latter are by far the biggest and its them who are of interest to the commercial backers of sport, Froome and SDB
 
its news management...nothing more...his strava records are very sporadic and very scant...up until he is embroiled in a doping scandal.....those with inquiring minds might wonder if this sudden and uncharacteristic release and a ongoing doping investigation are associated.......................

he's bustin' his ***...what are you doing

we've seen the narrative before and we'll see it again...
[/quote][/quote]

I agree with this 100%.....ie the reason for posting the rides on Strava after a long absence is very deliberate and probably along the lines of what you say, also a bit of a reminder to his rivals that he doesn't intend to sit this season out.

But that's different to the question of why he's actually doing these rides in the first place...
 
Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
New Whistleblower hits the fan fanboys
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/former-team-sky-doctor-lifts-the-lid-on-teams-medical-practices-and-grey-areas/

Bartalucci on intravenous recovery, Froome, and Brailsford's mistakes

Another former Team Sky member has confirmed to Cyclingnews that riders used intravenous recovery products at other races during the spring of 2011.
Two sets of medical records, not just one on Dropbox sounds new to me and very interesting. Can anyone confirm this has/hasn't been mentioned before?
 
Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
New Whistleblower hits the fan fanboys
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/former-team-sky-doctor-lifts-the-lid-on-teams-medical-practices-and-grey-areas/

Bartalucci on intravenous recovery, Froome, and Brailsford's mistakes

Another former Team Sky member has confirmed to Cyclingnews that riders used intravenous recovery products at other races during the spring of 2011.
Oh. that's a bit disappointing...having been sucked in by the headline.

So we have a Doctor, one with a bit of an axe to grind against Brailsford/Sky, and the best he can give us is use of IV products for recovery when it was still legal (also note he's very clear that Sky stopped the practice as soon as it was made illegal). Something that Sky have neither admitted to or denied previously.

And Dave SDB is arrogant. No *** Sherlock!
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
TourOfSardinia said:
New Whistleblower hits the fan fanboys
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/former-team-sky-doctor-lifts-the-lid-on-teams-medical-practices-and-grey-areas/

Bartalucci on intravenous recovery, Froome, and Brailsford's mistakes

Another former Team Sky member has confirmed to Cyclingnews that riders used intravenous recovery products at other races during the spring of 2011.
Oh. that's a bit disappointing...having been sucked in by the headline.

So we have a Doctor, one with a bit of an axe to grind against Brailsford/Sky, and the best he can give us is use of IV products for recovery when it was still legal (also note he's very clear that Sky stopped the practice as soon as it was made illegal). Something that Sky have neither admitted to or denied previously.

And Dave SDB is arrogant. No **** Sherlock!
Axe to grind? I didn't get that impession out of the interview at all.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY