Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[53*11]

http://www.twitter.com/JournalVelo
I take it all the media types that gave Sky a hard time for lack of press access at the Tour have gone out of their way to commend them for fronting up to the press today?

A wee bit further down that timeline, the burn tweet is very good

Having now watched rather than just read the transcript I thought Froome and Brailsford presented themselves well today tbf

you must be kidding, i thought DBs comments tuesday and weds did nothing to serve their cause well

 

[brownbobby]

http://www.twitter.com/JournalVelo
I take it all the media types that gave Sky a hard time for lack of press access at the Tour have gone out of their way to commend them for fronting up to the press today?

A wee bit further down that timeline, the burn tweet is very good

Having now watched rather than just read the transcript I thought Froome and Brailsford presented themselves well today tbf

you must be kidding, i thought DBs comments tuesday and weds did nothing to serve their cause well

Nope, just my opinion on how they presented themselves.

The content of what they actually said is a different matter and will be open to different interpretations from different people. Everything is said for a reason at this stage i think.

 

[brownbobby]

I see here Ulissi just LOST the results of the stage where he tested positive. and he DNF the Giro. he keeps the Coppa Bernocchi results
https://www.procyclingstats.com/rider.php?id=140233&season=2014 …

and INRNG says this

What races could Froome lose? Under the vanilla application of the rules copied from the Ulissi case Froome would lose his Vuelta title but keep his silver medal from the Bergen worlds. Normally an athlete is stripped of all results but in the case of Ulissi he plead negligence, ie that he took a regular dose only to supply an irregular sample.


Lampre stood by its cyclist. When Ulissi’s case faced delays, it raced him in Italy’s Coppa Bernocchi one-day classic on September 16

Ulissi got 22nd and his result stands. not stripped

Ulissi ban was backdated from June 25th. he raced on Sept 16 and the result stands, he keeps his 22nd in Bernocchi

so I guess in Froome´s case, if backdated ban he´d lose the Vuelta, the race he tested positive in, and Bronze medal stays.

But you're forgetting one little thing, Ulissi cooperated with UCI right from the start. Lampre suspended him from riding right away, something Sky didn't do. Then after couple of months Ulissi and Lampre become nervous and decided to ride Coppa Bernocchi. UCI reacted immediately, and advised them to withdraw Ulissi from competition. Lampre obeyed, and Ulissi got a ban of 9 months out of max 24.

Now how do you think your boy Froome will go through this? Sky didn't suspend him even after UCI president himself spoke up publicly, and he'll race despite them. And all that without full-backing of his own team! UCI wiill ask for max punishment, and I think he will be more than happy with a year, with all results stripped.

Where did you get this from?

Admittedly, the scant comments from SDB earlier in the process suggested Sky were hedging their bets a little bit by not backing him fully. But this was just interpretation rather than fact. We have no idea what Sky have/havent been doing officially to support Froome.

Then yesterday we have an interview from SDB where he really couldn't be clearer in giving the impression of unequivocal support for Froome..

 

[53*11]

Where did you get this from?

Admittedly, the scant comments from SDB earlier in the process suggested Sky were hedging their bets a little bit by not backing him fully. But this was just interpretation rather than fact. We have no idea what Sky have/havent been doing officially to support Froome.

Then yesterday we have an interview from SDB where he really couldn't be clearer in giving the impression of unequivocal support for Froome..[/quote]

except for where DB last week fully supported CFbut then added the quite important qualification 'at the moment' and then on tuesday this week where he noted that froome has done nothing wrong but 'may' have taken too many puffs of his inhaler, its DB/sky double speak and its hardly unequivocal and DB has a long list of staff and riders hes dropped when its been expedient or necessary for him to do so

 

[brownbobby]

Where did you get this from?

Admittedly, the scant comments from SDB earlier in the process suggested Sky were hedging their bets a little bit by not backing him fully. But this was just interpretation rather than fact. We have no idea what Sky have/havent been doing officially to support Froome.

Then yesterday we have an interview from SDB where he really couldn't be clearer in giving the impression of unequivocal support for Froome..

except for where DB last week fully supported CFbut then added the quite important qualification 'at the moment' and then on tuesday this week where he noted that froome has done nothing wrong but 'may' have taken too many puffs of his inhaler, its DB/sky double speak and its hardly unequivocal and DB has a long list of staff and riders hes dropped when its been expedient or necessary for him to do so[/quote]

Yesterday's quote, the one i specifically referred to:

Brailsford declined to specify Team Sky's precise role in Froome's legal defence but said the rider had the team's backing.

"I'm not going to go into great detail about it, but 100 percent we're behind him and 100 percent backing him. We've got full knowledge of the situation and we're working closely to resolve the situation," Brailsford said.

100%. It doesnt get more unequivocal than that.

That's not to say i don't agree with your other points, or that he wont say something different next time out. But that wasn't what i said in my post which you've chosen to quote.

Any leader, in any walk of life, with responsibility for the longevity of an organisation and the employ of hundreds of people, would be absolutely crazy to tie him/herself irreversibly to the outcome of one individuals fate. So i'm more surprised that he came out with what he did yesterday, than what he's said previously.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Oh come on John....

Let's say conservatively Nairò is doing 20km/h.

Froome comes through at least 4 times that speed.

Difficult to be precise from a 2 second clip, but I'm seeing cadence well above 300rpm.

So im guesstimating Froome at 80km/h (that's gonna be way over 2000 watts) spinning at 300 rpm up Ventoux.

So yeah, we could believe the clip is genuine, not sped up in anyway.

Or we could just accept reality...

Don't be so lazy!

I picked two obvious spectators as markers and timed each rider a few times. Quintana took 5 seconds and Froome took 3, with a measurement error of ~0.5 seconds. So not quite twice as fast, but a rough estimate is that Froome was going ~160% of Quintana's speed. That would be on the order of 25 km/hr for Quintana and 40 km/hr for Froome.

Uness you think the original video is a fake? I guess if there were some evidence of that I could accept it. Otherwise it's obvious that Froome is the fake.

John Swanson

 

[brownbobby]

Oh come on John....

Let's say conservatively Nairò is doing 20km/h.

Froome comes through at least 4 times that speed.

Difficult to be precise from a 2 second clip, but I'm seeing cadence well above 300rpm.

So im guesstimating Froome at 80km/h (that's gonna be way over 2000 watts) spinning at 300 rpm up Ventoux.

So yeah, we could believe the clip is genuine, not sped up in anyway.

Or we could just accept reality...

Don't be so lazy!

I picked two obvious spectators as markers and timed each rider a few times. Quintana took 5 seconds and Froome took 3, with a measurement error of ~0.5 seconds. So not quite twice as fast, but a rough estimate is that Froome was going ~160% of Quintana's speed. That would be on the order of 25 km/hr for Quintana and 40 km/hr for Froome.

Uness you think the original video is a fake? I guess if there were some evidence of that I could accept it. Otherwise it's obvious that Froome is the fake.

John Swanson

Quintana took 5 seconds, Froome 3.

The video clip i watched was 2 seconds long....how on earth did you get those timings

 

[Blanco]

I see here Ulissi just LOST the results of the stage where he tested positive. and he DNF the Giro. he keeps the Coppa Bernocchi results
https://www.procyclingstats.com/rider.php?id=140233&season=2014 …

and INRNG says this

What races could Froome lose? Under the vanilla application of the rules copied from the Ulissi case Froome would lose his Vuelta title but keep his silver medal from the Bergen worlds. Normally an athlete is stripped of all results but in the case of Ulissi he plead negligence, ie that he took a regular dose only to supply an irregular sample.


Lampre stood by its cyclist. When Ulissi’s case faced delays, it raced him in Italy’s Coppa Bernocchi one-day classic on September 16

Ulissi got 22nd and his result stands. not stripped

Ulissi ban was backdated from June 25th. he raced on Sept 16 and the result stands, he keeps his 22nd in Bernocchi

so I guess in Froome´s case, if backdated ban he´d lose the Vuelta, the race he tested positive in, and Bronze medal stays.

But you're forgetting one little thing, Ulissi cooperated with UCI right from the start. Lampre suspended him from riding right away, something Sky didn't do. Then after couple of months Ulissi and Lampre become nervous and decided to ride Coppa Bernocchi. UCI reacted immediately, and advised them to withdraw Ulissi from competition. Lampre obeyed, and Ulissi got a ban of 9 months out of max 24.

Now how do you think your boy Froome will go through this? Sky didn't suspend him even after UCI president himself spoke up publicly, and he'll race despite them. And all that without full-backing of his own team! UCI wiill ask for max punishment, and I think he will be more than happy with a year, with all results stripped.

Where did you get this from?

Admittedly, the scant comments from SDB earlier in the process suggested Sky were hedging their bets a little bit by not backing him fully. But this was just interpretation rather than fact. We have no idea what Sky have/havent been doing officially to support Froome.

Then yesterday we have an interview from SDB where he really couldn't be clearer in giving the impression of unequivocal support for Froome..

Where did I get that from? :surprised:
Let me remind you:
First, there was a silence from the team. Total silence! Only a tiny statement in which they confirm that Froome had an AAF finding.
Than after two months Sir Dave finally speaks, backing Froome hundred percent, at the moment!
And then after couple of weeks, great Sir Dave speaks again, convincing us that it is not about the urine sample (yet it precisely is about that, which is by the way twice as limited), but about number of puffs that Froome took I guess in the end Sir Dave will tell that Froome lied him about the puffs :lol:
To summarize: To me it looks like Sir Dave is thinking how to find the way out for himself and the team of all this. To me it looks like Sir Dave will not hesitate one second to throw Froome under the bus. Heck they don't even want to pay his lawyer!
To full-backing of a rider with ongoing doping case look to Orica in Simon Yates case and Caisse D'Epargne with Valverde.

 

[brownbobby]

I see here Ulissi just LOST the results of the stage where he tested positive. and he DNF the Giro. he keeps the Coppa Bernocchi results
https://www.procyclingstats.com/rider.php?id=140233&season=2014 …

and INRNG says this

What races could Froome lose? Under the vanilla application of the rules copied from the Ulissi case Froome would lose his Vuelta title but keep his silver medal from the Bergen worlds. Normally an athlete is stripped of all results but in the case of Ulissi he plead negligence, ie that he took a regular dose only to supply an irregular sample.


Lampre stood by its cyclist. When Ulissi’s case faced delays, it raced him in Italy’s Coppa Bernocchi one-day classic on September 16

Ulissi got 22nd and his result stands. not stripped

Ulissi ban was backdated from June 25th. he raced on Sept 16 and the result stands, he keeps his 22nd in Bernocchi

so I guess in Froome´s case, if backdated ban he´d lose the Vuelta, the race he tested positive in, and Bronze medal stays.

But you're forgetting one little thing, Ulissi cooperated with UCI right from the start. Lampre suspended him from riding right away, something Sky didn't do. Then after couple of months Ulissi and Lampre become nervous and decided to ride Coppa Bernocchi. UCI reacted immediately, and advised them to withdraw Ulissi from competition. Lampre obeyed, and Ulissi got a ban of 9 months out of max 24.

Now how do you think your boy Froome will go through this? Sky didn't suspend him even after UCI president himself spoke up publicly, and he'll race despite them. And all that without full-backing of his own team! UCI wiill ask for max punishment, and I think he will be more than happy with a year, with all results stripped.

Where did you get this from?

Admittedly, the scant comments from SDB earlier in the process suggested Sky were hedging their bets a little bit by not backing him fully. But this was just interpretation rather than fact. We have no idea what Sky have/havent been doing officially to support Froome.

Then yesterday we have an interview from SDB where he really couldn't be clearer in giving the impression of unequivocal support for Froome..

Where did I get that from? :surprised:
Let me remind you:
First, there was a silence from the team. Total silence! Only a tiny statement in which they confirm that Froome had an AAF finding.
Than after two months Sir Dave finally speaks, backing Froome hundred percent, at the moment!
And then after couple of weeks, great Sir Dave speaks again, convincing us that it is not about the urine sample (yet it precisely is about that, which is by the way twice as limited), but about number of puffs that Froome took I guess in the end Sir Dave will tell that Froome lied him about the puffs :lol:
To summarize: To me it looks like Sir Dave is thinking how to find the way out for himself and the team of all this. To me it looks like Sir Dave will not hesitate one second to throw Froome under the bus. Heck they don't even want to pay his lawyer!
To full-backing of a rider with ongoing doping case look to Orica in Simon Yates case and Caisse D'Epargne with Valverde.

Ok, as i thought, your own interpretation of the limited statements given supplemented by unconfirmed rumour.

Thanks for clarifying.

I'd agree that earlier statements suggested SDB would happily throw him under the bus, but yesterdays statement seemed the complete opposite, it suggested to me that win or lose, Sky are now intending to stick with Froome.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Oh come on John....

Let's say conservatively Nairò is doing 20km/h.

Froome comes through at least 4 times that speed.

Difficult to be precise from a 2 second clip, but I'm seeing cadence well above 300rpm.

So im guesstimating Froome at 80km/h (that's gonna be way over 2000 watts) spinning at 300 rpm up Ventoux.

So yeah, we could believe the clip is genuine, not sped up in anyway.

Or we could just accept reality...

Don't be so lazy!

I picked two obvious spectators as markers and timed each rider a few times. Quintana took 5 seconds and Froome took 3, with a measurement error of ~0.5 seconds. So not quite twice as fast, but a rough estimate is that Froome was going ~160% of Quintana's speed. That would be on the order of 25 km/hr for Quintana and 40 km/hr for Froome.

Uness you think the original video is a fake? I guess if there were some evidence of that I could accept it. Otherwise it's obvious that Froome is the fake.

John Swanson

Quintana took 5 seconds, Froome 3.

The video clip i watched was 2 seconds long....how on earth did you get those timings

The original video is much longer

John Swanson

edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFxHD0P51-I <--- See? It's only 19 seconds long so it won't take much effort.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

That 19s video does make one beggar belief.
It the kind of difference one see in cyclocross.

 

[rick james]

Oh come on John....

Let's say conservatively Nairò is doing 20km/h.

Froome comes through at least 4 times that speed.

Difficult to be precise from a 2 second clip, but I'm seeing cadence well above 300rpm.

So im guesstimating Froome at 80km/h (that's gonna be way over 2000 watts) spinning at 300 rpm up Ventoux.

So yeah, we could believe the clip is genuine, not sped up in anyway.

Or we could just accept reality...

Don't be so lazy!

I picked two obvious spectators as markers and timed each rider a few times. Quintana took 5 seconds and Froome took 3, with a measurement error of ~0.5 seconds. So not quite twice as fast, but a rough estimate is that Froome was going ~160% of Quintana's speed. That would be on the order of 25 km/hr for Quintana and 40 km/hr for Froome.

Uness you think the original video is a fake? I guess if there were some evidence of that I could accept it. Otherwise it's obvious that Froome is the fake.

John Swanson

Quintana took 5 seconds, Froome 3.

The video clip i watched was 2 seconds long....how on earth did you get those timings

The voodoo is strong

 

[Gregga]

Froome was cruising at almost 30kmh up Ventoux according to the leaked file... Nairo probably at a more normal 20

https://twitter.com/oufeh/status/964084194140925952

 

[simoni]

Oh come on John....

Let's say conservatively Nairò is doing 20km/h.

Froome comes through at least 4 times that speed.

Difficult to be precise from a 2 second clip, but I'm seeing cadence well above 300rpm.

So im guesstimating Froome at 80km/h (that's gonna be way over 2000 watts) spinning at 300 rpm up Ventoux.

So yeah, we could believe the clip is genuine, not sped up in anyway.

Or we could just accept reality...

Don't be so lazy!

I picked two obvious spectators as markers and timed each rider a few times. Quintana took 5 seconds and Froome took 3, with a measurement error of ~0.5 seconds. So not quite twice as fast, but a rough estimate is that Froome was going ~160% of Quintana's speed. That would be on the order of 25 km/hr for Quintana and 40 km/hr for Froome.

Uness you think the original video is a fake? I guess if there were some evidence of that I could accept it. Otherwise it's obvious that Froome is the fake.

John Swanson

Quintana took 5 seconds, Froome 3.

The video clip i watched was 2 seconds long....how on earth did you get those timings

The original video is much longer

John Swanson

edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFxHD0P51-I <--- See? It's only 19 seconds long so it won't take much effort.

I get Froome in shot for 2.5 seconds at the most and the shot of him is pretty wobbly. Based on timing him through a section of road where I can reasonably reliably place him wrt spectators (from a shadow across the road where Froome enters shot to a brighly multicoloured dressed guy on the left apprx where he leaves shot) I get him at c2sec, Quintana c2.5.

No doubt he's quicker but I think the difference is about half the 40% being implied.

Not that it means much anyway - I don't think many scientists would base any significant claims on 2.5 seconds of the 20mins or so between Quintana's attack and the summit. In short, to me this proves and disproves nothing.

 

[brownbobby]

Oh come on John....

Let's say conservatively Nairò is doing 20km/h.

Froome comes through at least 4 times that speed.

Difficult to be precise from a 2 second clip, but I'm seeing cadence well above 300rpm.

So im guesstimating Froome at 80km/h (that's gonna be way over 2000 watts) spinning at 300 rpm up Ventoux.

So yeah, we could believe the clip is genuine, not sped up in anyway.

Or we could just accept reality...

Don't be so lazy!

I picked two obvious spectators as markers and timed each rider a few times. Quintana took 5 seconds and Froome took 3, with a measurement error of ~0.5 seconds. So not quite twice as fast, but a rough estimate is that Froome was going ~160% of Quintana's speed. That would be on the order of 25 km/hr for Quintana and 40 km/hr for Froome.

Uness you think the original video is a fake? I guess if there were some evidence of that I could accept it. Otherwise it's obvious that Froome is the fake.

John Swanson

Quintana took 5 seconds, Froome 3.

The video clip i watched was 2 seconds long....how on earth did you get those timings

The original video is much longer

John Swanson

edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFxHD0P51-I <--- See? It's only 19 seconds long so it won't take much effort.

So, let me get this straight...you're now using the original video, which clearly does show different but still plausible difference in speed between the 2 riders, to somehow give credibility to a ridiculously edited and speeded up mash of the original video which shows completely implausible difference in speed between said 2 riders.

Voodoo science indeed.

I eagerly await the next time you have the balls to accuse 'fanboys' of obfuscation and sleight of hand.

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

That 19s video does make one beggar belief.
It the kind of difference one see in cyclocross.

Just to clarify - I've always agreed that Froome's performance on Ventoux 2013 was out of this world, not normal. I love watching it for the sheer fantasy of it all.

But the clip referenced above is so poorly done it beggars belief that anyone would give it even the slightest hint of credibility.

 

[MartinGT]

Daw won on the same MTF as they have today in 2015. Could be interesting today.....

 

[MartinGT]

He's just been on ES in an interview. Saying he didnt feel great yesterday.

 

[red_flanders]

Yesterday's quote, the one i specifically referred to:

Brailsford declined to specify Team Sky's precise role in Froome's legal defence but said the rider had the team's backing.

"I'm not going to go into great detail about it, but 100 percent we're behind him and 100 percent backing him. We've got full knowledge of the situation and we're working closely to resolve the situation," Brailsford said.

100%. It doesnt get more unequivocal than that.

That's not to say i don't agree with your other points, or that he wont say something different next time out. But that wasn't what i said in my post which you've chosen to quote.

Any leader, in any walk of life, with responsibility for the longevity of an organisation and the employ of hundreds of people, would be absolutely crazy to tie him/herself irreversibly to the outcome of one individuals fate. So i'm more surprised that he came out with what he did yesterday, than what he's said previously.

Not sure why this is surprising . It sounds good now, so it’s useful for him to say it. He’ll simply say whatever he needs to later, no matter if it is 180 degrees from his stance today, like he has on a hundred other topics.

 

[gillan1969]

Yesterday's quote, the one i specifically referred to:

Brailsford declined to specify Team Sky's precise role in Froome's legal defence but said the rider had the team's backing.

"I'm not going to go into great detail about it, but 100 percent we're behind him and 100 percent backing him. We've got full knowledge of the situation and we're working closely to resolve the situation," Brailsford said.

100%. It doesnt get more unequivocal than that.

That's not to say i don't agree with your other points, or that he wont say something different next time out. But that wasn't what i said in my post which you've chosen to quote.

Any leader, in any walk of life, with responsibility for the longevity of an organisation and the employ of hundreds of people, would be absolutely crazy to tie him/herself irreversibly to the outcome of one individuals fate. So i'm more surprised that he came out with what he did yesterday, than what he's said previously.

Not sure why this is surprising . It sounds good now, so it’s useful for him to say it. He’ll simply say whatever he needs to later, no matter if it is 180 degrees from his stance today, like he has on a hundred other topics.

brailsfords gonna brail.....

i like that

Brail (v) to brail - invitation to the clinic to suggest a suitable defintion for to brail :lol:

 

[brownbobby]

Yesterday's quote, the one i specifically referred to:

Brailsford declined to specify Team Sky's precise role in Froome's legal defence but said the rider had the team's backing.

"I'm not going to go into great detail about it, but 100 percent we're behind him and 100 percent backing him. We've got full knowledge of the situation and we're working closely to resolve the situation," Brailsford said.

100%. It doesnt get more unequivocal than that.

That's not to say i don't agree with your other points, or that he wont say something different next time out. But that wasn't what i said in my post which you've chosen to quote.

Any leader, in any walk of life, with responsibility for the longevity of an organisation and the employ of hundreds of people, would be absolutely crazy to tie him/herself irreversibly to the outcome of one individuals fate. So i'm more surprised that he came out with what he did yesterday, than what he's said previously.

Not sure why this is surprising . It sounds good now, so it’s useful for him to say it. He’ll simply say whatever he needs to later, no matter if it is 180 degrees from his stance today, like he has on a hundred other topics.

For once we're not far from being in agreement; I said i was more surprised at yesterdays statement than previous ones. Which didn't surprise me at all...

 

[53*11]

Where did you get this from?

Admittedly, the scant comments from SDB earlier in the process suggested Sky were hedging their bets a little bit by not backing him fully. But this was just interpretation rather than fact. We have no idea what Sky have/havent been doing officially to support Froome.

Then yesterday we have an interview from SDB where he really couldn't be clearer in giving the impression of unequivocal support for Froome..

except for where DB last week fully supported CFbut then added the quite important qualification 'at the moment' and then on tuesday this week where he noted that froome has done nothing wrong but 'may' have taken too many puffs of his inhaler, its DB/sky double speak and its hardly unequivocal and DB has a long list of staff and riders hes dropped when its been expedient or necessary for him to do so

Yesterday's quote, the one i specifically referred to:

Brailsford declined to specify Team Sky's precise role in Froome's legal defence but said the rider had the team's backing.

"I'm not going to go into great detail about it, but 100 percent we're behind him and 100 percent backing him. We've got full knowledge of the situation and we're working closely to resolve the situation," Brailsford said.

100%. It doesnt get more unequivocal than that.

That's not to say i don't agree with your other points, or that he wont say something different next time out. But that wasn't what i said in my post which you've chosen to quote.

Any leader, in any walk of life, with responsibility for the longevity of an organisation and the employ of hundreds of people, would be absolutely crazy to tie him/herself irreversibly to the outcome of one individuals fate. So i'm more surprised that he came out with what he did yesterday, than what he's said previously.[/quote]

what i said BB! eg from day to day DB will change his story, tuesday he was pointedly noting that maybe CF took too many puffs ; he claims ''We've got full knowledge of the situation and we're working closely to resolve the situation," - after 5 months the case is still open and sky have not explained the huge excess of salb in cf's a+b samples...

 

[Craigee]

Oh come on John....

Let's say conservatively Nairò is doing 20km/h.

Froome comes through at least 4 times that speed.

Difficult to be precise from a 2 second clip, but I'm seeing cadence well above 300rpm.

So im guesstimating Froome at 80km/h (that's gonna be way over 2000 watts) spinning at 300 rpm up Ventoux.

So yeah, we could believe the clip is genuine, not sped up in anyway.

Or we could just accept reality...

Don't be so lazy!

I picked two obvious spectators as markers and timed each rider a few times. Quintana took 5 seconds and Froome took 3, with a measurement error of ~0.5 seconds. So not quite twice as fast, but a rough estimate is that Froome was going ~160% of Quintana's speed. That would be on the order of 25 km/hr for Quintana and 40 km/hr for Froome.

Uness you think the original video is a fake? I guess if there were some evidence of that I could accept it. Otherwise it's obvious that Froome is the fake.

John Swanson

Quintana took 5 seconds, Froome 3.

The video clip i watched was 2 seconds long....how on earth did you get those timings

The original video is much longer

John Swanson

edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFxHD0P51-I <--- See? It's only 19 seconds long so it won't take much effort.

I get Froome in shot for 2.5 seconds at the most and the shot of him is pretty wobbly. Based on timing him through a section of road where I can reasonably reliably place him wrt spectators (from a shadow across the road where Froome enters shot to a brighly multicoloured dressed guy on the left apprx where he leaves shot) I get him at c2sec, Quintana c2.5.

No doubt he's quicker but I think the difference is about half the 40% being implied.

Not that it means much anyway - I don't think many scientists would base any significant claims on 2.5 seconds of the 20mins or so between Quintana's attack and the summit. In short, to me this proves and disproves nothing.

Proves nothing to you and nothing ever would. Even If he confessed you'd still deny it, but it proves Froome is using a motor to me. Either that or it's more proof he's from another planet.

 

[gillan1969]

after SDB saying its all about the puffs and not the urine, Walsh suggesting that Froome's large lungs might be why he's recorded double the dose

the defence is beginning to look as though they maintain innocence and throw up enough red herrings to keep the fans happy for his return post inevitable ban...

 

[simoni]

@craigee

You know nothing about me.

If you're interested I like to consider evidence as its put to me and make my own mind up.

Most of the stuff we've found out about sky/froome, esp over the last 18months is extremely incriminating to my eye. It needs expaining properly and hasn't been so far and I doubt it ever will.

But more than anything else I hate to see valid evidence and worthwhile conversation blurred by nonsense. The analysis of this video I see above, to my mind, is utter crap.