Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1189 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
Oude Geuze said:
Contador last vuelta, Nibali in the ‘16 giro are two recent examples. I find it hard to believe he just started doping yesterday and made insane progress. Why wait until now when it’s more suspicious to suddenly get a boost than being strong all the way? What would you need to take for such an improvement? Corticosteroids, high dose salbutamol, tramadol and a blood bag? Did they suddenly stop testing stage winners and top 10 in the giro? And if it’s all TUE, then that’s pretty much what they all do so why did Froome improve so much?
Alternatively, Froome came into the giro regularly TUE’ed up, a bit undercooked and then fell twice, but gradually recovered after rest day and two easy days. To say that’s physiologically impossible seems strange.
This. It just makes sense. Slightly undercooked and hampered by some swelling and muscle soreness, maybe some bad sleep after the crashes. Now his form is getting there and the soreness is gone. Of course, that's not to say he's not doping, but it's most probably just his normal program. Beating Yates, Pozzovivo and Lopez by a few seconds, is hardly Ventoux 2013 or PSM 2015 type levels either. Much more in line with his best form of the last two years.
Applied to a rider with a different history, maybe. But applied to froome it amounts to just smuggling in a premise that he developed in a regular manner, ie erasing his history. It amounts to arguing that there is more to froome than doping. This is a big leap of faith.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
Oude Geuze said:
Contador last vuelta, Nibali in the ‘16 giro are two recent examples. I find it hard to believe he just started doping yesterday and made insane progress. Why wait until now when it’s more suspicious to suddenly get a boost than being strong all the way? What would you need to take for such an improvement? Corticosteroids, high dose salbutamol, tramadol and a blood bag? Did they suddenly stop testing stage winners and top 10 in the giro? And if it’s all TUE, then that’s pretty much what they all do so why did Froome improve so much?
Alternatively, Froome came into the giro regularly TUE’ed up, a bit undercooked and then fell twice, but gradually recovered after rest day and two easy days. To say that’s physiologically impossible seems strange.
This. It just makes sense. Slightly undercooked and hampered by some swelling and muscle soreness, maybe some bad sleep after the crashes. Now his form is getting there and the soreness is gone. Of course, that's not to say he's not doping, but it's most probably just his normal program. Beating Yates, Pozzovivo and Lopez by a few seconds, is hardly Ventoux 2013 or PSM 2015 type levels either. Much more in line with his best form of the last two years.
He climbed the zoncolan a minute faster than robobasso, three days after getting dropped and losing 40s to Osimo. I could believe if it were 10-20s, but 40s is not just average soreness that you get over quickly, unless Froome is genuinely made of glass. You don't make that transformation that quickly. Don't get me wrong, I do think the crashes have hampered him, but he needed some seriously strong painkiller or blood booster to improve his performance to this extent so quickly
 
Re:

Põhja Konn said:
So, he became desperate enough to pull a PSM again. That climbing time is completely unreal and given what a pile of dawg-s**t his form had been througout the Giro, this performance today overtakes PSM or Ventoux in terms of sheer absurdity.
This was nothing like PSM. Let's not forget on PSM - a one climb stage - he put in over a minute on Quintana, two minutes on Valverde, 3 minutes on Contador, 4 minutes on Nibali, 6 minutes on Purito. That was absurd.

Putting in 6 seconds on Yates, 20 seconds on Pozzovivo and 40 seconds on Dumoulin - on a far harder climb - is not remotely comparable.
 
Re: Re:

meat puppet said:
DFA123 said:
Oude Geuze said:
Contador last vuelta, Nibali in the ‘16 giro are two recent examples. I find it hard to believe he just started doping yesterday and made insane progress. Why wait until now when it’s more suspicious to suddenly get a boost than being strong all the way? What would you need to take for such an improvement? Corticosteroids, high dose salbutamol, tramadol and a blood bag? Did they suddenly stop testing stage winners and top 10 in the giro? And if it’s all TUE, then that’s pretty much what they all do so why did Froome improve so much?
Alternatively, Froome came into the giro regularly TUE’ed up, a bit undercooked and then fell twice, but gradually recovered after rest day and two easy days. To say that’s physiologically impossible seems strange.
This. It just makes sense. Slightly undercooked and hampered by some swelling and muscle soreness, maybe some bad sleep after the crashes. Now his form is getting there and the soreness is gone. Of course, that's not to say he's not doping, but it's most probably just his normal program. Beating Yates, Pozzovivo and Lopez by a few seconds, is hardly Ventoux 2013 or PSM 2015 type levels either. Much more in line with his best form of the last two years.
Applied to a rider with a different history, maybe. But applied to froome it amounts to just smuggling in a premise that he developed in a regular manner, ie erasing his history. It amounts to arguing that there is more to froome than doping. This is a big leap of faith.
No, it's not a defence of Froome, or forgetting his history, at all. It's simply stating that other factors (non-clinic stuff) play a big role in races as well. And crashes, and recovery from them, is a huge factor. I understand this is The Clinic and, to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. But there are other explanations for swings in performance.

It is absolutely consistent for crashes to take their toll for a few days while there is a lot of swelling, road rash causing sleeping issues and muscles soreness. And then for that to almost completely disappear once the swelling goes away and the scabs form. And that makes much more sense to me, than a belief that Froome has taken a BB or suddenly resumed a doping program (like he ever would have stopped!).

It's not a leap of faith, because I don't for one second believe that Sky and Froome would have stopped or changed the program he has been using for the last seven years ahead of this Giro, whatever that is. It works and it's largely not detectable. Why would they stop using it - knowing the consequences - only to start using it again immediately before the most high profile stage in the race?
 
Re: Re:

Brullnux said:
DFA123 said:
Oude Geuze said:
Contador last vuelta, Nibali in the ‘16 giro are two recent examples. I find it hard to believe he just started doping yesterday and made insane progress. Why wait until now when it’s more suspicious to suddenly get a boost than being strong all the way? What would you need to take for such an improvement? Corticosteroids, high dose salbutamol, tramadol and a blood bag? Did they suddenly stop testing stage winners and top 10 in the giro? And if it’s all TUE, then that’s pretty much what they all do so why did Froome improve so much?
Alternatively, Froome came into the giro regularly TUE’ed up, a bit undercooked and then fell twice, but gradually recovered after rest day and two easy days. To say that’s physiologically impossible seems strange.
This. It just makes sense. Slightly undercooked and hampered by some swelling and muscle soreness, maybe some bad sleep after the crashes. Now his form is getting there and the soreness is gone. Of course, that's not to say he's not doping, but it's most probably just his normal program. Beating Yates, Pozzovivo and Lopez by a few seconds, is hardly Ventoux 2013 or PSM 2015 type levels either. Much more in line with his best form of the last two years.
He climbed the zoncolan a minute faster than robobasso, three days after getting dropped and losing 40s to Osimo. I could believe if it were 10-20s, but 40s is not just average soreness that you get over quickly, unless Froome is genuinely made of glass. You don't make that transformation that quickly. Don't get me wrong, I do think the crashes have hampered him, but he needed some seriously strong painkiller or blood booster to improve his performance to this extent so quickly
You have to put the time in context. There were some average (relatively speaking) climbers went up there very quickly today....suggests to me that conditions were favourable in way or another
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
meat puppet said:
DFA123 said:
Oude Geuze said:
Contador last vuelta, Nibali in the ‘16 giro are two recent examples. I find it hard to believe he just started doping yesterday and made insane progress. Why wait until now when it’s more suspicious to suddenly get a boost than being strong all the way? What would you need to take for such an improvement? Corticosteroids, high dose salbutamol, tramadol and a blood bag? Did they suddenly stop testing stage winners and top 10 in the giro? And if it’s all TUE, then that’s pretty much what they all do so why did Froome improve so much?
Alternatively, Froome came into the giro regularly TUE’ed up, a bit undercooked and then fell twice, but gradually recovered after rest day and two easy days. To say that’s physiologically impossible seems strange.
This. It just makes sense. Slightly undercooked and hampered by some swelling and muscle soreness, maybe some bad sleep after the crashes. Now his form is getting there and the soreness is gone. Of course, that's not to say he's not doping, but it's most probably just his normal program. Beating Yates, Pozzovivo and Lopez by a few seconds, is hardly Ventoux 2013 or PSM 2015 type levels either. Much more in line with his best form of the last two years.
Applied to a rider with a different history, maybe. But applied to froome it amounts to just smuggling in a premise that he developed in a regular manner, ie erasing his history. It amounts to arguing that there is more to froome than doping. This is a big leap of faith.
No, it's not a defence of Froome, or forgetting his history, at all. It's simply stating that other factors (non-clinic stuff) play a big role in races as well. And crashes, and recovery from them, is a huge factor. I understand this is The Clinic and, to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. But there are other explanations for swings in performance.

It is absolutely consistent for crashes to take their toll for a few days while there is a lot of swelling, road rash causing sleeping issues and muscles soreness. And then for that to almost completely disappear once the swelling goes away and the scabs form. And that makes much more sense to me, than a belief that Froome has taken a BB or suddenly resumed a doping program (like he ever would have stopped!).

It's not a leap of faith, because I don't for one second believe that Sky and Froome would have stopped or changed the program he has been using for the last seven years ahead of this Giro, whatever that is. It works and it's largely not detectable. Why would they stop using it - knowing the consequences - only to start using it again immediately before the most high profile stage in the race?
I dont dispute most of what you say and would acknowledge the stuff you refer to as a set of possible proximate causes. I merely argued that with froome the ultimate causes will be chemical. Whether this renders proximate causes moot is for everyone to determine. To me they are, mostly.

And why would he not do a BB? As studies show, it is quite easy to cheat the biopass and probably dropping a bag or two was the plan all along.
 
Re: Re:

meat puppet said:
I dont dispute most of what you say and would acknowledge the stuff you refer to as a set of possible proximate causes. I merely argued that with froome the ultimate causes will be chemical. Whether this renders proximate causes moot is for everyone to determine. To me they are, mostly.

And why would he not do a BB? As studies show, it is quite easy to cheat the biopass and probably dropping a bag or two was the plan all along.
He certainly could do a BB. I just meant that I don't think there has suddenly been a switch from whatever Froome has been doing for the last few years. His poor form last week, imo, is most probably explained by his crashes and being a bit undercooked - and his current form is not far from what we would have seen in the first week without the crashes.

I agree that any discussion around Froome is obviously framed by doping - both what we know he takes, and what we don't know for sure. But I think variation of his performances within tours are most explained by other factors.
 
Re:

LaFlorecita said:
He lost 40 seconds on a tiny hill 3 days ago. He's been crap for two full weeks. And now he's suddenly the best climber in the race. If you believe that's possible with no doping (physical or mechanical) involved....
And what happened right before the final climb on Wednesday? Could it be material to the time loss?
 
Re: Re:

Brullnux said:
DFA123 said:
Oude Geuze said:
Contador last vuelta, Nibali in the ‘16 giro are two recent examples. I find it hard to believe he just started doping yesterday and made insane progress. Why wait until now when it’s more suspicious to suddenly get a boost than being strong all the way? What would you need to take for such an improvement? Corticosteroids, high dose salbutamol, tramadol and a blood bag? Did they suddenly stop testing stage winners and top 10 in the giro? And if it’s all TUE, then that’s pretty much what they all do so why did Froome improve so much?
Alternatively, Froome came into the giro regularly TUE’ed up, a bit undercooked and then fell twice, but gradually recovered after rest day and two easy days. To say that’s physiologically impossible seems strange.
This. It just makes sense. Slightly undercooked and hampered by some swelling and muscle soreness, maybe some bad sleep after the crashes. Now his form is getting there and the soreness is gone. Of course, that's not to say he's not doping, but it's most probably just his normal program. Beating Yates, Pozzovivo and Lopez by a few seconds, is hardly Ventoux 2013 or PSM 2015 type levels either. Much more in line with his best form of the last two years.
He climbed the zoncolan a minute faster than robobasso, three days after getting dropped and losing 40s to Osimo. I could believe if it were 10-20s, but 40s is not just average soreness that you get over quickly, unless Froome is genuinely made of glass. You don't make that transformation that quickly. Don't get me wrong, I do think the crashes have hampered him, but he needed some seriously strong painkiller or blood booster to improve his performance to this extent so quickly
What's strange is that, just like Nibali in '16, he improved so much over the span of 3 days. And I think Nibali at Andalo was still better than Froome at Osimo, Nibali was attacking that day and blew up in the final. I'm thinking mechanical doping may have something to do today's performance tbh.
 
Nibali in 2016 at least looked like he was in the race and competing to win it. He was trying and attacking and he blew up. Plus he's never exactly been the most consistent rider in the first place. That does not mean he wasn't doping.
This due to how Froome has been racing this Giro so far is a bit too miraculous to me.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
Ok...Just to state the obvious. If Froome doped to win today, why didn't he dope to at least be competitive last week?

Well he missed the helicopter ride where he was probably going to drop a bag. Looks like he did on the 2nd rest day let the legs unblock on the two flats stages to go bomb today!
 
Re:

macbindle said:
Ok...Just to state the obvious. If Froome doped to win today, why didn't he dope to at least be competitive last week?
That's a bit of a non-sequitur, because doping to win today doesn't prove or disprove that he didn't dope last week. Doping is not the only variable behind being competitive or not.
 
Re: Re:

JosephK said:
macbindle said:
Ok...Just to state the obvious. If Froome doped to win today, why didn't he dope to at least be competitive last week?
If Floyd Landis doped to win on the ride to Morzine in the 2006 TDF, why didn't he dope the day before, when he cracked?
If Froome no longer has a free pass for testing (missing Uncle Cookson), maybe the opportunities are more limited.
 
Re:

Koronin said:
Nibali in 2016 at least looked like he was in the race and competing to win it. He was trying and attacking and he blew up. Plus he's never exactly been the most consistent rider in the first place. That does not mean he wasn't doping.
This due to how Froome has been racing this Giro so far is a bit too miraculous to me.
I never said Nibali wasn't doping.
 
Apr 3, 2016
400
0
0
Blood bags are not something you can “drop” at a moments notice. You tap that blood half a year in advance. You need medical team with powerful freezers to -50 C or there about. You need to smuggle the blood fresh, you need saline and a hemoglobin meter. You need diuretics and saline to balance the solution, you need to not have too high of an hematocrit/Hb when you’re dehydrated after the stage and before doping test, which means I.v treatment in the bus every day post infusion. EPO would be worse, it would cause an immediate spike in reticulocyte count which would be an adverse finding even in the absence of finding the EPO itself with biological pass.
So many people here with flippant hypothesis and grand conspiracy thinking. Either he’s pushing TUE limits, or he’s a protected rider from high up and doesn’t get tested and Sky have an old school doping program to help him out and everyone in the team knows it (festina, us postal). You can’t just be a TUE guy who “occasionally pops a blood bag in the team chopper” and not get caught. God damnit... /rant
 
Re: Re:

Forever The Best said:
Koronin said:
Nibali in 2016 at least looked like he was in the race and competing to win it. He was trying and attacking and he blew up. Plus he's never exactly been the most consistent rider in the first place. That does not mean he wasn't doping.
This due to how Froome has been racing this Giro so far is a bit too miraculous to me.
I never said Nibali wasn't doping.
You didn't. I was just saying that Nibali's 2016 ride is more believable than Froome's ride today. Actually I was using that as an example of not being nearly as suspicious as Froome today.
 
Re:

silvergrenade said:
Fastest evers ascents on Monte Zoncolan (2007-2018):

1. 39:03 Simoni
2. 39:03 Piepoli
3. 39:10 A. Schleck
4. 39:34 Di Luca
5. 39:40 Cunego
6. 39:58 Froome
7. 40:04 S. Yates
8. 40:21 Pozzovivo
9. 40:22 Cuapio
10. 40:23 M.A. Lopez

High level today!
Stratospheric!
The return of clean cycling!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY