Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[MartinGT]

Re: Re:

It is impossible to loose weight quickly and keep power. You will loose muscle. So if his numbers were okay except his weight and he lost those two KG, his power numbers would also drop.

A ketogenic diet inhibits gluconeogenesis and has a protein-sparing effect. I am riding 8 hours in a fasted state, and 70% of the energy comes from body fats. In one single ride I can burn up to 300g of fats without muscle loss.

What zone are you riding in? I.e I doubt it's in the upper Zones that a GT rider is in.

 

[topcat]

Are sky actually taking the piss? Or do they think ppl will swallow their nonsense?

 

[MartinGT]

Re:

What's he on? He's on .... BETA FUEL!!!

In a post-race interview, team director Sir Dave Brailsford consistently mentioned the nutrition strategy for the stage and claimed that it was the most important factor, and now Cyclist can reveal Froome was in fact using a secret new product from nutrition sponsor Science in Sport that day.

Codenamed 'Beta Fuel', this new product was developed in tandem with the British WorldTour team with the goal of providing the 'maximum amount of carbohydrate possible without upsetting your stomach.'

Deets

This is what gets peoples backs up about Sky. Not the new fuel, but SDB treating cyclists and fans like utter mugs. As if we didnt know that correct nutrition was key in sport. He will be telling us next that you can't win a GT on a full English next

 

[MartinGT]

Re:

Are sky actually taking the piss? Or do they think ppl will swallow their nonsense?

People do swallow it though. The sychophants will be going to the SIS page now with the Cycling Podcast discount in one hand and their peckers in the other. 'Ooooo I can be just like the Dawg, I totally didnt realise it was THIS that was missing!'

 

[samhocking]

It's marketing. Most people buying SIS products, Rapha products, Castelli products, Pinarello products need the justification to buy those instead of competitors and a story is the most powerful method in cycing. The whole of Rapha's marketing strategy is based on them inventing their own fake cycling story, history & legacy for example. It's just marketing to those that don't know and don't care to know more importantly. Team Sky is a marketing vehicle for their sponsors. Brailsford is telling the story their SIS sponsors are telling him to sell their products using. It's not complicated. Sky's talking nutrition is winning stages, because they are selling nutrition products we're watching them winning stages consuming on live TV. Pinarello are selling bikes because sky are saying they have special suspension in Paris Rouybaix, Stages are selling power meters because Kerrison is saying it allows better analysis of training methods etc etc. Teams not winning are not saying these things like Sky, because nobody wants to buy something that came second.

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

It's marketing. Most people buying SIS products, Rapha products, Castelli products, Pinarello products need the justification to buy those instead of competitors and a story is the most powerful method in cycing. The whole of Rapha's marketing strategy is based on them inventing their own fake cycling story, history & legacy for example. It's just marketing to those that don't know and don't care to know more importantly. Team Sky is a marketing vehicle for their sponsors. Brailsford is telling the story their SIS sponsors are telling him to sell their products using. It's not complicated. Sky's talking nutrition is winning stages, because they are selling nutrition products we're watching them winning stages consuming on live TV. Pinarello are selling bikes because sky are saying they have special suspension in Paris Rouybaix, Stages are selling power meters because Kerrison is saying it allows better analysis of training methods etc etc. Teams not winning are not saying these things like Sky, because nobody wants to buy something that came second.

Exactly..surely everyone can see that's all this is....it's been going on since the beginning of time in sports...Footballers claiming their new boots make them kick the ball better, runners new shoes making them go faster, golfers new clubs making them hit the ball better, Mo Farah and Quorn, the secret to his success...the list of examples is endless

Sponsors want something in return for the millions they pay out, this isn't a newly invented Sky evil.

 

[MartinGT]

Re: Re:

It's marketing. Most people buying SIS products, Rapha products, Castelli products, Pinarello products need the justification to buy those instead of competitors and a story is the most powerful method in cycing. The whole of Rapha's marketing strategy is based on them inventing their own fake cycling story, history & legacy for example. It's just marketing to those that don't know and don't care to know more importantly. Team Sky is a marketing vehicle for their sponsors. Brailsford is telling the story their SIS sponsors are telling him to sell their products using. It's not complicated. Sky's talking nutrition is winning stages, because they are selling nutrition products we're watching them winning stages consuming on live TV. Pinarello are selling bikes because sky are saying they have special suspension in Paris Rouybaix, Stages are selling power meters because Kerrison is saying it allows better analysis of training methods etc etc. Teams not winning are not saying these things like Sky, because nobody wants to buy something that came second.

Exactly..surely everyone can see that's all this is....it's been going on since the beginning of time in sports...Footballers claiming their new boots make them kick the ball better, runners new shoes making them go faster, golfers new clubs making them hit the ball better, Mo Farah and Quorn, the secret to his success...the list of examples is endless

Sponsors want something in return for the millions they pay out, this isn't a newly invented Sky evil.

I remember when the predator boots came out. Watched a great docu on how much they did change how the ball moved.

 

[ontheroad]

The SIS link is marketing, I have no problem saying that but there are countless other examples of Brailsford explaining away performance without reference to any particular products. I'm not sure whether they were marketing gravel roads and hi viz jackets last week as well.

Mostly it is *** and quite frankly it is SDB who mostly tries to sell it. Even last week he was barely seen for the whole Giro yet he was available for interview directly after Stage 19 claiming credit for the refuelling plan put together the night previous. He really would be better just letting Portal do all of the interviews though because at least he doesn't try and hoodwink the viewer.

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

It is impossible to loose weight quickly and keep power. You will loose muscle. So if his numbers were okay except his weight and he lost those two KG, his power numbers would also drop.

A ketogenic diet inhibits gluconeogenesis and has a protein-sparing effect. I am riding 8 hours in a fasted state, and 70% of the energy comes from body fats. In one single ride I can burn up to 300g of fats without muscle loss.

What zone are you riding in? I.e I doubt it's in the upper Zones that a GT rider is in.

Exactly this. One cannot produce the power necessary to compete at high level on that diet.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Michael Rasmussen's been Tweeting about this over the last few days, now he's been interviewed:

“I don’t see his performance at the Giro as a red flag,” Rasmussen told Cyclingnews.

“All the difference was made in one day, and under very extreme circumstances. You had the four-time Tour champion, on one of the hardest climbs in Europe, against riders who had nowhere near the same palmares as him, with weaker teams.”

“I know that people will be surprised with my views on this. I’m very critical towards Team Sky and their mismanagement of their own ethical rules. Trust for them has gone but if you look at the performance of just Froome, it was credible in the sense that I don’t think he cheated any of his rivals. That’s not saying that they’re all doing something but no one can convince me that Froome is riding with an engine in his bike or that he’s on kryptonite. Otherwise you’d not put yourself in a position where you’re over three minutes behind on the 19th stage. Then you’d be leading by five minutes at that point. Winning the Giro by 46 seconds is not something that you can easily calculate after racing for over 3,000 kilometres.”

 

[Winterfold]

Re: Re:

It is impossible to loose weight quickly and keep power. You will loose muscle. So if his numbers were okay except his weight and he lost those two KG, his power numbers would also drop.

A ketogenic diet inhibits gluconeogenesis and has a protein-sparing effect. I am riding 8 hours in a fasted state, and 70% of the energy comes from body fats. In one single ride I can burn up to 300g of fats without muscle loss.

What zone are you riding in? I.e I doubt it's in the upper Zones that a GT rider is in.

Exactly this. One cannot produce the power necessary to compete at high level on that diet.

I'm quoting this again, in case anyone falls for this garbage. 300gm in 8 hours = not going very fast

 

[orbifold]

Re: Re:

What zone are you riding in? I.e I doubt it's in the upper Zones that a GT rider is in.

Exactly this. One cannot produce the power necessary to compete at high level on that diet.

The standard ketogenic diet will allow you to work out, in the best of the cases, up to about 80% of your FTP. There is a targeted ketogenic diet where you carb load before a specific event, just like anyone else does. This does not kick you out of ketosis because you burn all the glycogen during your training/race. So if you were Froome, you could in principle do carb loading before a critical stage where you plan to attack full gas (think of Zoncolan or Finestre).

 

[samhocking]

So why did Froome wait 16 days to make his move on GC and shed time on 3 mountains. I honestly think it's more like Rasmussen says. Froome is in a different class to Dumoulin, Yates, Pinot, Pozzovivi. I think the crash was worse than Sky would obviously let on. It took two weeks for the tissue to repair and body to allow its resources to all go to performance instead of repairing itself and Froome was simply the only mutliple GT winner there. He's won more GTs than the entire Giro Peloton combined for example. I think therefore Rasmussen has it about right. It was a normal Froome performance exaggerated by poor quality field and the crash. I would add the crash simply distorted what wasn't a comeback at all to looking like it, it was simply him returning to normal, whatever normal is.

 

[bigcog]

Re:

So why did Froome wait 16 days to make his move on GC and shed time on 3 mountains. I honestly think it's more like Rasmussen says. Froome is in a different class to Dumoulin, Yates, Pinot, Pozzovivi. I think the crash was worse than Sky would obviously let on. It took two weeks for the tissue to repair and body to allow its resources to all go to performance instead of repairing itself and Froome was simply the only mutliple GT winner there. He's won more GTs than the entire Giro Peloton combined for example. I think therefore Rasmussen has it about right. It was a normal Froome performance exaggerated by poor quality field and the crash. I would add the crash simply distorted what wasn't a comeback at all to looking like it, it was simply him returning to normal, whatever normal is.

A case of shoot the messenger if not on message as usual

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

It's marketing. Most people buying SIS products, Rapha products, Castelli products, Pinarello products need the justification to buy those instead of competitors and a story is the most powerful method in cycing. The whole of Rapha's marketing strategy is based on them inventing their own fake cycling story, history & legacy for example. It's just marketing to those that don't know and don't care to know more importantly. Team Sky is a marketing vehicle for their sponsors. Brailsford is telling the story their SIS sponsors are telling him to sell their products using. It's not complicated. Sky's talking nutrition is winning stages, because they are selling nutrition products we're watching them winning stages consuming on live TV. Pinarello are selling bikes because sky are saying they have special suspension in Paris Rouybaix, Stages are selling power meters because Kerrison is saying it allows better analysis of training methods etc etc. Teams not winning are not saying these things like Sky, because nobody wants to buy something that came second.

Exactly..surely everyone can see that's all this is....it's been going on since the beginning of time in sports...Footballers claiming their new boots make them kick the ball better, runners new shoes making them go faster, golfers new clubs making them hit the ball better, Mo Farah and Quorn, the secret to his success...the list of examples is endless

Sponsors want something in return for the millions they pay out, this isn't a newly invented Sky evil.

I remember when the predator boots came out. Watched a great docu on how much they did change how the ball moved.

I was extremely jealous of everyone in high school who had these. Although if you didn't not what you were doing the ridges seemed to make shooting more difficult...

 

[thehog]

Re:

So why did Froome wait 16 days to make his move on GC and shed time on 3 mountains. I honestly think it's more like Rasmussen says. Froome is in a different class to Dumoulin, Yates, Pinot, Pozzovivi. I think the crash was worse than Sky would obviously let on. It took two weeks for the tissue to repair and body to allow its resources to all go to performance instead of repairing itself and Froome was simply the only mutliple GT winner there. He's won more GTs than the entire Giro Peloton combined for example. I think therefore Rasmussen has it about right. It was a normal Froome performance exaggerated by poor quality field and the crash. I would add the crash simply distorted what wasn't a comeback at all to looking like it, it was simply him returning to normal, whatever normal is.

So without the crash he would have won by 9 minutes?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

So why did Froome wait 16 days to make his move on GC and shed time on 3 mountains. I honestly think it's more like Rasmussen says. Froome is in a different class to Dumoulin, Yates, Pinot, Pozzovivi. I think the crash was worse than Sky would obviously let on. It took two weeks for the tissue to repair and body to allow its resources to all go to performance instead of repairing itself and Froome was simply the only mutliple GT winner there. He's won more GTs than the entire Giro Peloton combined for example. I think therefore Rasmussen has it about right. It was a normal Froome performance exaggerated by poor quality field and the crash. I would add the crash simply distorted what wasn't a comeback at all to looking like it, it was simply him returning to normal, whatever normal is.

A case of shoot the messenger if not on message as usual

No as Rasmussen is saying it’s a sum of parts put together which is likely that Froome (and his counterparts) are doping. Froome is likely to be banned from the sport soon for doping. Add that with the Giro performance and your flag is very very red.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

So why did Froome wait 16 days to make his move on GC and shed time on 3 mountains. I honestly think it's more like Rasmussen says. Froome is in a different class to Dumoulin, Yates, Pinot, Pozzovivi. I think the crash was worse than Sky would obviously let on. It took two weeks for the tissue to repair and body to allow its resources to all go to performance instead of repairing itself and Froome was simply the only mutliple GT winner there. He's won more GTs than the entire Giro Peloton combined for example. I think therefore Rasmussen has it about right. It was a normal Froome performance exaggerated by poor quality field and the crash. I would add the crash simply distorted what wasn't a comeback at all to looking like it, it was simply him returning to normal, whatever normal is.

So without the crash he would have won by 9 minutes?

No because he would have defended a smaller lead then using the team as he typicallys does in Tour. Looking at time gaps is not evidence of anything. 1001 things determine a time gap, not just strength or lack of it on each side of a GC place. This is what is unique in cycling, the perceived weaker rider or rider lower on GC can turn things around, we see it time and gain at Giro.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

So why did Froome wait 16 days to make his move on GC and shed time on 3 mountains. I honestly think it's more like Rasmussen says. Froome is in a different class to Dumoulin, Yates, Pinot, Pozzovivi. I think the crash was worse than Sky would obviously let on. It took two weeks for the tissue to repair and body to allow its resources to all go to performance instead of repairing itself and Froome was simply the only mutliple GT winner there. He's won more GTs than the entire Giro Peloton combined for example. I think therefore Rasmussen has it about right. It was a normal Froome performance exaggerated by poor quality field and the crash. I would add the crash simply distorted what wasn't a comeback at all to looking like it, it was simply him returning to normal, whatever normal is.

A case of shoot the messenger if not on message as usual

No as Rasmussen is saying it’s a sum of parts put together which is likely that Froome (and his counterparts) are doping. Froome is likely to be banned from the sport soon for doping. Add that with the Giro performance and your flag is very very red.

That's not how I read it as that's not what he said. "I don’t see his performance at the Giro as a red flag" and " don’t think he cheated any of his rivals. That’s not saying that they’re all doing something but no one can convince me that Froome is riding with an engine in his bike or that he’s on kryptonite".

Might be a translation issue as his line doesn't make complete sense in English. I read it that he was not suspect of Froomes performance and he was not saying other riders were doing something either or Froome had an engine or on kryptonite. If he said 'That's not to say they're all not doing something" I would totally agree with you.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

That's not how I read it as that's not what he said. "I don’t see his performance at the Giro as a red flag" and " don’t think he cheated any of his rivals. That’s not saying that they’re all doing something but no one can convince me that Froome is riding with an engine in his bike or that he’s on kryptonite".

Might be a translation issue as his line doesn't make complete sense in English. I read it that he was not suspect of Froomes performance and he was not saying other riders were doing something either or Froome had an engine or on kryptonite. If he said 'That's not to say they're all not doing something" I would totally agree with you.

There's no translation issue, the guy's been Tweeting this during the last week, in English.

May 30th:

I am with @IamtheSecretPro on Froomes ride on the Giro-stage 19.Nothing spectacular in putting 40 sec. into Dumoulin and co. in the last 10 K’s of col de Finestre. After that it was a Froome against Tom dragging 3 sandbags with him. Don’t Think He cheated (more than) his rivals.

May 26th:

Why Froomes raid was possible? 1.Choose to risk it all -also on the descents 2.Dumoulin was the only guy chasing and had to chase in a conservative manner not to lose it all to the 3 sandbags, he had on his wheel 3. Had a TDF worthy team. It was basically a Froome versus Tom.

May 26th:

Just to consider these fact before resorting to the easy explanation. I don't think Froome was cheating (more than ?) his nearest competitors.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

So why did Froome wait 16 days to make his move on GC and shed time on 3 mountains. I honestly think it's more like Rasmussen says. Froome is in a different class to Dumoulin, Yates, Pinot, Pozzovivi. I think the crash was worse than Sky would obviously let on. It took two weeks for the tissue to repair and body to allow its resources to all go to performance instead of repairing itself and Froome was simply the only mutliple GT winner there. He's won more GTs than the entire Giro Peloton combined for example. I think therefore Rasmussen has it about right. It was a normal Froome performance exaggerated by poor quality field and the crash. I would add the crash simply distorted what wasn't a comeback at all to looking like it, it was simply him returning to normal, whatever normal is.

So without the crash he would have won by 9 minutes?

No because he would have defended a smaller lead then using the team as he typicallys does in Tour. Looking at time gaps is not evidence of anything. 1001 things determine a time gap, not just strength or lack of it on each side of a GC place. This is what is unique in cycling, the perceived weaker rider or rider lower on GC can turn things around, we see it time and gain at Giro.

Naturally. However, he had it in him to win by 10 minutes, maybe more. Super human, perhaps too super

 

[DFA123]

Re:

Michael Rasmussen's been Tweeting about this over the last few days, now he's been interviewed:

“I don’t see his performance at the Giro as a red flag,” Rasmussen told Cyclingnews.

“All the difference was made in one day, and under very extreme circumstances. You had the four-time Tour champion, on one of the hardest climbs in Europe, against riders who had nowhere near the same palmares as him, with weaker teams.”

“I know that people will be surprised with my views on this. I’m very critical towards Team Sky and their mismanagement of their own ethical rules. Trust for them has gone but if you look at the performance of just Froome, it was credible in the sense that I don’t think he cheated any of his rivals. That’s not saying that they’re all doing something but no one can convince me that Froome is riding with an engine in his bike or that he’s on kryptonite. Otherwise you’d not put yourself in a position where you’re over three minutes behind on the 19th stage. Then you’d be leading by five minutes at that point. Winning the Giro by 46 seconds is not something that you can easily calculate after racing for over 3,000 kilometres.”

Rasmussen is spot on. Froome's performance simply wasn't that suspicious. Of course Froome and Sky are suspicious in general, but there is an important distinction to be made to avoid muddying the waters. Froome did nothing extra-ordinary at the Giro: trying to twist his numbers or imply he had a motor or impossible recovery is not being objective. The numbers he put out are very realistic and he was never *that* bad at any point in the race.

Some of the clinic bots in this thread seem to have developed a pavlovian response to Froome - that everything he does must be spun to be ridiculous and unbelievable. Which is a shame, because it waters down the much stronger arguments to be made against Sky.

 

[Singer01]

Re: Re:

Michael Rasmussen's been Tweeting about this over the last few days, now he's been interviewed:

“I don’t see his performance at the Giro as a red flag,” Rasmussen told Cyclingnews.

“All the difference was made in one day, and under very extreme circumstances. You had the four-time Tour champion, on one of the hardest climbs in Europe, against riders who had nowhere near the same palmares as him, with weaker teams.”

“I know that people will be surprised with my views on this. I’m very critical towards Team Sky and their mismanagement of their own ethical rules. Trust for them has gone but if you look at the performance of just Froome, it was credible in the sense that I don’t think he cheated any of his rivals. That’s not saying that they’re all doing something but no one can convince me that Froome is riding with an engine in his bike or that he’s on kryptonite. Otherwise you’d not put yourself in a position where you’re over three minutes behind on the 19th stage. Then you’d be leading by five minutes at that point. Winning the Giro by 46 seconds is not something that you can easily calculate after racing for over 3,000 kilometres.”

Some of the clinic bots in this thread seem to have developed a pavlovian response to Froome - that everything he does must be spun to be ridiculous and unbelievable. Which is a shame, because it waters down the much stronger arguments to be made against Sky.

This is how i feel, i don't particularly beleive in Froome per se, but the clinic crazies, full on, tin hat, wrapping foil around the TV, conspiracy theories make me inclined to defend him sometimes.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Finally, Anderson points out something I hadn’t been aware of, that UCI has the power to impose a provisional sanction on Froome at any time:

7.9.3: For any potential anti-doping rule violation under these Anti-Doping Rules asserted after a review under Article 7 and not covered by Article 7.9.1 or 7.9.2, the UCI may impose a Provisional Suspension prior to analysis of the Rider’s B Sample (where applicable) or prior to a final hearing as described in Article 8.

This is really interesting. So now it seems Lappartient himself has the power to suspend Froome. Why doesn't he do that? Does he even know that he can? Or would he rather someone else did it?

A couple of points. First, surely we're past the "prior to analysis of the Rider’s B Sample (where applicable)" and "prior to a final hearing as described in Article 8"?

Second: I suspect the UCI's fears are to be found in the Kreuziger decision. They won that one because it could be argued that the alleged ABP violation still impacted performance, and thus had the potential to deny clean athletes if K was allowed to continue competing. The issue with Salbutamol is that few seem to think that would be true here - which is why so many believe that only the Vuelta result will be stripped from Froome, while the Giro he'll get to keep.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Michael Rasmussen's been Tweeting about this over the last few days, now he's been interviewed:

“I don’t see his performance at the Giro as a red flag,” Rasmussen told Cyclingnews.

“All the difference was made in one day, and under very extreme circumstances. You had the four-time Tour champion, on one of the hardest climbs in Europe, against riders who had nowhere near the same palmares as him, with weaker teams.”

“I know that people will be surprised with my views on this. I’m very critical towards Team Sky and their mismanagement of their own ethical rules. Trust for them has gone but if you look at the performance of just Froome, it was credible in the sense that I don’t think he cheated any of his rivals. That’s not saying that they’re all doing something but no one can convince me that Froome is riding with an engine in his bike or that he’s on kryptonite. Otherwise you’d not put yourself in a position where you’re over three minutes behind on the 19th stage. Then you’d be leading by five minutes at that point. Winning the Giro by 46 seconds is not something that you can easily calculate after racing for over 3,000 kilometres.”

Rasmussen is spot on. Froome's performance simply wasn't that suspicious. Of course Froome and Sky are suspicious in general, but there is an important distinction to be made to avoid muddying the waters. Froome did nothing extra-ordinary at the Giro: trying to twist his numbers or imply he had a motor or impossible recovery is not being objective. The numbers he put out are very realistic and he was never *that* bad at any point in the race.

Some of the clinic bots in this thread seem to have developed a pavlovian response to Froome - that everything he does must be spun to be ridiculous and unbelievable. Which is a shame, because it waters down the much stronger arguments to be made against Sky.

Possiably, but he Velon numbers got lost and we only saw a small cut of them from Stage 19. Which numbers are you referring to as “realistic”?