Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1239 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
bigcog said:
lartiste said:
Benotti69 said:
DFA123 said:
Benotti69 said:
Anyone who claims the clinic as a single entity is full of it.
Nowhere have I claimed the clinic is a single entity. The Clinic s great, and with a wide range of opinions. I have simply noted my disdain for 'clinic-bots' (I think we all know who they are). The kind of posters who fail to acknowledge any factor influencing a cyclist or bike race, other than doping.

It just ends up in circular conversations heavy in cherry-picked examples and innuendo, with no room for nuance or shades of grey.

In the case of Froome, no there is no grey. In 2 weeks the guy went from pack fodder to GT podium. There are no nuances attained in those 2 weeks. From there he has been GT podium or crash with 6 GT wins (4Tdf, 1 Giro and 1 Vuelta) I mean that stratospheric rise at 26 is not nuanced in any manner. This guy was going to out of a job then BOOM, he would've won a GT if not for Wiggins. CRAZY. Nuance where, just **** where??????
I assume, that we can put together explanation of what happened in two weeks prior Vuelta 2011. We all probably agree that this was the time of unbelievable transformation. Froome was desperate since he was hitting possibly end of carrier at World Tour level. He was done as well as his living in Monaco.

If I remember correctly, it was MacKenna in his article mentioning that EPO is giving 8% advantage. Nice example of donkey to race horse transformation is Riis, Mr. 60%. In his case I would say, that the advantage was even higher, 10% (really high hematocrit). So what Froome most probably needed was to increase his performance by 10% in two weeks. Others are unable to reach such goal in years, hat off for Froome.

My opinion:

1. DNP - only drug which helps to loose 5 kg in week (10 days), deadly, dangerous. Typical for desperate people.
2. Microdosing of EPO and HGH (peptides).
3. New miracle drug AICAR or GW501516 or similar undetectable drug.
4. Tramadol.
5. Microdosing of TST.

Still unbelievable, but other only explanation is motor.

Or combination of both :).
Correct me if I am wrong but they have had a test for AICAR and/or GW5016 for some years, so I doubt it is that. Tramadol, any studies showing it's PED potential ? I doubt it would have a major effect.
The AICAR and GW test didn’t come into effect till 2013.
 
thehog said:
[quote="bigcog"

Correct me if I am wrong but they have had a test for AICAR and/or GW5016 for some years, so I doubt it is that. Tramadol, any studies showing it's PED potential ? I doubt it would have a major effect.
The AICAR and GW test didn’t come into effect till 2013.[/quote]

So some years ago then ;)

Anyway just came across this offer as regards motor doping and Froome, Gary Blem his mechanic has offered to dismantle his bike at anytime in a race if the person asking donates a sum to charity, see here at 11:18:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rV0I0LYqQNI
 
Well if was available without a test for the “2011” Froome transformation. Exercise in a pill as it is known. Which helps explain the immediacy of the turn in form. There are still questions on the tests accuracy.

And don’t even make me watch GCN video again :cool: the grovelling apology they made at 12:00 minutes to Froome fans was a little sickening.
 
bigcog said:
thehog said:
[quote="bigcog"

Correct me if I am wrong but they have had a test for AICAR and/or GW5016 for some years, so I doubt it is that. Tramadol, any studies showing it's PED potential ? I doubt it would have a major effect.
The AICAR and GW test didn’t come into effect till 2013.
So some years ago then ;)

Anyway just came across this offer as regards motor doping and Froome, Gary Blem his mechanic has offered to dismantle his bike at anytime in a race if the person asking donates a sum to charity, see here at 11:18:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rV0I0LYqQNI[/quote]
Real easy to make an offer when you know it's impossible for anyone to take him up on it. sheesh
 
Brownbobby...here's what you said

"Forget the nonsense about him having no talent, thats just ridiculous. He was simply born to be the best, when it came to cycling, he won the genetic lottery."

so crack on, in the 6 years before the transformation when he was racing full time when did he show he was "born to the best when it came to cycling"?
 
gillan1969 said:
Brownbobby...here's what you said

"Forget the nonsense about him having no talent, thats just ridiculous. He was simply born to be the best, when it came to cycling, he won the genetic lottery."

so crack on, in the 6 years before the transformation when he was racing full time when did he show he was "born to the best when it came to cycling"?
FFS...how many times are you going to ask me the same question centred around a complete failure to understand the meaning in something I said.

Crack on? I'll pass on that invite thanks, you seem to have ignored the past 2 replies so I'm not going for a third attempt.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Valv.Piti said:
I very much agree with Rasmussen that his raid was plausible and within the limits. Had nothing to do with Landis or whatever - I argued that just after what he did after the half the forum moaned that it isn't natural, it was Landis esque etc.

Well, it might very well not be natural, but to go back to Rasmussen, it definitely didn't show that he is on some hardcore stuff the rest of the field isn't. Its pretty even.
Quite by coincidence, since Rasmussen's interview, the whole debate has moved on from that ride. It's now back to past and all the dots that beg to be joined. Funny how thst happened.
You can only say the same thing so many times. A few ppl didn't think the solo ride was that outrageous. A few more ppl think the recovery shown and the 80 km solo was a legendary dope fuelled ride. There isn't really anything more to say about it.
 
Re: Re:

topcat said:
You can only say the same thing so many times. A few ppl didn't think the solo ride was that outrageous. A few more ppl think the recovery shown and the 80 km solo was a legendary dope fuelled ride. There isn't really anything more to say about it.
Yup, this about sums it up. Time for me to take a break from the message boards. A bit of a time waster :)
 
Re: Re:

topcat said:
fmk_RoI said:
Valv.Piti said:
I very much agree with Rasmussen that his raid was plausible and within the limits. Had nothing to do with Landis or whatever - I argued that just after what he did after the half the forum moaned that it isn't natural, it was Landis esque etc.

Well, it might very well not be natural, but to go back to Rasmussen, it definitely didn't show that he is on some hardcore stuff the rest of the field isn't. Its pretty even.
Quite by coincidence, since Rasmussen's interview, the whole debate has moved on from that ride. It's now back to past and all the dots that beg to be joined. Funny how thst happened.
You can only say the same thing so many times. A few ppl didn't think the solo ride was that outrageous. A few more ppl think the recovery shown and the 80 km solo was a legendary dope fuelled ride. There isn't really anything more to say about it.
You can only say the same thing so many times, and yet here we are as we've been since it happened, speculating as to what occured in 2011, because there's really so so so much more to say that hasn't been said. Yes. Yes. Of course that's why so many who declared it the most dope fuelled ride in the history of dope fuelled rides have moved on, cause they ran out of things to say about it and remembered they had so so so much more to say about 2011 instead. Yes.
 
The 2011 transformation was unbelievable. The most ventoux ride was unbelievable and the 80 km solo was unbelievable. Now there are different degrees of unbelievable. Time for me to get back to the real world. Ciao.
 
brownbobby said:
FFS...how many times are you going to ask me the same question centred around a complete failure to understand the meaning in something I said.

Crack on? I'll pass on that invite thanks, you seem to have ignored the past 2 replies so I'm not going for a third attempt.
Maybe elaborate on what you meant instead of just deflecting at every opportunity. We're all having a hard time interpreting it in any other way than you saying Froome was born to be the best cyclist since that's what you said. "

"He was simply born to be the best, when it came to cycling"

Where's the hidden meaning between the lines? Help us out instead of being prickly.
 
Re:

topcat said:
The 2011 transformation was unbelievable. The most ventoux ride was unbelievable and the 80 km solo was unbelievable. Now there are different degrees of unbelievable. Time for me to get back to the real world. Ciao.
what means unbelievable? it's reality and that really was.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
topcat said:
fmk_RoI said:
Valv.Piti said:
I very much agree with Rasmussen that his raid was plausible and within the limits. Had nothing to do with Landis or whatever - I argued that just after what he did after the half the forum moaned that it isn't natural, it was Landis esque etc.

Well, it might very well not be natural, but to go back to Rasmussen, it definitely didn't show that he is on some hardcore stuff the rest of the field isn't. Its pretty even.
Quite by coincidence, since Rasmussen's interview, the whole debate has moved on from that ride. It's now back to past and all the dots that beg to be joined. Funny how thst happened.
You can only say the same thing so many times. A few ppl didn't think the solo ride was that outrageous. A few more ppl think the recovery shown and the 80 km solo was a legendary dope fuelled ride. There isn't really anything more to say about it.
You can only say the same thing so many times, and yet here we are as we've been since it happened, speculating as to what occured in 2011, because there's really so so so much more to say that hasn't been said. Yes. Yes. Of course that's why so many who declared it the most dope fuelled ride in the history of dope fuelled rides have moved on, cause they ran out of things to say about it and remembered they had so so so much more to say about 2011 instead. Yes.
Imagine participating in a forum, posting, producing links, offering opinion. Then standing back and telling everyone on the same forum, “what’s up with those guys who post on this forum?” :cool:
 
Jun 26, 2017
394
0
0
Saint Unix said:
brownbobby said:
FFS...how many times are you going to ask me the same question centred around a complete failure to understand the meaning in something I said.

Crack on? I'll pass on that invite thanks, you seem to have ignored the past 2 replies so I'm not going for a third attempt.
Maybe elaborate on what you meant instead of just deflecting at every opportunity. We're all having a hard time interpreting it in any other way than you saying Froome was born to be the best cyclist since that's what you said. "

"He was simply born to be the best, when it came to cycling"

Where's the hidden meaning between the lines? Help us out instead of being prickly.
Maybe he simply meant that Froome has such genetics that with the right combination of training, racing, nutrition, and peds he could be one of the best GT riders ever. And he was right :)
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
topcat said:
rick james said:
topcat said:
The 2011 transformation was unbelievable. The most ventoux ride was unbelievable and the 80 km solo was unbelievable. Now there are different degrees of unbelievable. Time for me to get back to the real world. Ciao.
where is that?
We're neighbours.
I think I may know you from somewhere else!
Perhaps.
 
Re: Re:

topcat said:
fmk_RoI said:
Valv.Piti said:
I very much agree with Rasmussen that his raid was plausible and within the limits. Had nothing to do with Landis or whatever - I argued that just after what he did after the half the forum moaned that it isn't natural, it was Landis esque etc.

Well, it might very well not be natural, but to go back to Rasmussen, it definitely didn't show that he is on some hardcore stuff the rest of the field isn't. Its pretty even.
Quite by coincidence, since Rasmussen's interview, the whole debate has moved on from that ride. It's now back to past and all the dots that beg to be joined. Funny how thst happened.
You can only say the same thing so many times. A few ppl didn't think the solo ride was that outrageous. A few more ppl think the recovery shown and the 80 km solo was a legendary dope fuelled ride. There isn't really anything more to say about it.
My sense is that at the time it happened, there was kind of a universal "wtf!!" sentiment around it, probably best personified by Bennett's tweet.

It just looked utterly outrageous and crazy, principally because of how crap his form had been up to that point.

But then, with the passage of time, and so much of that Sky Special PR sauce (namely, pseudo scientific rationalisation), the discourse switched to watts and descending etc, and hey presto, a few weeks on I'm almost convinced it was kosher.

So the question is: how did the discourse get from A (wtf, this is crazy 00's stuff) to B (well, this gentleman did nothing exceptional, other than being brave) so quickly?

I'm not one who believes in conspiracy theories, but I am one who believes in the power of PR, especially by those organisations that are well resourced + media savvy. Sky is definitely one such organisation.
 
Re: Re:

The Hegelian said:
My sense is that at the time it happened, there was kind of a universal "wtf!!" sentiment around it, probably best personified by Bennett's tweet.

It just looked utterly outrageous and crazy, principally because of how crap his form had been up to that point.

But then, with the passage of time, and so much of that Sky Special PR sauce (namely, pseudo scientific rationalisation), the discourse switched to watts and descending etc, and hey presto, a few weeks on I'm almost convinced it was kosher.

So the question is: how did the discourse get from A (wtf, this is crazy 00's stuff) to B (well, this gentleman did nothing exceptional, other than being brave) so quickly?

I'm not one who believes in conspiracy theories, but I am one who believes in the power of PR, especially by those organisations that are well resourced + media savvy. Sky is definitely one such organisation.
Yes, how did we go from A to B? Well, here's an example of that shift in thinking:

Valv.Piti wrote:

I very much agree with Rasmussen that his raid was plausible and within the limits. Had nothing to do with Landis or whatever - I argued that just after what he did after the half the forum moaned that it isn't natural, it was Landis esque etc.

Well, it might very well not be natural, but to go back to Rasmussen, it definitely didn't show that he is on some hardcore stuff the rest of the field isn't. Its pretty even.
In fact, his W/kg for the escape were very similar to Landis’s. So yes, his ride was Landesque. If you want to argue that what Landis did that day wasn’t by itself proof of doping, that Floyd could have done that clean (even if it turns out he didn’t), go ahead, but beginning any discussion of Froome’s solo ride with “it wasn’t like Landis’s” is patently false, and a non-starter. The only way it can be considered different from Landis's ride is if we assume a priori that Froome is capable of a greater performance clean than Landis was. Where I come from, that's called beginning with the conclusion you favor, then interpreting the data to support that conclusion.

IOW, what this discussion has shown is that we’ve reached that point—predicted by JV a few years ago—where rides that used to be done only by doping are now considered possible clean. If Froome did Alpe D’Huez as fast as Pantani, trust me, there would be posters here who would argue, based on his lab tests (or that ride he and Porte did up La Madone a few years ago), that he could do that clean. And maybe he could--it seems unlikely to me, but I'm willing to entertain the possibility that it's physiologically possible. But let's stop pretending that Froome isn't doing anything that other riders, clean, couldn't do, that he's winning all these GTs just by being clever.
 
Saint Unix said:
brownbobby said:
FFS...how many times are you going to ask me the same question centred around a complete failure to understand the meaning in something I said.

Crack on? I'll pass on that invite thanks, you seem to have ignored the past 2 replies so I'm not going for a third attempt.
Maybe elaborate on what you meant instead of just deflecting at every opportunity. We're all having a hard time interpreting it in any other way than you saying Froome was born to be the best cyclist since that's what you said. "

"He was simply born to be the best, when it came to cycling"

Where's the hidden meaning between the lines? Help us out instead of being prickly.
I already have. Twice.
 
miguelindurain111 said:
Saint Unix said:
brownbobby said:
FFS...how many times are you going to ask me the same question centred around a complete failure to understand the meaning in something I said.

Crack on? I'll pass on that invite thanks, you seem to have ignored the past 2 replies so I'm not going for a third attempt.
Maybe elaborate on what you meant instead of just deflecting at every opportunity. We're all having a hard time interpreting it in any other way than you saying Froome was born to be the best cyclist since that's what you said. "

"He was simply born to be the best, when it came to cycling"

Where's the hidden meaning between the lines? Help us out instead of being prickly.
Maybe he simply meant that Froome has such genetics that with the right combination of training, racing, nutrition, and peds he could be one of the best GT riders ever. And he was right :)
See, it's really not that difficult is it :cool:
 
Sep 11, 2016
122
0
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
topcat said:
fmk_RoI said:
Valv.Piti said:
I very much agree with Rasmussen that his raid was plausible and within the limits. Had nothing to do with Landis or whatever - I argued that just after what he did after the half the forum moaned that it isn't natural, it was Landis esque etc.

Well, it might very well not be natural, but to go back to Rasmussen, it definitely didn't show that he is on some hardcore stuff the rest of the field isn't. Its pretty even.
Quite by coincidence, since Rasmussen's interview, the whole debate has moved on from that ride. It's now back to past and all the dots that beg to be joined. Funny how thst happened.
You can only say the same thing so many times. A few ppl didn't think the solo ride was that outrageous. A few more ppl think the recovery shown and the 80 km solo was a legendary dope fuelled ride. There isn't really anything more to say about it.
You can only say the same thing so many times, and yet here we are as we've been since it happened, speculating as to what occured in 2011, because there's really so so so much more to say that hasn't been said. Yes. Yes. Of course that's why so many who declared it the most dope fuelled ride in the history of dope fuelled rides have moved on, cause they ran out of things to say about it and remembered they had so so so much more to say about 2011 instead. Yes.
Well, those two things are connected. I find it logical, that the discussion will take that route. Don't you? From 'What just happened?!' to a more general discussion about Froome and his ability and transformation.

And just because we are not discussing it in here anymore, does not mean, at least for me, that I have accepted his ride on Finestre. My gut-feeling still tells me, that that was not right, same as my gut-feeling tells me his Ventoux 2013 was not right. And I am still waiting for a plausible explanation of these rides. In my opinion there has been none.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY