Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1240 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
to the above

and round we go in circles..

because of course he was already doing training, racing and nutrition...........full time and with the most (self appointed) scientifically advanced team ever...and, according to various books and his peers, he even took it very seriously

I mean, its a given he's been 'busting his ass on his bike 6 hours a day' ;)

so, that of course leaves us with him having the right genetics to benefit from PEDs (mostly weight loss) as being responsible for 'the transformation'...which was my above point.....which, as I say, leaves us in a funny position

I'm attributing the (vast) majority of that transformation to the PEDS...you seem to be perhaps applying a more equal weight across the factors...my point being, were that the case we would have seem glimpses of what he was capable of before the transformation.......but we didn't.........ever.....I mean ever.
 
Jul 11, 2009
267
0
0
Apart from the watts, W/kg is pure speculation, we don't know his weight (no one here has seen him stand on a set of scales), we don't know atmospheric pressure on the day (no one was there with a barometer), we don't know the wind direction on the climb (no one was there to measure that). So we we know one parameter out of at least four. Absolutely zero facts can be stated as anywhere near true with so little info.

He pulled 38 secs on Tom on the climb with almost exactly the same watts and a few kg's lighter. That part at least is totally plausible. The descent from Froome was awesome, from the others ? Mediocre at best, due in part to Pinot's team mate being shite at descending. The last climb Froome lost time to all except Tom who cracked a few hundred metres from the top.

That leaves the valley part. Pinot had at least the start of pneumonia, his team mate was just a domestique who had managed to get over the Finestre, the white jersey guys did f**k all which just left Tom who was pretty tired by his own admission. Not that implausible that a guy who has won five GT's and is on a super day could pull that off really
 
Re:

ad9898 said:
Apart from the watts, W/kg is pure speculation, we don't know his weight (no one here has seen him stand on a set of scales), we don't know atmospheric pressure on the day (no one was there with a barometer), we don't know the wind direction on the climb (no one was there to measure that). So we we know one parameter out of at least four. Absolutely zero facts can be stated as anywhere near true with so little info.

He pulled 38 secs on Tom on the climb with almost exactly the same watts and a few kg's lighter. That part at least is totally plausible. The descent from Froome was awesome, from the others ? Mediocre at best, due in part to Pinot's team mate being shite at descending. The last climb Froome lost time to all except Tom who cracked a few hundred metres from the top.

That leaves the valley part. Pinot had at least the start of pneumonia, his team mate was just a domestique who had managed to get over the Finestre, the white jersey guys did f**k all which just left Tom who was pretty tired by his own admission. Not that implausible that a guy who has won five GT's and is on a super day could pull that off really
The attack from the Dawg plausible? Spinning at 120RPM+ and pulling away from the World TT Champ like he was a Cat 5 Chipper? Plausible?

Did you see the full descent from the others or are you just going on hear say? The TV mostly watched the Dawg. He did take some risks the Dawg and he did descend well. Kirby was in a bath of his own jyices at the end of it, but lets be honest. It wasnt like a Nibbles or Sagan attacking descent.

Why are so many people now down playing the day? So many commentators, reactions from ex riders, current riders, DS's on the day were gobsmacked, jizzed to their eye balls or just stunned. To me, the initial reaction says everything. I saw comments in the thread on the day in the main forum from people who never mention doping, never come in here etc. They were also stunned. But according to the Bots and sycophants they are the ones in the wrong because Dawg was racing against Fish & Chippers eh?
 
Saint Unix said:
brownbobby said:
See, it's really not that difficult is it :cool:
Then you should have said ""He was simply born to be the best, when it came to doping".

He was never born to be the best cyclist.
both statements seem to be completely impossible to neither prove nor disprove. talent and genetics are highly wide definitions that include physique, motivation, ability to work hard, capacity to get stronger with an assistance of PEDS as well. it's not like talent ends up with what God gave you at birth.
 
Saint Unix said:
brownbobby said:
See, it's really not that difficult is it :cool:
Then you should have said ""He was simply born to be the best, when it came to doping".

He was never born to be the best cyclist.
I said what i meant to say.

Disagreeing is fine, that's the point of forum debate....but if you want to change something i said to something different then don't try and attribute your words to me.

If you, and others can't understand the difference between showing potential and having potential then there's not a lot more i can do to explain myself.

Eh oh, some people got it, some didn't. I'm done on this one.
 
Re: Re:

MartinGT said:
ad9898 said:
Apart from the watts, W/kg is pure speculation, we don't know his weight (no one here has seen him stand on a set of scales), we don't know atmospheric pressure on the day (no one was there with a barometer), we don't know the wind direction on the climb (no one was there to measure that). So we we know one parameter out of at least four. Absolutely zero facts can be stated as anywhere near true with so little info.

He pulled 38 secs on Tom on the climb with almost exactly the same watts and a few kg's lighter. That part at least is totally plausible. The descent from Froome was awesome, from the others ? Mediocre at best, due in part to Pinot's team mate being shite at descending. The last climb Froome lost time to all except Tom who cracked a few hundred metres from the top.

That leaves the valley part. Pinot had at least the start of pneumonia, his team mate was just a domestique who had managed to get over the Finestre, the white jersey guys did f**k all which just left Tom who was pretty tired by his own admission. Not that implausible that a guy who has won five GT's and is on a super day could pull that off really
The attack from the Dawg plausible? Spinning at 120RPM+ and pulling away from the World TT Champ like he was a Cat 5 Chipper? Plausible?

Did you see the full descent from the others or are you just going on hear say? The TV mostly watched the Dawg. He did take some risks the Dawg and he did descend well. Kirby was in a bath of his own jyices at the end of it, but lets be honest. It wasnt like a Nibbles or Sagan attacking descent.

Why are so many people now down playing the day? So many commentators, reactions from ex riders, current riders, DS's on the day were gobsmacked, jizzed to their eye balls or just stunned. To me, the initial reaction says everything. I saw comments in the thread on the day in the main forum from people who never mention doping, never come in here etc. They were also stunned. But according to the Bots and sycophants they are the ones in the wrong because Dawg was racing against Fish & Chippers eh?
Wasn't it?
 
dacooley said:
both statements seem to be completely impossible to neither prove nor disprove. talent and genetics are highly wide definitions that include physique, motivation, ability to work hard, capacity to get stronger with an assistance of PEDS as well. it's not like talent ends up with what God gave you at birth.
No amount of motivation and hard work is going to make extraordinary talent and genetics suddenly appear over the course of a few weeks at the age of 26.

As has been argued countless times in this thread already, extraordinary athletic talent is pretty much always evident immediately. Hell, even big, evil super-responder Cancer Jesus was cleaning up almost every race he entered as a teenager, whether it was running, swimming or cycling. If Froome was born to be the best cyclist there has to have been some sort of evidence to show that during the many years he raced professionally before suddenly turning into a God. There's nothing. Even the mediocre guys he raced with in Africa say he was average at best. He should have been turning those guys inside out if he was anything like the rider he has become. Peter Sagan, for example, won a mountain bike race in the Slovak Cup while riding an old banger he'd borrowed from his sister. That sort of talent just rises to the top naturally.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
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:
Given the frequency with which you do exactly this, imagination is redundant.
 
Re: Re:

The Hegelian said:
.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.
It's been ten days. It only feels like weeks...
 
Saint Unix said:
dacooley said:
both statements seem to be completely impossible to neither prove nor disprove. talent and genetics are highly wide definitions that include physique, motivation, ability to work hard, capacity to get stronger with an assistance of PEDS as well. it's not like talent ends up with what God gave you at birth.
No amount of motivation and hard work is going to make extraordinary talent and genetics suddenly appear over the course of a few weeks at the age of 26.

As has been argued countless times in this thread already, extraordinary athletic talent is pretty much always evident immediately. Hell, even big, evil super-responder Cancer Jesus was cleaning up almost every race he entered as a teenager, whether it was running, swimming or cycling. If Froome was born to be the best cyclist there has to have been some sort of evidence to show that during the many years he raced professionally before suddenly turning into a God. There's nothing. Even the mediocre guys he raced with in Africa say he was average at best. He should have been turning those guys inside out if he was anything like the rider he has become. Peter Sagan, for example, won a mountain bike race in the Slovak Cup while riding an old banger he'd borrowed from his sister. That sort of talent just rises to the top naturally.
see, if you are willing to attribute what froome achieved to exclusive doping at 100% while the whole cycling should be divided between sagans whose immense talent was not questioned from the early years fair enough, no problem, but I'll quit. if you consider a possibility of him being trained incorrectly and not having access to high-end doping drugs, we have something to discuss.

the root of an problem is in sudenness of froome's transformation. according too many people froome kinda doesn't deserve to have such as highly professional doping programme as his competitors, the most talented gc riders in the world, have. that's not what i understand.
 
Jan 11, 2018
260
0
0
Re:

ad9898 said:
Not that implausible that a guy who has won five GT's and is on a super day could pull that off really
This is telling. Froome and Sky have been very astute for years in redefining what is 'normal' or expected. Froome doing amazing things has been normalised, and far too many fans keep buying it. But it isn't normal, it shouldn't be happening, and such feats are not possible clean. The idea of Froome doing that 80k solo based on his career prior to 2011, and on any natural progression from there, with all the hard work in the world, is laughable. For any cyclist to do that clean, based on the context of the race to that point, his opposition, and the known doping history of the sport, is IMO simply impossible. That's why the discussion comes back around to 2011 in Froome's case, the sad story of Sky and the nonsense they have sprouted and done since that year, and Froome's progression in the context of what we know about the state of the sport. Everything they do needs to be viewed and analysed in that context.

The one thing I would say is up for argument, and I think what Rasmussen was getting at, is whether Froome took or used something particular for that one stage, or whether it was simply the same old, 'normally' doped Froome, finding his form after the crash and coming into the Giro deliberately underdone. Hard to say. The scale of the comeback, those factors notwithstanding, suggests to me a blood bag at least, and maybe something more, but I don't buy into some of the more outlandish theories. I think more than anything we caught a rare glimpse and reminder of the true dominance of Froome when he's in or approaching top form. We haven't seen that much since 2013, thanks largely to the strength of his team and his tactical racing in recent years, but it's usually been there. It just either hasn't been needed, or he's genuinely been tired post-Tour as in the 2016 Vuelta and thus unable to produce the goods.
 
dacooley said:
see, if you are willing to attribute what froome achieved to exclusive doping at 100% while the whole cycling should be divided between sagans whose immense talent was not questioned from the early years fair enough, no problem, but I'll quit. if you consider a possibility of him being trained incorrectly and not having access to high-end doping drugs, we have something to discuss.

the root of an problem is in sudenness of froome's transformation. according too many people froome kinda doesn't deserve to have such as highly professional doping programme as his competitors, the most talented gc riders in the world, have. that's not what i understand.
For me it's a question of where the riders would be if the peloton was clean. I look at guys like Kwiatkowski, Sagan, Valverde and Nibali and what they achieved as kids and it's totally plausible to me that they're still destroying people. They have that natural talent and where born to be the best. Even if Froome's success isn't 100% down to doping, in my eyes he owes a much larger part of his success to his doping program than the other superstar cyclists riding today. Where would Sagan and Valverde be without doping in a clean field? No one knows for sure, but everything suggests they'd still be awesome. Where would Froome be without doping in a clean field? Again, hard to say for sure, but I'd be surprised if he was even still a pro.

I know it's naïve of me to think like this, but even in a thoroughly dirty sport like cycling I always hope that the doper that wins is naturally gifted to the point where the result wouldn't be much different if everyone was clean. Froome post-2011 has been continuously spitting in the face of that.
 
Saint Unix said:
dacooley said:
see, if you are willing to attribute what froome achieved to exclusive doping at 100% while the whole cycling should be divided between sagans whose immense talent was not questioned from the early years fair enough, no problem, but I'll quit. if you consider a possibility of him being trained incorrectly and not having access to high-end doping drugs, we have something to discuss.

the root of an problem is in sudenness of froome's transformation. according too many people froome kinda doesn't deserve to have such as highly professional doping programme as his competitors, the most talented gc riders in the world, have. that's not what i understand.
For me it's a question of where the riders would be if the peloton was clean. I look at guys like Kwiatkowski, Sagan, Valverde and Nibali and what they achieved as kids and it's totally plausible to me that they're still destroying people. They have that natural talent and where born to be the best. Even if Froome's success isn't 100% down to doping, in my eyes he owes a much larger part of his success to his doping program than the other superstar cyclists riding today. Where would Sagan and Valverde be without doping in a clean field? No one knows for sure, but everything suggests they'd still be awesome. Where would Froome be without doping in a clean field? Again, hard to say for sure, but I'd be surprised if he was even still a pro.

I know it's naïve of me to think like this, but even in a thoroughly dirty sport like cycling I always hope that the doper that wins is naturally gifted to the point where the result wouldn't be much different if everyone was clean. Froome post-2011 has been continuously spitting in the face of that.
I do actually agree with some of the sentiment of what you say...but in this discussion what we don't know is when the other 'superstars' you refer to actually began doping. There's plenty of anecdotal and case evidence of 'kids' being put on programs from very young ages. So how do we know that this amazing 'natural' talent we saw with the riders you mention from a young age wasn't already the result in part of doping?

It's been suggested before that Froome riding clean for several years at WT level, against an already heavily doped field, was a sign of his natural ability. Then following that getting with the program in 2011 the reason, at least in part, for the transformation and what came afterwards.

Of course that's purely guesswork at this stage, but most on here seem to be settled on the notion that almost all of the peloton, certainly mid to late noughties, was doping. So the notion that Froome was already on a similar programme to everyone else and then just suddenly found the magic formula to make such a massive transformation in his already doped self...well its as difficult to believe as anything else offered by way of explanation.
 
Nobody was surprised to see George Bennett and his team quickly backtrack from and apologise for his initial honest comments about Froome's ride on stage 19. Reasons they did so are also the reasons why it is so easy to normalise absurdity and perpetuate ridiculous myths in mainstream media.
Only one side can argue their case fully and without fear of being punished for it later.
 
Re: Re:

MartinGT said:
ad9898 said:
Apart from the watts, W/kg is pure speculation, we don't know his weight (no one here has seen him stand on a set of scales), we don't know atmospheric pressure on the day (no one was there with a barometer), we don't know the wind direction on the climb (no one was there to measure that). So we we know one parameter out of at least four. Absolutely zero facts can be stated as anywhere near true with so little info.

He pulled 38 secs on Tom on the climb with almost exactly the same watts and a few kg's lighter. That part at least is totally plausible. The descent from Froome was awesome, from the others ? Mediocre at best, due in part to Pinot's team mate being shite at descending. The last climb Froome lost time to all except Tom who cracked a few hundred metres from the top.

That leaves the valley part. Pinot had at least the start of pneumonia, his team mate was just a domestique who had managed to get over the Finestre, the white jersey guys did f**k all which just left Tom who was pretty tired by his own admission. Not that implausible that a guy who has won five GT's and is on a super day could pull that off really
The attack from the Dawg plausible? Spinning at 120RPM+ and pulling away from the World TT Champ like he was a Cat 5 Chipper? Plausible?

Did you see the full descent from the others or are you just going on hear say? The TV mostly watched the Dawg. He did take some risks the Dawg and he did descend well. Kirby was in a bath of his own jyices at the end of it, but lets be honest. It wasnt like a Nibbles or Sagan attacking descent.

Why are so many people now down playing the day? So many commentators, reactions from ex riders, current riders, DS's on the day were gobsmacked, jizzed to their eye balls or just stunned. To me, the initial reaction says everything. I saw comments in the thread on the day in the main forum from people who never mention doping, never come in here etc. They were also stunned. But according to the Bots and sycophants they are the ones in the wrong because Dawg was racing against Fish & Chippers eh?
Really? :eek:
 
Re: Froome's inherent ability or not, is what Vaughters said about him now discounted, i.e. He was just about to sign him in 2011 for £90K before the Vuelta but then he put in his break through performance and re-signed with Sky and Vaughters said when recounting that, that he always had a big engine / ability in tests but could never apply it in races due to various factors ?
 
Saint Unix said:
dacooley said:
see, if you are willing to attribute what froome achieved to exclusive doping at 100% while the whole cycling should be divided between sagans whose immense talent was not questioned from the early years fair enough, no problem, but I'll quit. if you consider a possibility of him being trained incorrectly and not having access to high-end doping drugs, we have something to discuss.

the root of an problem is in sudenness of froome's transformation. according too many people froome kinda doesn't deserve to have such as highly professional doping programme as his competitors, the most talented gc riders in the world, have. that's not what i understand.
For me it's a question of where the riders would be if the peloton was clean. I look at guys like Kwiatkowski, Sagan, Valverde and Nibali and what they achieved as kids and it's totally plausible to me that they're still destroying people. They have that natural talent and where born to be the best. Even if Froome's success isn't 100% down to doping, in my eyes he owes a much larger part of his success to his doping program than the other superstar cyclists riding today. Where would Sagan and Valverde be without doping in a clean field? No one knows for sure, but everything suggests they'd still be awesome. Where would Froome be without doping in a clean field? Again, hard to say for sure, but I'd be surprised if he was even still a pro.

I know it's naïve of me to think like this, but even in a thoroughly dirty sport like cycling I always hope that the doper that wins is naturally gifted to the point where the result wouldn't be much different if everyone was clean. Froome post-2011 has been continuously spitting in the face of that.
true, everybody was doping in the mid 2000's and most certaintly it's still going this path nowadays. but everyone is doping differently. it's quite difficult to fancy roulleur and elite climber / gc rider using exactly the same set of chemicals. apparently, froome moved from first category of rider to second one prior the 2011 vuelta. though the way he managed to find money, contacts, doctors is a real secret to guess. what strikes me the most is that in the 2011 vuelta his was more like a froome from barloworld physique-wise. considerable weight loss came only in 2012, 2013 seasons.
 
after that stage I thought 'how can he keep getting away with this ?'

and I knew the answer - because all he / the team have to do is ride out the 'amazement and disbelief' for a few hours and all will be forgotten and be yesterdays news the day after. And they walk away with yet another Grand Tour / race.

How many people will remember this next month ? Joe Bloggs doesnt remember Ventoux or any of his other outlandish escapades. Its just Armstrong all over again and nothing will be done unless someone has the guts to rat him out.
 
Sep 11, 2016
122
0
0
dacooley said:
Saint Unix said:
dacooley said:
see, if you are willing to attribute what froome achieved to exclusive doping at 100% while the whole cycling should be divided between sagans whose immense talent was not questioned from the early years fair enough, no problem, but I'll quit. if you consider a possibility of him being trained incorrectly and not having access to high-end doping drugs, we have something to discuss.

the root of an problem is in sudenness of froome's transformation. according too many people froome kinda doesn't deserve to have such as highly professional doping programme as his competitors, the most talented gc riders in the world, have. that's not what i understand.
For me it's a question of where the riders would be if the peloton was clean. I look at guys like Kwiatkowski, Sagan, Valverde and Nibali and what they achieved as kids and it's totally plausible to me that they're still destroying people. They have that natural talent and where born to be the best. Even if Froome's success isn't 100% down to doping, in my eyes he owes a much larger part of his success to his doping program than the other superstar cyclists riding today. Where would Sagan and Valverde be without doping in a clean field? No one knows for sure, but everything suggests they'd still be awesome. Where would Froome be without doping in a clean field? Again, hard to say for sure, but I'd be surprised if he was even still a pro.

I know it's naïve of me to think like this, but even in a thoroughly dirty sport like cycling I always hope that the doper that wins is naturally gifted to the point where the result wouldn't be much different if everyone was clean. Froome post-2011 has been continuously spitting in the face of that.
true, everybody was doping in the mid 2000's and most certaintly it's still going this path nowadays. but everyone is doping differently. it's quite difficult to fancy roulleur and elite climber / gc rider using exactly the same set of chemicals. apparently, froome moved from first category of rider to second one prior the 2011 vuelta. though the way he managed to find money, contacts, doctors is a real secret to guess. what strikes me the most is that in the 2011 vuelta his was more like a froome from barloworld physique-wise. considerable weight loss came only in 2012, 2013 seasons.
Admitted. I know nothing about how the different doping products actually work.

But wouldn't it be possible, that say, Aicar and GW1516 or whatever they are potentially using, could result in a rapid increase in performance, but the emaciated/extreme skinny look takes longer to show?
At least, that is always how I have imagined it happened. Froome starting using that somewhere in 2011.
That would also explain his very high level in 2013 after say a couple of years on that stuff.
 
Cycle Chic said:
after that stage I thought 'how can he keep getting away with this ?'

and I knew the answer - because all he / the team have to do is ride out the 'amazement and disbelief' for a few hours and all will be forgotten and be yesterdays news the day after. And they walk away with yet another Grand Tour / race.

How many people will remember this next month ? Joe Bloggs doesnt remember Ventoux or any of his other outlandish escapades. Its just Armstrong all over again and nothing will be done unless someone has the guts to rat him out.
This is an interesting point, a piece in the puzzle that is still missing if you like...

By this stage in proceedings, there were numerous 'eyes/ears on' witnesesses in the Lance saga.

But when it comes to Froome, all we have still is a mass of purely circumstantial evidence.

In this day and age, where rumours and fake news can spread like wildfire, started by anyone without fear of libel actions, even to the point of influencing US presidential elections, why do we have nothing on Froome?

We don't even have any non credible witnesses, let alone credible ones..

Sky, by some accounts roundly detested by some within the sport, numerous staff and riders who've come and gone from the team, but the best we have is JTL and his tramadol 'expose', and anonymous sources on unethical use of TUE's and OOC cortisone use (none of these even linked to Froome).

Yes we have the AAF, but no one surely believes that alone accounts for the Froome story.

So, where is our modern day Betsy or Emma, where are the eyewitness accounts of Froome's doping.

Are Sky really that powerful, even more so than Lance in his prime, that the whole world is petrified into silence?
 
ahsoe said:
dacooley said:
Saint Unix said:
dacooley said:
see, if you are willing to attribute what froome achieved to exclusive doping at 100% while the whole cycling should be divided between sagans whose immense talent was not questioned from the early years fair enough, no problem, but I'll quit. if you consider a possibility of him being trained incorrectly and not having access to high-end doping drugs, we have something to discuss.

the root of an problem is in sudenness of froome's transformation. according too many people froome kinda doesn't deserve to have such as highly professional doping programme as his competitors, the most talented gc riders in the world, have. that's not what i understand.
For me it's a question of where the riders would be if the peloton was clean. I look at guys like Kwiatkowski, Sagan, Valverde and Nibali and what they achieved as kids and it's totally plausible to me that they're still destroying people. They have that natural talent and where born to be the best. Even if Froome's success isn't 100% down to doping, in my eyes he owes a much larger part of his success to his doping program than the other superstar cyclists riding today. Where would Sagan and Valverde be without doping in a clean field? No one knows for sure, but everything suggests they'd still be awesome. Where would Froome be without doping in a clean field? Again, hard to say for sure, but I'd be surprised if he was even still a pro.

I know it's naïve of me to think like this, but even in a thoroughly dirty sport like cycling I always hope that the doper that wins is naturally gifted to the point where the result wouldn't be much different if everyone was clean. Froome post-2011 has been continuously spitting in the face of that.
true, everybody was doping in the mid 2000's and most certaintly it's still going this path nowadays. but everyone is doping differently. it's quite difficult to fancy roulleur and elite climber / gc rider using exactly the same set of chemicals. apparently, froome moved from first category of rider to second one prior the 2011 vuelta. though the way he managed to find money, contacts, doctors is a real secret to guess. what strikes me the most is that in the 2011 vuelta his was more like a froome from barloworld physique-wise. considerable weight loss came only in 2012, 2013 seasons.
Admitted. I know nothing about how the different doping products actually work.

But wouldn't it be possible, that say, Aicar and GW1516 or whatever they are potentially using, could result in a rapid increase in performance, but the emaciated/extreme skinny look takes longer to show?
At least, that is always how I have imagined it happened. Froome starting using that somewhere in 2011.
That would also explain his very high level in 2013 after say a couple of years on that stuff.
I don't think aicar, gw1516, microdosing epo could single handedly turn 3 tier sprinter lead-out man into the best climber in the world. there's some deeper mystery hidden underneath a badzilla legend. i'd go with a version of froome really having something which noticeably held off him in 2008-2010 and helped to recieve a handful of tue's afterwards. what was an exact desease that restrained him sky will never tell as it instantly pushes all the things to dark grey area.
 
hinault wasn't suggesting it directly, but he's clearly against froome joining the areopagus of cycling legends. :D although, it's way too late and froome is already there even in case he'll finally get his giro win stripped off.
 
Feb 23, 2011
618
0
0
brownbobby said:
Cycle Chic said:
after that stage I thought 'how can he keep getting away with this ?'

and I knew the answer - because all he / the team have to do is ride out the 'amazement and disbelief' for a few hours and all will be forgotten and be yesterdays news the day after. And they walk away with yet another Grand Tour / race.

How many people will remember this next month ? Joe Bloggs doesnt remember Ventoux or any of his other outlandish escapades. Its just Armstrong all over again and nothing will be done unless someone has the guts to rat him out.
This is an interesting point, a piece in the puzzle that is still missing if you like...

By this stage in proceedings, there were numerous 'eyes/ears on' witnesesses in the Lance saga.

But when it comes to Froome, all we have still is a mass of purely circumstantial evidence.

In this day and age, where rumours and fake news can spread like wildfire, started by anyone without fear of libel actions, even to the point of influencing US presidential elections, why do we have nothing on Froome?

We don't even have any non credible witnesses, let alone credible ones..

Sky, by some accounts roundly detested by some within the sport, numerous staff and riders who've come and gone from the team, but the best we have is JTL and his tramadol 'expose', and anonymous sources on unethical use of TUE's and OOC cortisone use (none of these even linked to Froome).

Yes we have the AAF, but no one surely believes that alone accounts for the Froome story.

So, where is our modern day Betsy or Emma, where are the eyewitness accounts of Froome's doping.

Are Sky really that powerful, even more so than Lance in his prime, that the whole world is petrified into silence?
Petrified into silence? Yes and No. For sure the Sky empire can Lawyer/PR up like there is no tomorrow but its interesting that they have never gone after anyone because to do so they would have to prove that allegations were false. This would mean opening up a pandora's box, barristers, cross examination, evidence under oath etc etc. With the CMS they could lie to their hearts content as none of the individuals involved could face punitive measures (unlike lying under oath in a court room).

I think the silence is from what I would call Omerta V.2 which I would say started at about time the ABP was ushered in in 2008 - remember that press conference with Paddy McQuaid, flanked by Mark Cavendish as he hailed in the 'new generation'. There has been an 'attempt' to book end the Armstrong era as the old and post 2008 as the new. Certainly the narrative pedaled is one of 'that was then, this is now'. Only snag is that Armstrong managed to circumvent the ABP in 2009 and it has been shown numerous times that the ABP can be circumvented over and over again by microdosing using rudimentary medical guidance and synthetic EPO from China (by Amateurs running a low tech programme I might add).

This 'new school' post 2008 have so much dirt on each other that this is where the real silence is coming from. Anyone working at Sky knows that if they spill the beans they run the risk of not being employed elsewhere in the sport and like a domino effect if one it taken all the whole lot comes crashing down. Portal has stuff on Brailsford, Brailsford has stuff on Portal, same with Wiggins, Froome, and all the other team personnel/riders.

Why is the silence so staggering from the rest of the peleton? They are all doing the same methods to a lesser or greater degree so its easier for them to keep their mouths firmly shut - glass houses, stones and all that. We are the 'new generation' we don't do all that old stuff..............honest.

So in actual fact its really just Omerta V.1 repackaged as Omerta V.2!!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS