Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1240 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
I fully expect Froome to win his 5th TdF, Sky need it in order to survive and a week later Froome announces retirement (if not on the podium in Paris).

UCI will play ball and so will ASO and everyone will agree never to let a guy lacking so much panache on a bike win ever ever again and they all lived happily ever after, where Froome loses his Vuelta (but says it is his) and keeps his Giro and all other wins as he disappears back to Africa where he never gets invited back to an ASO event as a special guest.

The alternative is that Froome gets busted for 2 years and loses everything after and including La Vuelta, which we know those that run the sport and the vested interests will not allow so soon after Armstrong.

Really would like to think the Gendarmes are planning to raid the TdF looking for motors, but cant see ASO wanting the TdF shamed by motors in bikes/wheels as that would really make it a circus forever more and signal the death of the sport. Cant see ASO wanting another multiple GT winner busted for doping. But cant see people bar the few fanboys and PR interns thinking Froome is a clean winner. I mean the TdF is laughed at by most non cycling fans and on TV recently comedian Gary Delaney on Mock the Week,a TV show, say of the Tour de France: "I like seeing men on bikes who are addicted to drugs but who haven't just stolen my mobile phone."

There is no more damage that can be done by doping so why not pop Froome for doping? The motors will have to be exposed by outsiders, ie a police force or maybe a tax thing.......and that will be a final nail in the coffin for the sport and advertisers.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re:

rick james said:
Yip got everything bang on the money to win the Giro....
Doping and motors, bang on the money.

Paid to win the Giro and shock horror in a dirty sport the guy paid to win by the organisers, wins!!!!!!! :lol:
 
Jul 29, 2016
634
0
0
brownbobby said:
lartiste said:
brownbobby said:
Did I mention micro dosing of HGH? Eventhough you have different protocols with big difference in units ;) . Do you know anything about the dosing protocols? And DNP? You do not know? May be try some bodybuilding board to understand the substance, it is real killer of bodyfat (sometimes also of the user). ;)
I know plenty about DNP. You clearly don't.....It would be absolutely catastrophic for a cyclist to be using it for a 2 week period leading up to a race. That's why I found the suggestion so funny.

But apologies if you weren't actually suggesting microdosing of hgh....yes again I understand the protocols. Microdosing isn't done with HGH. Frequent small doses yes, but that isn't microdosing in the sense applied to say EPO.
[/quote][/quote]

Two week period would most probably kill everyone. To use it for 5 - 7 days with other substances would not be catastrophic ... . But OK, provide your explanation if you have better.[/quote]

Seriously? You know all about DNP, the internal changes it brings about in the human body to activate such rapid weight loss.....and you really don't see why it would be one of the last substances on earth that a cyclist, in your scenario 2 weeks away from the most important race of his life, would want to put in his body?

Froome was preparing for a 3 week GT, one of the most gruelling sports events imaginable. He wasn't preparing to get oiled up, slip a thong on and go throw down a few most muscular poses.

He wasn't taking DNP.[/quote]

I know just the results of few bodybuilders, but with good program you can try it even before the GT. I do not know whether actually anyone is testing for DNP and what is the half life.

I never followed Froome, so do not anything about his life. tell me, something happened in his life in 2011? Did he met his wife during this year? Did he met new doctor?
 
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.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
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.
Testing really works.

They have tests for some versions of EPO, there are over 80 types and the test covers a small amount of those.

Testing is at least 10 years behind, so what are they on now? New versions of AICAR or other stuff or maybe the UCI flushes their pee down the toilet and doesn't bother testing it. Who knows, transparency is zero.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

rick james said:
Benotti69 said:
rick james said:
Yip got everything bang on the money to win the Giro....
Doping and motors, bang on the money.

Paid to win the Giro and shock horror in a dirty sport the guy paid to win by the organisers, wins!!!!!!! :lol:
Excellent guess work
It would be a guess that someone in the last 30 years won a GT clean.
 
Re:

Benotti69 said:
UCI president David Lappartient says decision on Chris Froome case now unlikely until after Tour de France with 1,500 pages of scientific evidence submitted on behalf of Team Sky star

http://road.cc/content/news/242872-uci-president-david-lappartient-says-decision-chris-froome-case-now-unlikely

1500 pages. Boy that is a lot of *** to read.
The 1500 pages are probably more interesting than Froome’s book but that’s not saying much :cool:

Looks like Dawg and Morgan have gone full Chewbacca defence for simply taking “extra puffs” of Salbutamol.
 
Saint Unix said:
brownbobby said:
So there's the biggest part of the answer to the Froome conundrum. Most of the stuff you list, physique, endurance, power, ability to recover, longevity, consistency...all needs to be nurtured but most of it is there from birth. 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.
If he's clean and that's the case, he's the only clean athlete I can think of that showed absolutely nothing that indicated legendary athletic capabilities until the age of 26. Every other top endurance or power athlete was dominating from a young age.

Merckx was competitive in the Belgian cycling scene at 16, and started winning as soon as he got into the pro ranks. Bolt ran a sub-20 second 200m as a teenager, Messi was in the Barcelona first team at 16 and a regular at 17. Ali won an Olympic gold medal at 18 and was the heavyweight champion at 22.

Other football superstars like Pelé (won the World Cup for Brazil at 17), Cristiano Ronaldo (was a regular for both Sporting and Manchester United as a teenager), Brazilian Ronaldo (was scoring goals for fun for Cruzeiro, PSV and Barcelona as a teenager) all showed immense promise early on. Gretzky was skating rings around kids three or four years older than him from the day he started playing organized hockey and won the NHL MVP award in his first season, at the age of 18. LeMond won l'Avenir by 10 minutes when he was 21 and finished third in his first ever Tour de France two years later, riding as a domestique for Fignon. The list goes on, by the way. Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Roger Federer, Babe Ruth, Michael Phelps... all incredible from the very beginning of their careers.

Yet Froome, who was described as average even by his fellow riders on the African cycling scene and is now perhaps even more dominant compared to his contemporaries than all the athletes mentioned in this post with the possible exception of Gretzky, is somehow clean and gifted with the ability to be the best from birth.

I'll add one more hockey example. Mario Lemieux. He was playing against kids who were 2 to 4 years older than he was until his late teens because of how good he was. His first NHL game, he scored his first goal on his first shift, with his first shot on goal in the first minute of the game. Remember Gretzky is not considered the best NHLer by all fans during his run in the NHL as there are many of us who consider Lemieux to be the better player between the two. The difference being Gretzky had the better team for the majority of his career while Mario had a very bad Pittsburgh team for years, yet at the same saved the team as a player, then again saved the team a 2nd time when he bought the team.
 
Re:

Benotti69 said:
I fully expect Froome to win his 5th TdF, Sky need it in order to survive and a week later Froome announces retirement (if not on the podium in Paris).

UCI will play ball and so will ASO and everyone will agree never to let a guy lacking so much panache on a bike win ever ever again and they all lived happily ever after, where Froome loses his Vuelta (but says it is his) and keeps his Giro and all other wins as he disappears back to Africa where he never gets invited back to an ASO event as a special guest.

The alternative is that Froome gets busted for 2 years and loses everything after and including La Vuelta, which we know those that run the sport and the vested interests will not allow so soon after Armstrong.

Really would like to think the Gendarmes are planning to raid the TdF looking for motors, but cant see ASO wanting the TdF shamed by motors in bikes/wheels as that would really make it a circus forever more and signal the death of the sport. Cant see ASO wanting another multiple GT winner busted for doping. But cant see people bar the few fanboys and PR interns thinking Froome is a clean winner. I mean the TdF is laughed at by most non cycling fans and on TV recently comedian Gary Delaney on Mock the Week,a TV show, say of the Tour de France: "I like seeing men on bikes who are addicted to drugs but who haven't just stolen my mobile phone."

There is no more damage that can be done by doping so why not pop Froome for doping? The motors will have to be exposed by outsiders, ie a police force or maybe a tax thing.......and that will be a final nail in the coffin for the sport and advertisers.
Hubristic fear mongering.

Edited by King Boonen.
 
DFA123 said:
Saint Unix said:
DFA123 said:
The one thing about Froome that is massively obvious looking at the photos of him at Barloworld, is that he was considerably overweight for a GC rider. Which, if he was like that his whole career could easily have obscured some kind of huge engine.
Not on flat time trials. Being overweight (for a GC rider) stopped the likes of Grabsch, Bodrogi, Malori, Tuft and pre-transformation Wiggins from doing anything other than riding with the grupetto in the mountains, but they have all still placed in the medals of the TT World Champs, aside from Wiggins who placed 7th before 2009 and then somehow won it once and placed second twice after he lost the weight.

Froome couldn't even medal at the Commonwealth Games before 2011.
Well yeah, weight loss doesn't make a huge difference to flat time trials. Which is why I referred specifically to weight loss and also becoming more aero. Both of which are nicely outlined in the photo above.

I think becoming significantly more aero after joining a team with the resources of Sky is one of the least suspicious things about Froome. Especially for a rider who spent his whole youth and junior career with very limited access to top level equipment and coaching.
Yeah way more aero, lol. And Sky admits they spent zero tome in the wind tunnel
 
veganrob said:
DFA123 said:
Saint Unix said:
DFA123 said:
The one thing about Froome that is massively obvious looking at the photos of him at Barloworld, is that he was considerably overweight for a GC rider. Which, if he was like that his whole career could easily have obscured some kind of huge engine.
Not on flat time trials. Being overweight (for a GC rider) stopped the likes of Grabsch, Bodrogi, Malori, Tuft and pre-transformation Wiggins from doing anything other than riding with the grupetto in the mountains, but they have all still placed in the medals of the TT World Champs, aside from Wiggins who placed 7th before 2009 and then somehow won it once and placed second twice after he lost the weight.

Froome couldn't even medal at the Commonwealth Games before 2011.
Well yeah, weight loss doesn't make a huge difference to flat time trials. Which is why I referred specifically to weight loss and also becoming more aero. Both of which are nicely outlined in the photo above.

I think becoming significantly more aero after joining a team with the resources of Sky is one of the least suspicious things about Froome. Especially for a rider who spent his whole youth and junior career with very limited access to top level equipment and coaching.
Yeah way more aero, lol. And Sky admits they spent zero tome in the wind tunnel
So improved his time trialing by 20% without using a wind tunnel or anything similar. In his book he claims Jullich told him to drop his stem by 1.5cm prior to the 2011 Vuelta ITT.

To challenge for the leadership, Froome must probably prove himself to be the Sky rider most likely to defeat Alberto Contador. To that end, Froome is ignoring any temptation to ride the Giro d’Italia and is making several significant changes to his time-trialling style.

Despite being the Olympic bronze medallist in the discipline and runner-up to Wiggins in both long time-trials in this year’s Tour, Froome has never tested his position and bike in a wind tunnel. In time-trial terms, he has been operating in the Stone Age, with elbows out as if riding a scooter
 
Jan 11, 2018
260
0
0
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Everything he's ever done since, IF we accept the 2011 reset, in my opinion is plausible. On the edge of incredible, but that's what we should be seeing from people who are the best in the world at what they do.

2011 remains the big mystery.
Plausible in what sense? If you mean plausible without a motor, then with perhaps the exception of the 2013 Tour I agree, you don't need a mechanical explanation for Froome's performances, nor do they really make much sense to me.

But plausible without chemical/blood assistance? No way. His climbing times, his recovery abilities, his level of dominance and consistency relative to other almost certainly doping riders (he's not a bit better than everyone else, he's more often than not much better, even if he sometimes chooses not to show it), his exceptional ability and power in both climbing and TTing - for me it's simply not possible without doping. Yeah these guys are the best in the world, but their performances and endurance relative to known doped ones are simply too close, and I don't believe that better training, tech etc. alone can explain that. And Froome is the best of the best, despite never looking like it pre-2011.

I do think there is room for argument though around whether Froome is on a similar program to everyone else, but is simply fortunate in being a super responder, a la Armstrong, and better resourced by being at Sky, or whether he also has something that almost no-one else does. I lean towards the latter, largely because of the level and consistency of his superiority, even relative to his own teammates, and the fact that the initial jump came through his own initiative, while also acknowledging a lot of truth in the former. But what it is I have no idea.
 
you guys massively leave out a motivation factor. a guy with a goal of saving world tour registration and another guy aiming to win a regular grand tour think and work very very differently. so assuming that froome reaching all the heights is what he is 100% obliged to doping and nothing more, it doesn't explain how he manages to mantain this fantastic level for 8th consecutive season. for sure, Brownbobby is right, froome really won a lottery, genetic lottery, lottery of lucky circumstance or whatever. if that had been so easy, we would've witnessed dozens of transformations. however, froome stays one of a kind. ;)
 
94th in the Tour of Poland 2011.
3 weeks later nearly won the Vuelta. 2nd place with only 13 seconds difference.

Maybe Michelle hung up one of those motivational posters in the loo and that's what made the difference.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
94th in the Tour of Poland 2011.
3 weeks later nearly won the Vuelta. 2nd place with only 13 seconds difference.

Maybe Michelle hung up one of those motivational posters in the loo and that's what made the difference.
the nature of august 2011 transformation will most certainly remain unsolved. thinking it had nothing to do with heavy doping program is idiotism, but ascribing 100% of froome's success to doping is nonsense ditto.

i presume one of the secrets is picking up doping cocktail which helped to master work on extremely small gearing. possibly top-end doping program revealed an ability of his cardiovascular system in a new way.
 
Sep 11, 2016
122
0
0
Re: Re:

dacooley said:
macbindle said:
94th in the Tour of Poland 2011.
3 weeks later nearly won the Vuelta. 2nd place with only 13 seconds difference.

Maybe Michelle hung up one of those motivational posters in the loo and that's what made the difference.
the nature of august 2011 transformation will most certainly remain unsolved. thinking it had nothing to do with heavy doping program is idiotism, but ascribing 100% of froome's success to doping is nonsense ditto.

i presume one of the secrets is picking up doping cocktail which helped to master work on extremely small gearing. possibly top-end doping program revealed an ability of his cardiovascular system in a new way.
I think most in here acknowledge, that Froome as well as all other pro cyclists of course can improve in non-doping ways throughout their career. And of course Froome has done this also.

But one could argue, that without a heavy, in Froome's case, extremely effective doping program, he would still be way off his current level. All cyclists improve technique etc. during their career. And therefore, perhaps not 100% of his success, but close to it, is due to doping.
 
Re: Re:

ahsoe said:
dacooley said:
macbindle said:
94th in the Tour of Poland 2011.
3 weeks later nearly won the Vuelta. 2nd place with only 13 seconds difference.

Maybe Michelle hung up one of those motivational posters in the loo and that's what made the difference.
the nature of august 2011 transformation will most certainly remain unsolved. thinking it had nothing to do with heavy doping program is idiotism, but ascribing 100% of froome's success to doping is nonsense ditto.

i presume one of the secrets is picking up doping cocktail which helped to master work on extremely small gearing. possibly top-end doping program revealed an ability of his cardiovascular system in a new way.
I think most in here acknowledge, that Froome as well as all other pro cyclists of course can improve in non-doping ways throughout their career. And of course Froome has done this also.

But one could argue, that without a heavy, in Froome's case, extremely effective doping program, he would still be way off his current level. All cyclists improve technique etc. during their career. And therefore, perhaps not 100% of his success, but close to it, is due to doping.
This is nonsense though. Even if he is on a massive full-scale doping programme, the like of which we have never seen, you still have to have incredible mental strength and motivation to continue dominating the sport for six years and counting. Countless dopers come along and do something impressive for a year or two before getting caught or just fading back to the pack.

It's something very under-rated in Froome I think - the mental strength to fight his way to become a professional rider, given his background, and then to stay at the top of the sport for such a long time. It takes a resilience and toughness that most don't have. Wiggins, for example, could never have done what Froome has, even with identical clinical assistance

And this carries over into his training as well. He's won races, in part, thanks to taking time on the descents in the last couple of years. Something universally regarded to be a huge weakness of his when he first started winning GTs. Whatever he is taking, the guy also has an incredible work ethic and drive to improve and stay at the top.
 
Re: Re:

ahsoe said:
dacooley said:
macbindle said:
94th in the Tour of Poland 2011.
3 weeks later nearly won the Vuelta. 2nd place with only 13 seconds difference.

Maybe Michelle hung up one of those motivational posters in the loo and that's what made the difference.
the nature of august 2011 transformation will most certainly remain unsolved. thinking it had nothing to do with heavy doping program is idiotism, but ascribing 100% of froome's success to doping is nonsense ditto.

i presume one of the secrets is picking up doping cocktail which helped to master work on extremely small gearing. possibly top-end doping program revealed an ability of his cardiovascular system in a new way.
I think most in here acknowledge, that Froome as well as all other pro cyclists of course can improve in non-doping ways throughout their career. And of course Froome has done this also.

But one could argue, that without a heavy, in Froome's case, extremely effective doping program, he would still be way off his current level. All cyclists improve technique etc. during their career. And therefore, perhaps not 100% of his success, but close to it, is due to doping.
that's the case. however i'd gladly see at least one pro reaching wt level without doping, as getting stronger due to doping take kind of talent as well. though, I'd never agree to a statement something like 'froome's success consists of 98% doping, 2% hardwork and 0% talent, while the same ration for any other big gun looks like 34-33-33". -)

DFA123 said:
Even if he is on a massive full-scale doping programme, the like of which we have never seen, you still have to have incredible mental strength and motivation to continue dominating the sport for six years and counting.
Sorry, but it's mostly an off-top. Suchlike definitions are inappropriate when it comes to clinics discussions. :p
 
gillan1969 said:
Brownbobby...."born to the be the best"? One, just one, performance pre-Vuelta 2011 where this gift from birth made itself evident? just one?
I’ve never once said he demonstrated any kind of potential to be the best pre 2011. Have I?

As I said earlier, there are countless reasons why potential can stay hidden.

My point, which I stand by, is that he is now the best, thus had the genetics to be the best.

What I/we don’t know is what happened to suddenly switch on those genetics. Maybe it was a genetic predisposition to be a super responder to doping, if that fits with your narrative neatly?

It’s still genetics.
 
brownbobby said:
gillan1969 said:
Brownbobby...."born to the be the best"? One, just one, performance pre-Vuelta 2011 where this gift from birth made itself evident? just one?
I’ve never once said he demonstrated any kind of potential to be the best pre 2011. Have I?

As I said earlier, there are countless reasons why potential can stay hidden.

My point, which I stand by, is that he is now the best, thus had the genetics to be the best.

What I/we don’t know is what happened to suddenly switch on those genetics. Maybe it was a genetic predisposition to be a super responder to doping, if that fits with your narrative neatly?

It’s still genetics.
Yep, talent and genetics is a very broad spectrum, and shaky ground I think for making objective statements.

I think it was Garry Kasparov who said the ability to work hard, motivate and apply yourself is one of the most important natural talents that exists in sport. Which is something Froome excels at. If a physical genetic freak like Jan Ullrich would have had that, Armstrong may have been little more than a footnote in cycling history.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY