Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 167 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
TheEnoculator said:
All teams that dope to the gills are never subtle. USPS is perfect example. They practically dared others to catch them.
Mapei, Gewiss, Telekom... it's quite common to degrade the competition on dope fumes.
 
Jul 10, 2013
155
0
0
lemoogle said:
1. Come on, you watched stage 8 didn't you? I mean they did a 1-2 last year already. won pretty much every race they took part in etc.

2. There are many theories right around the forum, I'm probably not the person to explain them, nor do I need to , this isn't about the exact how, this is about how clear it is that something is going on in front of our blind eyes.

3. Pretty sure that fairly explains itself, USPS didn't have a special drug, other people did do it, but they were protected. It could very well be that sky is doign something different other people don't have too, who knows.


The question is, what can you believe? I did not come to this forum convinced that sky were doping, I found what I saw on la planche des belles filles added to sky's 2012 season, to be too much to simply ignore it, it looked too much like USPS.
I came on here to read what much better informed people than me were saying and made up my mind based on that.

I personally don't think you need to know much more than this:
Froome was a noname cyclist, mediocre both at time trialling and climbing before the vuelta 2011.
Now he's the best climber by miles, climbing similar times to the EPO era. He's TTing better than anyone but 100%TT specialist Tony Martin, ( in what looked like worse wind conditions ).
He's leading anyone else by more than 3 minutes after 1 mountain stage and one short TT.

Add to this the Massive amount of information you can find in this forum, like about Leinders etc. and tell me if you can believe
Agree there's a lot that points towards it, like you say

But then then means the follow on questions that nobody seems to be answering, most importantly what is he on and why isn't everyone else doing it? He is by far and away the best rider on this tour, even Armstrong wasn't this dominant

That's the most interesting question to me, why's he so far ahead? either he is better than everyone else (whether they all are/aren't doping) or he's on way better drugs surely?

And when did it start for Brailsford/Sky. Have they always been at it since the track days?
 
Jul 24, 2009
142
0
0
lemoogle said:
Why would wiggins "out" anyone, so he can be the first ( one of the first ) to have his knighthood taken away? if that 's even possible. He's got the most to gain, he's looking crazy clean next to froome.
But if Wiggins were to someday get caught by retroactive testing, he'd probably do a Landis?
 
Bag of Guts said:
I just can't get my head around the labyrinthine möbius strip of logic that would lead me to a position of defending Froome's career/performances.

If Froome is clean, then he deserves to be spoken of in hyperbole that I am just not hearing from anyone.

Nobody truly believes in this guy.

Even the sheepish, hand-tied commentators and insiders seem embarrassed.

If he really is clean he deserves to be lavished with epithets like 'greatest physical human specimen of all time'.

If clean, he is a physiological marvel who has smashed the constraints of body-type specific specialist disciplines (climbing/TT-ing) with a physique so remarkable and unusual that biologists everywhere should be clamouring all over each other for the chance to study him.

Cycling had the brass balls to try this in the days of Miguelón and Lance (never before recorded lung-capacity/lactate threshold anomaly) but we all know how that turned out.

We don't know anything whatsoever about Froome's physiology. All details are closely guarded by his team.

Why is that? :rolleyes: Here's a guy who's equalling the performances of the greats, and in the 'clean era of cycling', no less.

Sky could use this physiological marvel narrative to create a hero of colossal stature and make a ton of cash in the process.

Why are they not doing this? Well apart from the fact that his peptide pumped body looks hideous, they know he is resolutely not the real deal and are too embarrassed to push it.

Unless they do, in which case, I'd be very interested in the science.

I wonder what Wiggins thinks. He's home and dry and in the history books unless Froome brings the house down with his ridiculousness.

If I were Wiggins, I wouldn't be happy about that at all.
Nice post...
 
Jul 28, 2009
898
0
0
thehog said:
The Dawg is putting me out of a job.

Now there's no one who believes he's actually clean! :eek:
Well I don't believe Froome is doping in the conventional sense. My understanding is that Leinders spent the 2011-12 off season on sabbatical at area 51. Apparently the cure for Froome included some extraterrestrial nanotech.
 
purcell said:
In many ways - ^this.

The problem with even trying to watch from this point on, on the aassumption that maye we will see some battles for second and third, is that I expect Sky to now just do the old "USPS Postal" train routine - ride hard tempo and close down everything else that happens.

We won't see any breakaways from anyone in the top 10 and we won't see anything other than just endless pictures of the Sky army at the front protecting Froome. It will be boring and utterly, heartbreakingly disappointing.

No point even turning it on now.
There is an epic battle in the works for the final 2 podium spots.
 
Jul 10, 2013
155
0
0
nightfend said:
My guess would be some type of Aicar-like drug that is not currently being tested for. Probably pushed forth by the British cycling program a few years back and seeing the biggest returns via Sky with Wiggins and now Froome.

As to why other teams have not used these drugs. Well, one, they are experimental and possibly very dangerous to the riders using them. And also, not all teams may have a contact to get these drugs. It is not like EPO/Cera where the average hospital has a repository of the stuff.
Good answer, but is there anything more to this than just theory?

British cycling 'success' started with the track, so guessing if it was a British cycling drug program it started with the track and then went to the road and that they're all at it?
 
Jul 8, 2009
323
0
0
Logic Al said:
Been reading for a while, but first post so please be gentle!

Reading this thread and others it seems to be taken as gospel that Froome is doping. Looking at what’s happened in the past and how dominant Froome has been it’s an obvious conclusion to make

But some things don’t make sense to me, and this and other threads are mostly just repetitive sly digs and insinuations without any detail/evidence. Found this a bit frustrating as reading this forum there’s some very knowledgeable guys. So few questions:

1. Is Froome doping more than anyone else in the TDF? If so, what’s he on and why isn’t anyone else on it? And if not, what causes the dominance if they’re all at it?

2. What evidence has there been? With Armstrong there was Bassons, O’Reilly, the ‘saddle sores’, accusations with some sort of evidence in L’equipe and Sunday Times. Has there been anything like that for Froome?

3. How far does it go in British cycling? If Froome is doping then that means Brailsford is on board (and a bigger hypocrite than anyone there’s ever been in cycling, including L.A.). So does that mean Wiggins, Cav, Thomas are all doping? And the track cyclists like Hoy, Pendleton and even young Trott? Or is there a ‘point’ where British cyclists become dopers and if so what is it
What stories did you hear about Armstrong after he won the Vuelta in 1998? The Tour 99? It wasn't until about 2001 before allegations started surfacing about nefarious conduct.

The evidence? Well third fastest in history at AX3 Domaines is telling enough...extracting :20 sec/km over 5km from Contador tells us a bit more...

This tour has been over since Saturday and today only confirms what has been opined since then. If today's TT had been over 60km, we would have seen time gaps not seen since the nineties, with Indurain and Ullrich, both riders who had massive amounts of musculature to go with their powers.

Two stages, 38km in total for the destruction that can be noted with a perfunctory glance at the general classification. About 5sec/km or better from all others, starting with Valverde. Froome could win this tour by 10 minutes if he chooses.
 
Jul 4, 2011
248
0
0
Logic Al said:
I think if Froome is doping then the rest of them must be, otherwise why just Froome?
See, right there just tells me you're not reading posts, or not watching. Or this is the first TDF you've ever watched. No one has dominated a Tour like this after two stages. Not even Armstrong has after 1 mountain stage, and a very short 30km TT. That's just ONE reason people are seeing red flags. Did you watch the AX 3 domaines climb this year?

It's kinda like the O.J. Simpson trial. We all know he did it. But then some Donkey comes along and says "where's the proof? He was proven innocent". C'mon, man!!
 
EnacheV said:
You will be only get stuff like

"Froome is a disgrace for cycling and its efforts to clean itself up. This, quite frankly is not normal. "

"Froome is definitely doping"

nothing else

at least so far. maybe in the future some concrete evidences or even small evidences of doping will show up

for now, there are some people who tinks something is doped when the real life standings are not = their imaginary standings, then post angry on the forums
He's certainly never tested positive.
 
I'll save everyone some time:

No, Logic Al, we don't actually "know" that Sky dopes, or how, or when. Currently we have no proof, just theories based on our observations, on calculations, on the history of the sport and on the history of several people who are or were directly involved with Sky. Feel free to believe they're clean, or that they'd still dominate if everybody was clean, as you see fit.
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
vrusimov said:
What stories did you hear about Armstrong after he won the Vuelta in 1998?
There was the one about how he changed his name from Abraham Olano...

General points re the timelag between Lance winning and the stories emerging taken, though.
 
Dec 14, 2012
99
0
0
Logic Al said:
3. How far does it go in British cycling?
I've always thought that the prototype for the new-age British doper was Chrissie Wellington. Her super fast development and domination are what is currently happening in cycling.
 
Jul 10, 2013
155
0
0
vrusimov said:
What stories did you hear about Armstrong after he won the Vuelta in 1998? The Tour 99? It wasn't until about 2001 before allegations started surfacing about nefarious conduct.

The evidence? Well third fastest in history at AX3 Domaines is telling enough...extracting :20 sec/km over 5km from Contador tells us a bit more...

This tour has been over since Saturday and today only confirms what has been opined since then. If today's TT had been over 60km, we would have seen time gaps not seen since the nineties, with Indurain and Ullrich, both riders who had massive amounts of musculature to go with their powers.

Two stages, 38km in total for the destruction that can be noted with a perfunctory glance at the general classification. About 5sec/km or better from all others, starting with Valverde. Froome could win this tour by 10 minutes if he chooses.
Froome's rise started with the Vuelta 2 years ago though, so not too differing a time gap. And think people are more suspicious now

Agree with everything else you said, he's suspiciously dominant

Just the questions lead next to a new drug, and there doesn't seem to be anything other than theory on what this could be? EPO for example was known when it came into use

Froome's dominance being completely clean seems far fetched. But then so does a secret super drug developed for British cycling that only Sky know about

Must be a rationale explanation for all this, not seen it from either side on this forum?
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
There was the one about how he changed his name from Abraham Olano...

General points re the timelag between Lance winning and the stories emerging taken, though.
Well there is the story of the journalists laughing in the pressroom while watching Armstrong 'charging' up Sestriere in 99 and all saying about the Tour De Clean being a joke, till their editors told them this is a great story and to not mention doping.
 
Jul 10, 2013
155
0
0
H2OUUP2 said:
See, right there just tells me you're not reading posts, or not watching. Or this is the first TDF you've ever watched. No one has dominated a Tour like this after two stages. Not even Armstrong has after 1 mountain stage, and a very short 30km TT. That's just ONE reason people are seeing red flags. Did you watch the AX 3 domaines climb this year?

It's kinda like the O.J. Simpson trial. We all know he did it. But then some Donkey comes along and says "where's the proof? He was proven innocent". C'mon, man!!
See my post about, you think he's doing the secret super drug that only Sky know about?
 
Jun 25, 2013
1,442
0
0
H2OUUP2 said:
See, right there just tells me you're not reading posts, or not watching. Or this is the first TDF you've ever watched. No one has dominated a Tour like this after two stages. Not even Armstrong has after 1 mountain stage, and a very short 30km TT. That's just ONE reason people are seeing red flags. Did you watch the AX 3 domaines climb this year?

It's kinda like the O.J. Simpson trial. We all know he did it. But then some Donkey comes along and says "where's the proof? He was proven innocent". C'mon, man!!
For argument's sake, why not? Why can't others be on the juice but Froome just does a better job on it based on training programs and hard work?

I suppose the same logic can be used to sustain an argument Froome isn't on the juice as he could have derived the same advantage from the same methods as I argued above but we don't want to spend too much time on here chasing this theory, do we? ;)
 
May 14, 2009
150
0
0
ihavenolimbs said:
Can anyone that is accusing Sky of doping suggest what their program might be?

If you were a team boss/dr, would trust Wiggins to never "out" you? He seems to be too unpredictable?
EPO started being used in the 90's and the anti-doping test only developed in 2002, so I'm betting in some sort of new drug, probably still in testing.


If for some chance Wiggins would 'out' someone he would also lose his only Tour de France. I really don't care how unpredictable you are, when there is so much to lose.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Logic Al said:
Good answer, but is there anything more to this than just theory?

British cycling 'success' started with the track, so guessing if it was a British cycling drug program it started with the track and then went to the road and that they're all at it?
I agree. Where is the smoking gun?

Today was a great day for the new clean era of cycling. All should be proud to be around and able to watch. And we have the Anglo Saxons to thank for this. Guys like David Brailsford and David Millar, from now on the Two Big Daddies [D's] of cycling for me. Perhaps that was what D and D were speaking of on that hot summers night when the French police came in for a cup of tea and a cheese and cucumber sandwich.

David and David, the men behind the succes of Chris.

Beautifull times.
 
Jul 10, 2013
155
0
0
Jux1893 said:
EPO started being used in the 90's and the anti-doping test only developed in 2002, so I'm betting in some sort of new drug, probably still in testing.


If for some chance Wiggins would 'out' someone he would also lose his only Tour de France. I really don't care how unpredictable you are, when there is so much to lose.
That's the only plausible explanation for Froome's success being down to doping

But does beg the question why Sky are the first/only team to use it and how it all came about?
 
Jul 24, 2009
142
0
0
nightfend said:
My guess would be some type of Aicar-like drug that is not currently being tested for. Probably pushed forth by the British cycling program a few years back and seeing the biggest returns via Sky with Wiggins and now Froome.

As to why other teams have not used these drugs. Well, one, they are experimental and possibly very dangerous to the riders using them. And also, not all teams may have a contact to get these drugs. It is not like EPO/Cera where the average hospital has a repository of the stuff.
Froome is adamant that he won't get busted, and he's smart enough to be aware of retroactive testing, and that other riders/staff may talk, so even experimental drugs would be too risky?

What are the possibilities:
1) he's happy with 10 minutes of fame, and does not mind risking losing his wins later (which could take years), or thinks that he is too smart to get caught;
2) he (or Sky) have found a method of doping that is not currently prohibited, or fundamentally cannot be detected in tests; or
3) he's not doping?

Forgotten anything?

Personally, I'd rank these (decreasing likelihood) 2) -> 3) -> 1)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts