Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 168 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
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
1. Clearly some riders lost their edge. Some of them (Contador) is still in his prime. This is an indication things got better. But Froome now operates at the level a doped Contador was. Saying Froome is clean as good as a doped Contador is quite shocking. If we rank AC as one of the all time greats (Check his Palmares), it says Froome is a much greater cyclist (if he's clean).

That's a rather tough sell... not only was he pretty much second tier in his earlier career, we are talking here about the best clean performance ever recorded by a long, long shot.

2. There is no evidence. Just as Wiggins there is a history of being in dirty teams and dirty team doctors. That's not his choice, so it's unfair to judge him (everyone needs to start somewhere to fullfill his dreams).

But the problem is that good performance and the presence of these doctors invariably have been proven to be the basis for doping. Biggest Exceptions (in being caught at least): Evans, Sastre, Wiggins. And now Froome.

3. Basically and sadly, yes. I'd say that if DB is involved it would put all those wonderful performances at stake.

DB himself is irrefutably either an idiot or a liar. His lies about the duration of Leinders on the team, his truly unbelievable story that the management team wasn't involved in hiring a doctor*, the clear scent of doping around several staffmembers**. But this could be as much of damage control than covering up doping. He needs to be kicked out of the sport together with other managers, but that's my opinion. Proof of him facilitating doping? Nope.

That said, when was the last time sport was dominated like this and there was no doping involved? That's the cynic in me, but that opinion is sadly backed up by facts. It's so far always a component of it all.

And take this one a step further. Cycling is still plagued by doping, so how is it possible clean Brittain absolutely dominates a field which is not yet clean? How many Merckx's are there in Brittish Cycling?



* Considering Dave's history with Millar it's absolutely unbelievable he hires a doctor on a whim without a background check. And yes, Leinders, as part of the Rabo Manageent team, was by that time publicly judged by court to be involved with MR. Also, leinders is an insider who has been many years in the sport. He must have known Leinders worked with Rasmussen, Dekker and Mencov.
** Again, he was an insider, his ignorance or naivety is of the scale if he really didn't know. His "zero-tolerance" clearly was a sham until he got no choice and had to act on it.
 
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?
The only truly unusual one in british cycling and Sky is Froome.
Wiggins won a tdf that couldn't have been any more designed for him verses a weak field.

Amidst all the rumours in cycling of the new super drug AIGLE which burns fat and increases endurance, you have a guy who looks sickly blowing everyone away in the mountains and then nearly beating Tony Martin in a TT.

I think it a simple case of Froome using aigle type drugs beating the epo based doping of movistar.
 
Logic Al said:
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?
No, it's not the only plausible explanation.

Ferrari's clients used mostly the same stuff as everyone else (and even less products than many). It's all in how you use it and how your riders respond to it. Any dealings with the UCI also help.
 
Nov 6, 2009
48
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.
this exactly.

its as clear as day that Froome is on something. Im sorry, you dont show absolutely NO POTENTIAL WHAT SO EVER in your career then suddenly become the greatest all round cyclist to date. It simply doesnt compute.

what worries me even more is with the huge emergence of british cycling, in terms of fan numbers and of course participants. That the new incoming UCI President (the british guy, cant remember his name), will simply do a McQuaid and brush everything negative about british cycling under the carpet. It stinks.

All you have to do is look at Murdochs history. His newspaper bugged the phones, of the parents of those two young girls murdered by Ian Huntley.

Now i sorry, thats one of the worse things a human being could ever do. so when you think would Murdoch fund a doping ring??? Yes he could, as thats not as near disgusting as phone tapping those poor parents
 
Jul 10, 2013
155
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
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.
Think they were probably planning their evil mission to rule cycling with the new super drug they were about to create, that only they have access to. Possibly they were planning on cooking it up themselves, in a big cauldron and whilst wearing witches hats
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Don't be late Pedro said:
I do think there is some fake outrage. People could be pretty sure how Froome was going to go given his recent TT performances. And yet, like clockwork, the same people tune in and somehow seem surprised?
I'd agree.... but there's a twist. Froome got even better at climbing. It's really strange that someone is the best at BOTH disciplines.

-> Hinault? Great TT, good climber
->Lemond? Great TT, Good climber (Arguaby he was great at both disciplines in 1985)
-> Fignon? Great TT, Good climber (Arguably in 1984 Fignon was Great at both disciplines)
-> Zoetemelk? Great TT, Good climber
-> Pantani? Good TT, Great Climber

People who had it both?
Pre Epo: Fignon, Lemond
Epo: Riis, Lance. Contador

It just seems extremely crazy to say Froome is at the same level as Fignon/Lemond.

So just like his performances, we have to return to some of the greatest ever to describe Froome. That's a very hard sell.
 
Jul 4, 2011
248
0
0
darwin553 said:
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?
You're right. That makes it alright then. ;)
 
Sep 29, 2012
422
0
0
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.
I keep wondering when we will see the reports singing his extra-ordinary physiology to the rooftops - you know VO2 greater than anyone else ever, etc. The stuff we've all seen before.
 
Jul 10, 2013
155
0
0
Franklin said:
1. Clearly some riders lost their edge. Some of them (Contador) is still in his prime. This is an indication things got better. But Froome now operates at the level a doped Contador was. Saying Froome is clean as good as a doped Contador is quite shocking. If we rank AC as one of the all time greats (Check his Palmares), it says Froome is a much greater cyclist (if he's clean).

That's a rather tough sell... not only was he pretty much second tier in his earlier career, we are talking here about the best clean performance ever recorded by a long, long shot.

2. There is no evidence. Just as Wiggins there is a history of being in dirty teams and dirty team doctors. That's not his choice, so it's unfair to judge him (everyone needs to start somewhere to fullfill his dreams).

But the problem is that good performance and the presence of these doctors invariably have been proven to be the basis for doping. Biggest Exceptions (in being caught at least): Evans, Sastre, Wiggins. And now Froome.

3. Basically and sadly, yes. I'd say that if DB is involved it would put all those wonderful performances at stake.

DB himself is irrefutably either an idiot or a liar. His lies about the duration of Leinders on the team, his truly unbelievable story that the management team wasn't involved in hiring a doctor*, the clear scent of doping around several staffmembers**. But this could be as much of damage control than covering up doping. He needs to be kicked out of the sport together with other managers, but that's my opinion. Proof of him facilitating doping? Nope.

That said, when was the last time sport was dominated like this and there was no doping involved? That's the cynic in me, but that opinion is sadly backed up by facts. It's so far always a component of it all.

And take this one a step further. Cycling is still plagued by doping, so how is it possible clean Brittain absolutely dominates a field which is not yet clean? How many Merckx's are there in Brittish Cycling?



* Considering Dave's history with Millar it's absolutely unbelievable he hires a doctor on a whim without a background check. And yes, Leinders, as part of the Rabo Manageent team, was by that time publicly judged by court to be involved with MR. Also, leinders is an insider who has been many years in the sport. He must have known Leinders worked with Rasmussen, Dekker and Mencov.
** Again, he was an insider, his ignorance or naivety is of the scale if he really didn't know. His "zero-tolerance" clearly was a sham until he got no choice and had to act on it.
Thanks, great reply

On Froome it does look dodgy, but the only explanation seems to be a new super drug. That itself gives a lot of unanswered questions

Does seem strange how British cycling/sky with no real history of the 'old' drugs would be the first to use a new one. Would be interested on what it is and how it came about, seem no info on this whatsoever, despite it being the most plausible explanation

On Brailsford, Leinders could be explained by naivety, agree it doesn't look great, but he's been in cycling for nearly 20 years and if that's the most amount of 'dirt' on him it's far from conclusive
 
Logic Al said:
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?
Sky also stores their tubulars for a year in a basement in Spain, they determined it made them 1.5% faster than Belgian basements. Marginal gains at its best.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
ihavenolimbs said:
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)
Nonsense. Every doper is adamant about his innocence.

Sorry, posturing is no proof of innocence or guilt.
 
Jul 10, 2013
155
0
0
AICA ribonucleotide said:
The only truly unusual one in british cycling and Sky is Froome.
Wiggins won a tdf that couldn't have been any more designed for him verses a weak field.

Amidst all the rumours in cycling of the new super drug AIGLE which burns fat and increases endurance, you have a guy who looks sickly blowing everyone away in the mountains and then nearly beating Tony Martin in a TT.


I think it a simple case of Froome using aigle type drugs beating the epo based doping of movistar.
If that's true, why only Froome seemingly doing it?
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
2
0
burning said:
He has the skills of Indurain and Pantani

But he lost today, so he's clean
Today reminded me of Heras in the 03 vuelta or whenever it was when he came 2nd in the fastest ITT in gt history

Just insane
 
purcell said:
I keep wondering when we will see the reports singing his extra-ordinary physiology to the rooftops - you know VO2 greater than anyone else ever, etc. The stuff we've all seen before.
He is a hardsell though. He looks like he is coming from a concentration camp blended with a british hooligan twist. On a bike he is swinging and swaying as a insect.

It is not exactly Adonis we are dealing with here. But im plenty sure Sky is cooking something up describing why their man suddenly became Indurain/Pantani overnight.

But i guess we have to wait a little longer. :rolleyes:
 
This is what happens when the sport is run by someone utterly corrupt like McQuaid, who is willing to give riders a pass if he thinks it will grow the sport in new markets. He learned it all from Verbruggen.

Ps. Hi, BPC. Thought you would show up.
 
Jul 15, 2010
464
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.
No, he never won the the Vuelta and yes there were already insinuations at the 99 tour. Quit making stuff up.
 
Jul 20, 2010
129
0
0
Franklin said:
I'd agree.... but there's a twist. Froome got even better at climbing. It's really strange that someone is the best at BOTH disciplines.

-> Hinault? Great TT, good climber
->Lemond? Great TT, Good climber (Arguaby he was great at both disciplines in 1985)
-> Fignon? Great TT, Good climber (Arguably in 1984 Fignon was Great at both disciplines)
-> Zoetemelk? Great TT, Good climber
-> Pantani? Good TT, Great Climber

People who had it both?
Pre Epo: Fignon, Lemond
Epo: Riis, Lance. Contador

It just seems extremely crazy to say Froome is at the same level as Fignon/Lemond.

So just like his performances, we have to return to some of the greatest ever to describe Froome. That's a very hard sell.
Contador was OK TT, never super-TT, he was only great when there was a climb in the middle and it's OK - Schleck is a climber type with horrible TT and in his best he is a bit better climber than Contador, but Contador is far better TT, it has nothing to do with EPO. I don't want to discuss if he's clean or not. Just that he was never superstar universal rider like LA.

Froome however is another LA :)
 
Logic Al said:
If that's true, why only Froome seemingly doing it?
I was taking the **** tbh. Aigle is the home of the UCI.
The UCI brought in Team Sky for a private meeting before last year's Tour de France.

There's every chance considering his performances that Froome is on GW1516 which not too many other people would touch.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
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?
IF Sky/Froome is doping, then it goes back to those days, yes. Since british cycling dominated the olympics 2012 and just some time before (unusual for a country with no big history of cycling), they must have found the right dosage to not get caught and the right dosage to have the best possible outcomes.
Like the italians had an early advantage with Epo, before everyone else caught up.
So if Sky is team wide doping, they won´t dominate for 10 years. It will be the "good old" arms race as seen in the 2000s Armstrong-Era...

Anyway, i never think they do something worse than the opposition. They may do their things to perfection (either in the grey zone, or doping if you will).

Especially they don´t do worse than Movistar with Valv-Piti, who up today thinks he never did something wrong. As the whole ****ing team thinks, with all it´s filthy people from the dark era. That alone makes Froome a better winner than him, by far.

Go Froome. :)
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Logic Al said:
Thanks, great reply

On Froome it does look dodgy, but the only explanation seems to be a new super drug. That itself gives a lot of unanswered questions
Why not good old Homologous enriched blood doping in new plasticizer free bags?

Remember: Lance was not caught after 2005. AC was caught on a contaminated supplement/beef (I am 100% sure AC doped, but the Clen case was just a sham).

Contrary to what the public thinks: Blood doping is still undetectable!

Does seem strange how British cycling/sky with no real history of the 'old' drugs would be the first to use a new one. Would be interested on what it is and how it came about, seem no info on this whatsoever, despite it being the most plausible explanation
I'm not buyin the new drug theory.

On Brailsford, Leinders could be explained by naivety, agree it doesn't look great, but he's been in cycling for nearly 20 years and if that's the most amount of 'dirt' on him it's far from conclusive
Well, how Naive can you be when your client has been tossed in the slammer before your own eyes due to being in cahoots with a doctor? (David Millar)

After Millar's affair it's beyone belief that DB just takes any doctor of the shelve without a moderate background check. And yes, he had enough people able reading Dutch newspapers ;)

Hyper profesional cauterized Dave Brailsford does not do a background check on a man who is responsible for his biggest assets (his best riders).

And yes, it's not conclusive at all. Sky deserves the benefit of the doubt. I'd say DB needs a firm slap on the wrist for being a serial liar in the media, but that's about it. (Personally I want every manager that lies about medical affairs out, but thank god, I'm not in charge).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS