Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 173 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Nothing new about riders taking dope and not giving a fig about any effects.

There was a guy who had cancer and came back to racing, took everything going even though he had had cancer and the cancer may have been caused by doping, but that's an old story......those days are long gone in cycling.:rolleyes:
 
Sep 9, 2009
532
0
0
Cycle Chic said:
That's a bit harsh...Froomey has probably never heard of Rasmussen and Ricco...:)
Rasmussen and Ricco were, like, 20 or 30 years ago. Totally last generation.
This new generation of riders -- the Froomes, the Contadors, the Valverdes -- they are new and clean and totally not the cyclists of the EPO era, aka 1955.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
2
0
Logic Al said:
There's letting him dope, and there's letting him dope arrogantly and to go "full genius" which is the reason given why he's doing better than all the other dopers

Froome's performances over the last couple of years look very dodgy and the non-doping justifications have lots of holes in them

But then so do the explanations given on this thread of why he's doing better than other teams who are also doping. It seems to be either a new drug that nobody knows about, or somehow he is doing more than anybody else or he has no fear of cancer and everyone else does.

As someone who calls themselves sceptic, do you believe any of the above theories of why Froome is able to do better than other cyclists doping?
I dont know what the reason is, but im guessing its some sort of weight loss thing that the other teams havent started using (maybe they lack the medical experts and/or the protection from the UCI)
 
Jul 24, 2009
142
0
0
Logic Al said:
If that's true why are Sky letting him get away with it? If he gets caught the fallout will be massive

Froome may be dumb (though that's debateable) but to say all of Sky are surely is stretching it somewhat?
For a couple of years, the Clinic folks have been accusing Sky of doping, but there should have been more rumors by now, due to rider/staff "churn?" So, instead, the nuttier Clinic types are saying that there must be a UCI conspiracy/cover-up.

While Froome's TT seems unbelievable, maybe he'll blow up next week? Apparently, when planning your training for a GT, you want to peak during the GT, not before, so maybe Froome simply came in too hot? Other athletes have done this before (like Valverde, but he's not a good example of a clean cyclist).
 
Sep 3, 2012
638
0
0
leon7766 said:
Come on mate you are making fun of my lack of intelligence by asking me questions .
"No no you've got me there" rather than having a discussion then it's best you carry on with the pointless jibes about Spanish dopers on a Froome talk only page. :cool:
 
Jul 10, 2013
155
0
0
Dazed and Confused said:
Plenty of riders on Sky stays clear of the nasty stuff (just check out how the B team is doing in races), but there are a few hardcore dopers who will go very far to dominate races. Froome is rogue and hes pulling little Porte along for the show.

Chicken was another Froome like cyclist. He took just about every drug available, regardless of side effect.

Froome and Chicken, pretty in yellow.
So those 3 ok with getting cancer, and nobody else in the peloton is, which is why they're taking this new drug and nobody else is?

doesn't that seem a little far fetched to you?
 
Jul 4, 2011
248
0
0
Logic Al said:
As someone who calls themselves sceptic, do you believe any of the above theories of why Froome is able to do better than other cyclists doping?
Well two of the others in the top 5 have already been busted, and one(Kreuziger) has a shady past- so I've read- with a shady doctor. So maybe they aren't able to dope as "freely" as Froome, or even dope at all. The consequences of them getting caught far out weigh the consequences of Froome getting caught.
 
Oct 28, 2012
31
0
0
chrisb said:
so this bike was clearly designed and assembled weeks ago. Or more than likely months ago.

And sky where able to predict the wind direction on a particular day which was months away, to then maximise the frame shape to cut through this predicted wind???

that sounds believable :rolleyes:
They can, however, use weather data to work out the prevailing winds for that area and design a bike to take advantage of those conditions. If, on the day, the weather isn't as expected they just use their normal TT bike if it is disadvantageous to use the cross-wind efficient one.
 
chrisb said:
And sky where able to predict the wind direction on a particular day which was months away, to then maximise the frame shape to cut through this predicted wind???
Well, they aren't capable of predicting the wind direction. That's why they have TT-bikes for any wind conditions, I guess.
But these geniuses messed it up royally. They strapped Fromme onto the NW-wind bike instead of the NE-wind bike, an that's how he lost the few seconds on the last section.
 
Jul 10, 2013
155
0
0
the sceptic said:
I dont know what the reason is, but im guessing its some sort of weight loss thing that the other teams havent started using (maybe they lack the medical experts and/or the protection from the UCI)
Legal or illegal?

Though would have thought if it had been used for a couple of years now with Froome/Wiggins then the other teams would have got wind of it and caught up by now?

Probably the most likely of all theories on here (the Sky riders not fearing cancer and the "full genius" thing are ridiculous)
 
filipo said:
Rasmussen and Ricco were, like, 20 or 30 years ago. Totally last generation.
This new generation of riders -- the Froomes, the Contadors, the Valverdes -- they are new and clean and totally not the cyclists of the EPO era, aka 1955.
You forgot to mention Cobo. A true leader of this new generation if there ever was one.
 
ihavenolimbs said:
So, instead, the nuttier Clinic types are saying that there must be a UCI conspiracy/cover-up.
You mean the UCI protecting Armstrong never happened? Up until the Doprah interview, Hein and Pat were reluctant to enforce USADA's findings. Reluctant!

You mean ASO has never negotiated with riders either? That's happened too.

Kimmage was sued by the UCI.

Think about that for a minute and reconsider disregarding the UCI's involvement in creating grand tour winners.

Time for another summary:
Froome goes alien on the first mountain top finish, destroying everyone.
Froome attacked repeatedly over at least 60KM with no help over monster climbs and survives just fine.
Froome displays total TT domination, just barely losing to a TT specialist, destroys the GC contenders again.
All of this power and speed revealed only when riding for Sky.
 
Jul 7, 2012
509
0
0
ihavenolimbs said:
the nuttier Clinic types are saying that there must be a UCI conspiracy/cover-up.
To be fair, the UCI does have a track record when it comes to covering up for certain 'protected' riders. Remember Armstrong, Brochard?
 
Jul 10, 2013
155
0
0
H2OUUP2 said:
Well two of the others in the top 5 have already been busted, and one(Kreuziger) has a shady past- so I've read- with a shady doctor. So maybe they aren't able to dope as "freely" as Froome, or even dope at all. The consequences of them getting caught far out weigh the consequences of Froome getting caught.
But if Froome can get away with whatever he's doing from the testers then why can't they? and what about the cyclists without the history?

Like you say it's those who have been busted who are closer to Froome than those who haven't!
 
Jul 10, 2013
155
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
You mean the UCI protecting Armstrong never happened? Up until the Doprah interview, Hein and Pat were reluctant to enforce USADA's findings. Reluctant!

You mean ASO has never negotiated with riders either? That's happened too.

Kimmage was sued by the UCI.

Think about that for a minute and reconsider disregarding the UCI's involvement in creating grand tour winners.
after the fallout from Armstrong, what do the UCI gain from repeating it with Froome/Sky?
 
Jul 24, 2009
142
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
You mean the UCI protecting Armstrong never happened? Up until the Doprah interview, Hein and Pat were reluctant to enforce USADA's findings. Reluctant!

You mean ASO has never negotiated with riders either? That's happened too.

Kimmage was sued by the UCI.

Think about that for a minute and reconsider disregarding the UCI's involvement in creating grand tour winners.
The (top levels of the) UCI seems to be as incompetent as they are corrupt, which is why we know about these things. For the conspiracy theorists to be correct would require that McQuaid and friends show some competence.
 
Jul 4, 2011
248
0
0
Logic Al said:
But if Froome can get away with whatever he's doing from the testers then why can't they? and what about the cyclists without the history?

Like you say it's those who have been busted who are closer to Froome than those who haven't!
They all can get away with it. But there can be mistakes made. There's no room for error from Conta and Valverde. They screw up and it's over. Froome really has nothing to lose which probably means he's willing to go "oldschool" and just juice up like Conta and Valverde use to.

And like what's been said before, the UCI has been known to "help" guys like Froome. Because the payoff is huge.
 
DirtyWorks said:
You mean the UCI protecting Armstrong never happened? Up until the Doprah interview, Hein and Pat were reluctant to enforce USADA's findings. Reluctant!

You mean ASO has never negotiated with riders either? That's happened too.

Kimmage was sued by the UCI.

Think about that for a minute and reconsider disregarding the UCI's involvement in creating grand tour winners.

Time for another summary:
Froome goes alien on the first mountain top finish, destroying everyone.
Froome attacked repeatedly over at least 60KM with no help over monster climbs and survives just fine.
Froome displays total TT domination, just barely losing to a TT specialist, destroys the GC contenders again.
All of this power and speed revealed only when riding for Sky.
The bolded never happened.
:confused:
 
ihavenolimbs said:
The (top levels of the) UCI seems to be as incompetent as they are corrupt, which is why we know about these things. For the conspiracy theorists to be correct would require that McQuaid and friends show some competence.
Yeah. It's not like the UCI covered up Armstrong's corticosteroid positive and tried to hide Contador's positive, which was only foiled by a leak to the German media. Never happened.
 
Jul 10, 2013
155
0
0
H2OUUP2 said:
They all can get away with it. But there can be mistakes made. There's no room for error from Conta and Valverde. They screw up and it's over. Froome really has nothing to lose which probably means he's willing to go "oldschool" and just juice up like Conta and Valverde use to.

And like what's been said before, the UCI has been known to "help" guys like Froome. Because the payoff is huge.
Contador and Valverde are two guys. Surely there's a dozen other of the top 20 who could juice up as much as Froome?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS