Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 174 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 10, 2013
155
0
0
Eshnar said:
nevertheless they were able to see Gods, monsters and stuff so they surely were on something powerful.
Haha that's true. Though what they were on probably no good for riding a bike!
 
Aug 20, 2010
43
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?
Why did Rabobank and Saunier Duval let them get away with it? Teams benefit when their riders win. They can either be complicit or willfully ignorant.

The fallout for Rabobank has been enormous, but they were more than willing to look the other way while Rasmussen took every drug imaginable. What makes you think Sky would be any different? Why look a gift horse in the mouth? Rabobank only stepped in when it became painfully obvious to everyone else that Rasmussen was doping.
 
Logic Al said:
Contador and Valverde are two guys. Surely there's a dozen other of the top 20 who could juice up as much as Froome?
It's not simple maths, it's not a simple formula, you don't inject 200 dopes and get to ride at 6 W/kg and then at 6.2 W/kg if you go with 300 dopes. It takes a lot of medical expertise to make the most out of a doping program that's also safe enough.
 
Desparation

I sincerely believe that ASO|UCI panicked into giving SKY a free pass. They are looking for anybody with a semblance of respectability. Wiggins with his gold medals seemed to fit the bill. They underestimated DB's greed last year however wanting two on the podium so managed a block after last Saturday's farce but like a greedy London banker, DB will be back for more. Porte's performance today suggests he is not happy with the latest development.
 
Jul 10, 2013
155
0
0
Balabar said:
Why did Rabobank and Saunier Duval let them get away with it? Teams benefit when their riders win. They can either be complicit or willfully ignorant.

The fallout for Rabobank has been enormous, but they were more than willing to look the other way while Rasmussen took every drug imaginable. What makes you think Sky would be any different? Why look a gift horse in the mouth? Rabobank only stepped in when it became painfully obvious to everyone else that Rasmussen was doping.
The post I was responding to was stating that Sky was seemingly prepared to go a lot further with their risks than all the other team

That bit didn't make sense to me, why Sky are seemingly 'worse' than all other teams
 
Jul 4, 2011
248
0
0
Logic Al said:
Contador and Valverde are two guys. Surely there's a dozen other of the top 20 who could juice up as much as Froome?
They probably are. But like hrotha said, it's not as simple as that.

Maybe, like I said in an earlier post, the Peleton is actually getting cleaner, and Sky didn't get the memo??

Doping effects different people in different ways, so it's impossible to really know why??

I dunno.But Armstrong was doping while everyone else was as well. Why did he win? We have evidence he had help from the UCI...Maybe that's why everyone thinks this is what's happening now.
 
Logic Al said:
Contador and Valverde are two guys. Surely there's a dozen other of the top 20 who could juice up as much as Froome?
For reasons we can only guess, they didn't.

My personal favorite crackpot theory is the UCI is "growing cycling" by helping Sky.
Sky's 2012 TdF boosts London 2012 Olympics viewership. ASO now bidding on the Tour of Britain.
The UCI's 7 year-old (maybe a bit older) initiative to "grow cycling" in Africa has already returned a GT destroyer. What a great way to generate television viewers!

Somehow, Some way, Thom Wiesel managed to deliver a 7x winner myth and the UCI was involved.
 
Jul 10, 2013
155
0
0
hrotha said:
It's not simple maths, it's not a simple formula, you don't inject 200 dopes and get to ride at 6 W/kg and then at 6.2 W/kg if you go with 300 dopes. It takes a lot of medical expertise to make the most out of a doping program that's also safe enough.
So sky's doping program is much more sophisticated and advanced than anyone else's and has been for over 2 years?

Guess it's possible, though would be interesting who's involved as a relatively new team has come along and blown other teams who have been doping for years out the water
 
Jul 10, 2013
155
0
0
H2OUUP2 said:
They probably are. But like hrotha said, it's not as simple as that.

Maybe, like I said in an earlier post, the Peleton is actually getting cleaner, and Sky didn't get the memo??

Doping effects different people in different ways, so it's impossible to really know why??

I dunno.But Armstrong was doping while everyone else was as well. Why did he win? We have evidence he had help from the UCI...Maybe that's why everyone thinks this is what's happening now.
Yep he had help from the UCI and the best doctors/resources

Parallels with Sky for sure, can see why the comparisons

But can you get the same advantages with EPO and blood transfusions as the good old days?
 
Jul 24, 2009
142
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
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.
I think that most long-time cyclists and cycling-fans are watching Froome, and hearing all the flat-out stupid rationalisations from people like Brailsford (and he's calling us too stupid to understand powermeter data), and wondering whether we're seeing another "miracle."

Even the normally-reserved fellas:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/healthy-skepticism-dealing-with-doping.html
are getting vocal.

But without any credible explanation as to what Sky's miracle-sauce is, I don't know how anyone can be so convinced of doping, just yet. Though, after a few more stages like today ...
 
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!
The UCI has ignored positives before. There's no consequences for ignoring positives. Why did they pick Sky to support? No idea. But, it sure seems like they have.
 
Jul 10, 2013
155
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
The UCI has ignored positives before. There's no consequences for ignoring positives. Why did they pick Sky to support? No idea. But, it sure seems like they have.
After the fallout from Armstrong what do the UCI have to gain from ignoring positives?

Also is there anything to suggest Froome has failed a test?
 
Sep 9, 2009
532
0
0
Bronstein said:
You forgot to mention Cobo. A true leader of this new generation if there ever was one.
Or that elderly gent from times way gone by, Mauro Santambrogio. But he rode ages ago, this generation is totally different.
 
Nov 6, 2009
48
0
0
Logic Al said:
So sky's doping program is much more sophisticated and advanced than anyone else's and has been for over 2 years?

Guess it's possible, though would be interesting who's involved as a relatively new team has come along and blown other teams who have been doping for years out the water
ever think ASO are probably hoping Sky Tv eventually buy the rights to The Tour?

If Sky got the cycling onto their satellite tv channel then the sport could be as big, in monetary terms as the premierleague. So we're talking riders, team owners, team principals, and lets not forget ASO and the UCI would be cashing in millions a year.

this thing goes deeper than Chris Froome sticking a syringe into his arm
 
ihavenolimbs said:
...without any credible explanation as to what Sky's miracle-sauce is, I don't know how anyone can be so convinced of doping, just yet. Though, after a few more stages like today ...
Realize too they left at least one other grand tour podium contender out. (Uran) Sky had 4-5 grand tour podium contenders after the Giro. Think about that.

There's sufficient evidence to believe the UCI is corrupt, choosing winners. The Sky grand tour performances are ridiculous. Why wait another 10 years for it all to come out?
 
Jul 4, 2011
248
0
0
Logic Al said:
After the fallout from Armstrong what do the UCI have to gain from ignoring positives?

Also is there anything to suggest Froome has failed a test?
Remember, the UCI feels they did nothing wrong with Armstrong. Those people that did that are still in power today. So they probably feel the same way.
 
Logic Al said:
After the fallout from Armstrong what do the UCI have to gain from ignoring positives?
Making money! Doping controversy loses money. No doping controversy makes money. Cleanest peloton ever.

Logic Al said:
Also is there anything to suggest Froome has failed a test?
How would anyone know unless the UCI opens a case? The samples are anonymous to everyone but the UCI now. (2013) No more Contador positives slipping out. No one knew Armstrong's 2009/10 samples were red-hot positive until the UCI screwed up and released the rider code for Armstrong.
 
Jul 10, 2013
155
0
0
chrisb said:
ever think ASO are probably hoping Sky Tv eventually buy the rights to The Tour?

If Sky got the cycling onto their satellite tv channel then the sport could be as big, in monetary terms as the premierleague. So we're talking riders, team owners, team principals, and lets not forget ASO and the UCI would be cashing in millions a year.

this thing goes deeper than Chris Froome sticking a syringe into his arm
Pretty sure that Sky would quit the sponsorship if a leading rider got caught doping. Reputational damage would be huge otherwise

Not sure whether they could get a similar level of sponsorship?

With Armstrong etc... It was clearly in UCI's interest to cover it up. Just not seeing why that's the case now. They'd likely not survive another fallout like that
 
Jul 10, 2013
155
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
Making money! Doping controversy loses money. No doping controversy makes money. Cleanest peloton ever.
But then it tends to come out in the end, and a lot more people will believe the rumours these days.

DirtyWorks said:
How would anyone know unless the UCI opens a case? The samples are anonymous to everyone but the UCI now. (2013) No more Contador positives slipping out. No one knew Armstrong's 2009/10 samples were red-hot positive until the UCI screwed up and released the rider code for Armstrong.
Nobody knows, but people are speaking like it's happened

Majority of this forum are convinced Froome is doping, which is fair enough as it looks v dodgy

But there are half a dozen wildly varying and conflicting views on what he's doing, why it's more successful and how he's getting away with it on here. Most with as many holes as his performances
 
Logic Al said:
Pretty sure that Sky would quit the sponsorship if a leading rider got caught doping. Reputational damage would be huge otherwise
I'm confident they would insist that in nw way they believed the team would be doping and that they are terribly disapointed since they really believed blahblahblah...
Withdrawing from a surprisingly dirty team is good publicity, sponsoring a supposedly clean team ist good publicity - you cannot lose if you spin it the right way.
 
Nov 6, 2009
48
0
0
Logic Al said:
Pretty sure that Sky would quit the sponsorship if a leading rider got caught doping. Reputational damage would be huge otherwise

Not sure whether they could get a similar level of sponsorship?

With Armstrong etc... It was clearly in UCI's interest to cover it up. Just not seeing why that's the case now. They'd likely not survive another fallout like that
Murdoch is the man behind Team Sky, Murdoch owned the Sunday World who wire tapped the parents of the 2 young girls that where murdered by Ian Huntley.

So in the days after their daughters where murdered, Murdochs paper tapped their phones. Think about that moral values of that for a second

Funding and backing a doping programme is like water off a ducks back compared to phone tapping them parents. In fact, it pales in significance to it.

Murdoch has no conscience. But he does have a bottomless pit of money that could shut ANYBODY UP
 
argyllflyer said:
Well according to Rob Hayles on Eurosport it was specifically designed to cope with the winds in that part of France for today's stage. He was standing there by the Sky bus with the bike in his hands and I assume that info came from someone with slightly more knowledge than you? The bike was angled apparently to be more aerodynamic in a particular type of crosswind.
Shaking head and rolling eyes simultaneously...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY