murali said:
The only second I could see was the 1' + behind wiggins with gerrant thomas coming behind him in National championship.
-2ND TT in the vuelta 2011 (Behind T Martin)
-2ND TT TDF 2012
-3rd TT OS 2012
Considering those results it's not exactly earthshattering he finished second in the first TT in the TdF. The problem is that even though he's an extremely good TT specialist... he's by far the best climber. That's really worrying.
I don't understand the wattage calculations, but I can differentiate what is plausible improvement and astonishing improvement. WIth Froome, the improvement levels are off the chart. I can allow for a hard-working and fast learning student, as you seem to indicate, but the level of improvement looks suspicious.
(please don't compare with wiggins. That guy doesn't talk straight.)
I'm not disagreeing, chances Froome (or Wiggo for that matter) is doping are overwhelmingly against them.
The Bilharzia story simply feels unbelievable because of this only.
My apprehension is that sky is using this story to cover up for any red-blood cell count variations in the off season.
I don't think he didn't have Bilharzia, quite simply because it will show up somewhere along the line. Just like LA really had cancer.
About the synptoms... it's really the clinic going wild here. There are villages swept with the disease. It's a bad disease, but symptoms can differ in person to person.
Keep in mind his Bilharzia is commonly detected by blood tests. This indicates that it can be (and is) detected before the horrible symptoms kick in. And this is exactly how alledgedly Froome's Bilharzia in 2011 was detected.
My take is the guy got Bilharzia, but that it's not as important as people on both sides of the divide make it out to be. He certainly didn't have it when he was becoming a pro (no way you can become a pro with Bilharzia active). On the other hand it's also not the horrific insta-gib disease people here think it is.
And yeah, I'm banking heavily on the "he's a doper" side. But I prefer to stick with things which are verifiable... that's really damning enough. Wild theories are interesting, but to build a case around it is opening yourself up for "crackpot" angles.