Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[The Hitch]

I want a poll for all Froome believers"which nationality are you"

Don't be surprised if 0 say gb.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Let's see...maybe start with following through on everything that you claimed you would do three years ago.

Just the other day he offered access to the dietician to debunk the super-skinny-super-power phenomena as doping. I wonder when we'll hear from the dietician?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Armstrong:
- wasn't a serious GC-rider before getting sick
- suddenly outperforms all competition after returning from illness (with about 5-10% margin)
- Drove up the mountains posting record times
- had a tremendous acceleration on the climbs
- was top TT as well
- Was from a team, country and continent without a long history in cycling
- his team dominates in the TdF like there's no competition
- methodically denied PED's as reason for his succes
- Started what is now the biggest doping history in modern sports

Froome:
- wasn't that good of a rider to begin with pre vuelta 2011
- suddenly outperforms all competition, after being cured from illness (with about 5-10% margin)
- drives up mountains posting times similar to above mentioned armstrong
-has tremendous acceleration on the climbs
- is top TT as well
- hails from a country, team and continent (africa) without serious background in (road)cycling
- his team dominates any stagerace it enters like theres no competition
- methodically denies PED's as reason for his succes

Dear Mr Froome. Spot the differences in the text above and explain why people should believe you on your blue eyes? Give people some facts to back up your results or suffer from public doubt for weeks/months, perhaps years to come (whether your clean or not)

It does seem like an odd coincidence..............

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Froome is from Bilharzia, which is a British colon, I think.

 

[murali]

hmm, i'm never heard a politician asked the media to all group together and come back with the most challenging question possible, would be suicidal!

seems like people don't want to be proved right (or risk they are wrong)

Brailsford (whatever his motives) as put an offer in, best way of exposing Froome is to take that up. Yet nobody seems interested

Its ok that you havent heard this tactic. thats why it works.

The reason why nobody is taking it up is that now the onus of proof will lie entirely on what the reporters will come up with.

Now everyone will wait for end of tour to follow up, and then the next tour, and so on.

 

[PasqualeMendoza]

DISCLAIMER: I am about to write words that may upset some people as I do not take Froome's doping as a given, though I would appreciate it if people can refrain from insulting me. I may be fluent in English, but I am not English. I have not written this due to a hatred of Johnny Foreigner and a worship of Wiggo/Froome. I am not a Skyborg fanboy. I am/was not an Armstrong fanboy. I too am as sad as most posters that we have not seen a decent GC battle this year.

As a new poster, I must say that I find the parochial atmosphere of 'The Clinic' to be a bit weird. A small minority ("fanboys") speak in defence of their heros (in the case of this thread, Froome) and are generally shouted down, or belittled, by equally zealous believers in the guilt of the accused. I feel that the majority of comments are over-the-top, and I struggle to see how the level of cynisism displayed in most threads can be conducive to enjoyment of cycling.

The certainty with which many here assume Froome's guilt is somewhat baffling. While there is plenty of justified suspicion (as there is with pretty much every rider in the peleton), there is no smoking gun - in that there is no documented evidence of Froome partaking in illegal drug use.

The Leinders link is the most compelling to me, and on top of that we've had the presence of Yates and his being friends with Armstrong/Motoman, a number of incredibly quick times up climbs, and a team riding others off their wheels in a USPS style. There are undoubtedly many other suspicions that don't immediately come to my mind, but still, there is less evidence of Froome being a cheat than there is of the likes of Contador and Valverde - riders who unquestionably have documented evidence, and subsequent bans as a result, of their drug use. On top of this, many here are willing to compare Froome with Armstrong, again, a rider for whom there has long been documented evidence, which was widely known even while he was 'winning' his Tours.

And that's the thing that baffles me. The consensus on the race threads has seen larger amounts of support for riders like Contador and Valverde, on many occasions from posters who criticise Froome for cheating. I can understand the desire to see a close competition (nobody likes a one-horse race), but the venom that has been reserved for Froome seems largely unjustified to me.

I'd say I take quite an agnostic view on the situation. I hold valid the possibility that Froome is on the juice and that he is doing it clean. However, on my personal suspicion index, I'd still place documented dopers like Contador/Valverde as being more likely to be on the juice (and again, with AC/Valv I hold both possibilities valid, they could be clean this tour, they could be dirty).

In the mean time, I'm going to get what enjoyment I can from cycling, and reserve deriding riders until their guilt has been ascertained beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. a failed test or a documented testimony of their drug use).

 

[lemoogle]

I'd say I take quite an agnostic view on the situation. I hold valid the possibility that Froome is on the juice and that he is doing it clean. However, on my personal suspicion index, I'd still place documented dopers like Contador/Valverde as being more likely to be on the juice (and again, with AC/Valv I hold both possibilities valid, they could be clean this tour, they could be dirty).

I won't question your opinion that froome is doping but I will question your logic and possibilities

1. P(D(Froome) AND ¬D(AC/V)) > 0

2. Destroy(Froome, AC/V) AND D(AC/V) -> D(Froome)

Hence P(D(Froome)) > P(D(AC/V))


Unless you re telling me that froome is the greatest human being in the history of all sports. i.e. statement 2 is wrong

edit ¬ stands for NOT() here. P for probability and D for Doping

 

[GuyIncognito]

The reason why nobody is taking it up is that now the onus of proof will lie entirely on what the reporters will come up with.

No, it's because the last three times Brailsford said this, he rejected what the fans and reporters came up with (first allowing someone like Kimmage to be around the team, then publishing blood values, then publishing power readings)

So it's only logical that at the fourth time of asking he will once again reject what fans/reporters come up with, and once again for no good reason. So why say anything?
Essentially Brailsford is saying 'we'll do anything it takes....except that....or that.....or that....'

 

[Dazed and Confused]

DISCLAIMER: I am about to write words that may upset some people as I do not take Froome's doping as a given, though I would appreciate it if people can refrain from insulting me. I may be fluent in English, but I am not English. I have not written this due to a hatred of Johnny Foreigner and a worship of Wiggo/Froome. I am not a Skyborg fanboy. I am/was not an Armstrong fanboy. I too am as sad as most posters that we have not seen a decent GC battle this year.

As a new poster, I must say that I find the parochial atmosphere of 'The Clinic' to be a bit weird. A small minority ("fanboys") speak in defence of their heros (in the case of this thread, Froome) and are generally shouted down, or belittled, by equally zealous believers in the guilt of the accused. I feel that the majority of comments are over-the-top, and I struggle to see how the level of cynisism displayed in most threads can be conducive to enjoyment of cycling.

The certainty with which many here assume Froome's guilt is somewhat baffling. While there is plenty of justified suspicion (as there is with pretty much every rider in the peleton), there is no smoking gun - in that there is no documented evidence of Froome partaking in illegal drug use.

The Leinders link is the most compelling to me, and on top of that we've had the presence of Yates and his being friends with Armstrong/Motoman, a number of incredibly quick times up climbs, and a team riding others off their wheels in a USPS style. There are undoubtedly many other suspicions that don't immediately come to my mind, but still, there is less evidence of Froome being a cheat than there is of the likes of Contador and Valverde - riders who unquestionably have documented evidence, and subsequent bans as a result, of their drug use. On top of this, many here are willing to compare Froome with Armstrong, again, a rider for whom there has long been documented evidence, which was widely known even while he was 'winning' his Tours.

And that's the thing that baffles me. The consensus on the race threads has seen larger amounts of support for riders like Contador and Valverde, on many occasions from posters who criticise Froome for cheating. I can understand the desire to see a close competition (nobody likes a one-horse race), but the venom that has been reserved for Froome seems largely unjustified to me.

I'd say I take quite an agnostic view on the situation. I hold valid the possibility that Froome is on the juice and that he is doing it clean. However, on my personal suspicion index, I'd still place documented dopers like Contador/Valverde as being more likely to be on the juice (and again, with AC/Valv I hold both possibilities valid, they could be clean this tour, they could be dirty).

In the mean time, I'm going to get what enjoyment I can from cycling, and reserve deriding riders until their guilt has been ascertained beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. a failed test or a documented testimony of their drug use).

So to sum up: You see Valverde and Contador as dopers, but Froome as clean?

 

[Red Rick]

Contador believes in Froome.

LMAO.

Saying a guy who rides at vam's similar to a level you reached a couple of years ago is doping is the dumbest thing he could do imo. I think he also knows he's not taking a lot of suspicion away

 

[panache]

A question to anyone who really thinks Froomedawg is clean... How good would he be on a US. Postal/Armstrong PED program? What if we did boost his crit level to 55% like Riis? What if he had Dr. Ferrari on an exclusive contract?

5% - 10% faster than Tony Martin in the TT? 10% - 15% faster than Contador on a MTF? Now imagine the rest of the field is truly clean. Is he 20% better?

Tailwind or not, sleeping on volcanoes or not, badzilla or not, these excuses are not feasible. As mentioned numerous times, the evidence lies in the clear superiority over his fellow cyclist. To say he isn't doped begs the question, what would he look like if he were?

 

[Dazed and Confused]

A question to anyone who really thinks Froomedawg is clean... How good would he be on a US. Postal/Armstrong PED program? What if we did boost his crit level to 55% like Riis? What if he had Dr. Ferrari on an exclusive contract?

5% - 10% faster than Tony Martin in the TT? 10% - 15% faster than Contador on a MTF? Now imagine the rest of the field is truly clean. Is he 20% better?

Tailwind or not, sleeping on volcanoes or not, badzilla or not, these excuses are not feasible. As mentioned numerous times, the evidence lies in the clear superiority over his fellow cyclist. To say he isn't doped begs the question, what would he look like if he were?

If the Wonderdawg ups the juicing he will explode. Hes likely already on multiple TUEs, bio passport exempts and the full Leinders initiated doping cocktail.

 

[PasqualeMendoza]

I won't question your opinion that froome is doping but I will question your logic and possibilities

1. P(D(Froome) AND ¬D(A/C)) > 0

2. Destroy(Froome, A/C) AND D(A/C) -> D(Froome)

Hence P(D(Froome)) > P(D(A/C))


Unless you re telling me that froome is the greatest human being in the history of all sports. i.e. statement 2 is wrong

edit ¬ stands for NOT() here. P for probability and D for Doping

Okay. For your 1st point, the probability of Froome, Contador, Valverde, and everyone in the peleton, is greater than 0. There is nobody out there who is guaranteed to be clean (even possibly without their knowing). Regardless of that, it doesn't mean that they ARE all doping.

That is where your 2nd point falls down. Just because Froome is destroying the field, it doesn't mean he is definitely doping. There is a possibility that Froome is doping and is beating a doping Contador. There is also a possibility that a clean Froome is beating a doping Contador. There is a possibility that a doping Froome is beating a clean Contador. And finally, there is a possibility that a clean Froome is beating a clean Contador.

Drug use is not the only factor. It has undoubtedly been a major one through many periods of the history of the sport. But so too have talent, form, age, support/pressure from other riders.

I do not see this case as black and white - there is a massive grey area.

 

[mikehammer67]

Hes likely already on multiple TUEs, bio passport exempts and the full Leinders initiated doping cocktail.

the full monty huh!

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

The crap these guys say is just ridiculous.

Froome: "We slept on volcanoes!"
(so does everyone in the state of Hawaii...as well as every single resident of a volcanic island.) Guess sleeping in a hotel on said island doesn't count.

Funny how that sounds like "I made sacrifices other **nts and **nkers didn't."
Wiggins' BS of last year recycled.

 

[No_Balls]

until he is proved as a theft (professional speaking here[/B]). As for today Contador is a former theft and Froome is the yellow jersey in the centenary of the biggest sport event in the world.]

And that stopped you from bashing AC pre steakgate? I love you guys. Always prepared to offer someone to laugh.

And let me give an opinion of your so called moral higher ground: So-so.

 

[PasqualeMendoza]

So to sum up: You see Valverde and Contador as dopers, but Froome as clean?

As I said in my post, I accept the possibility that Froome, Contador, Valverde, and anyone in the peleton is dirty or clean. I am not making up my mind until there is firmer evidence than suspicion.

I still have a personal suspicion index, as I dare say most people do, and on this I would generally place documented dopers above non-documented dopers. This is under the assumption that someone who has doped once is more likely to do so again. While this assumption will not hold up in all cases, it seems a justified basis for suspicion.

Edit: Just to be clear - My overall point is that while I have suspicions, I can see a distinction between that and guilt. I think that this is a line that is missed too often on these pages.

 

[Cycle Chic]

funny avatar

Red Rick

Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,441

Fan of every rider with a chance to bring down Sky


Now that's funny !!

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Would that mean you think a clean Froome can spank a dope contador and valv-piti {foxxy}?

 

[Bicycle]

Froome is unlucky he's a cyclist there are equally unbelievable performers in athletics, tennis and football but all everyone says is how wonderful they are.

 

[lemoogle]

Okay. For your 1st point, the probability of Froome, Contador, Valverde, and everyone in the peleton, is greater than 0. There is nobody out there who is guaranteed to be clean (even possibly without their knowing). Regardless of that, it doesn't mean that they ARE all doping.

That is where your 2nd point falls down. Just because Froome is destroying the field, it doesn't mean he is definitely doping. There is a possibility that Froome is doping and is beating a doping Contador. There is also a possibility that a clean Froome is beating a doping Contador. There is a possibility that a doping Froome is beating a clean Contador. And finally, there is a possibility that a clean Froome is beating a clean Contador.

Drug use is not the only factor. It has undoubtedly been a major one through many periods of the history of the sport. But so too have talent, form, age, support/pressure from other riders.

I do not see this case as black and white - there is a massive grey area.

I'm not sure where your points refute my logic.

There second statement translates to : " Froome destroys Conta and valverde AND conta and valverde are doped " IMPLIES " froome is doped".
This is a semi opinion here which i clarify in the final statement of my original post.

the first statement simply states that there IS a chance that Contador and Valverde are not doped and that Froome is.

Combining those statements ( skipping a few steps ) to the fact that froome is destroying them (hence Destroy(Froome,AC/V) <=> T) is equivalent to the Probability of Froome doping is greater than AC/V doping. ( T AND D(AC/V) -> D(Froome) <=> D(AC/V) -> D (Froome )

 

[Bronstein]

Okay. For your 1st point, the probability of Froome, Contador, Valverde, and everyone in the peleton, is greater than 0. There is nobody out there who is guaranteed to be clean (even possibly without their knowing). Regardless of that, it doesn't mean that they ARE all doping.

That is where your 2nd point falls down. Just because Froome is destroying the field, it doesn't mean he is definitely doping. There is a possibility that Froome is doping and is beating a doping Contador. There is also a possibility that a clean Froome is beating a doping Contador. There is a possibility that a doping Froome is beating a clean Contador. And finally, there is a possibility that a clean Froome is beating a clean Contador.

Drug use is not the only factor. It has undoubtedly been a major one through many periods of the history of the sport. But so too have talent, form, age, support/pressure from other riders.

I do not see this case as black and white - there is a massive grey area.

Saying all of the above is possible is missing the point. The real question is what is probable given the history of cycling, especially the past 20 years. It is extremely unlikely that a clean rider could undergo a sudden and dramatic transformation to become the strongest stage race rider in the world and consistently match past performances of convicted dopers who were blood doping.

 

[Checkov]

I think there are many ways for cycling teams to prove their riders are clean. It should all be based on the assumption that you are guilty until proven innocent.

Did you disappear out of reach of doping tests for whatever reason while preparing for a GT? Doping. Refusing to release your data? Doping. Missed a test? Doping. Refusing to allow an independent observer to monitor and nose around? Doping.

It's easy, you systematically cross out every thing that is suspicious until there is nothing left but to believe in the innocence of the sport. You no longer have to trust them only for their smiles.

I think the top cycling teams know that by establishing transparency as a requirement they will lose some of their discretionary power, be it doping or otherwise, so I think that's why it's difficult to get something as basic as a chaperone to be implemented as part of anti-doping policy.

Personally I favor the idea that former GT contenders should have themselves doped to the gills in the twilight of their career while under supervision and illustrate what their performance would have looked like had they been cheating. I don't think it will ever happen though, but it's such a funny idea.

 

[goggalor]

Contador believes in Froome.

LMAO.

Contador believes in not throwing stones in glass houses.

 

[Galic Ho]

Froome coughs during pretty much every post-race interview doesn't he?

Maybe he's just got a weak chest or something, like me. Even when I was super fit, doing triathlons, I used to cough like an 80 year old smoker afterwards.

Or maybe he's just doing that cough/bull**** thing, whenever the interviewer asks him a daft question

I've watched only a few stages this year. I hands down do not wish to listen to the Australian SBS commentators. Okay Scott McGrory is good, but Tomo and the Tan Man...forget it.

Which brings us to Froome. Yeah, after hearing him talk last year, I won't listen to him. There is no point. Just more prattle and nonsense.

As for coughing. Yes one can have a cough, to clear the lungs after strenuous exertion. But it's always been for me just a quick one off light cough. Done it myself many times. But when I've been really fit and healthy, it doesn't happen. When I've pushed when I was sick or not at a strong level, all I've done is made things worse. Worse in the sense that my entire lung capacity drops and if I hit anywhere near what I should power wise, my oxygen supply isn't good enough to match the power. Short story is you fatigue really quickly and collapse. Just hitting your base power levels is a major strain. Put that into perspective for a GT day in day out. Not good. You'd be out the back straight away. We've actually seen it happen to dozens of riders each year.

It's actually stopped me training a few times. Like right now! Well it's just a cough now. When it damages your total lung capacity, that sucks. Takes a long time to restore. Which with a pro cyclist, even if it's just minor, I'd expect a ton of TUE's for puffers and other drugs to improve breathing. You'd need them. Someone should ask Sky about that. List all the TUE's for their riders.

Won't happen though.