Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[H2OUUP2]

There is also a possibility that a clean Froome is beating a doping Contador.

No, there isn't. Not like this. Are you even watching?

If you think this is a possibility then Froome might as well strap some skates on and play hockey. Within three years he'll be breaking all of Wayne Gretzky's records.

 

[the sceptic]

David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST

@JW_Davidson Jamie, I didn't laugh yesterday on Ventoux but felt sad that so many booed Froome as he crossed finish line.

I didnt know about any booing
Hope it didnt hurt Walsh feelings too much though

 

[Galic Ho]

Contador is a proved and convicted doper. Froome, not a single proof for now. My religion (christian) and especially my profession (lawyer) tells me not to throw stones to somebody until he is proved as a theft (professional speaking here). 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.

Christian = discernment and knowledge leading to understanding.

Lawyer = questioning. First rule of law.

So where did you go wrong?

 

[Galic Ho]

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?

Durianriders idea might be true then. Fruitarian Froome really should be the adopted slogan. The new buzz terms that explains all the power!

 

[lemoogle]

Jeeez I've never seen so many lawyers in one place.

If I ever need a lawyer I hope he'll be able to reply more than "YOU AINT GOT NO PROOF, I BELIEVE HE'S INNOCENT, DO YOU HAVE A VIDEO OF HIM KILLING THIS PERSON? WHAT DO YOU MEAN THEY WERE THE ONLY TWO PEOPLE ON THIS DESERT ISLAND AND THE VICTIM WAS SHOT 15 TIMES? SHOW ME PROOF"

Well actually I'd be in a pretty bad position there

 

[batchuba]

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.

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.

Well, the thing is: Contador, for instance, has only been banned for a poxy bit of clenbuterol, rather than any blood doping or EPO. And yet, practically every Contador "fanboy" cheerfully acknowledges that he has performed doped up to the eyeballs, based on many of the same reasons that they are sure Froome is doped now. The reason why fanboys of these other riders accept their obviously dodgy performances are almost certainly doped rides, and the Froome fanboys do not is because for the most part the Froome/Sky fanboys are naive blow-ins to the sport, or motivated by blind patriotism, while the fans of other riders have usually actually watched the sport for a while before becoming fans of a particular guy.

I do agree on the excessive personal venom though. Many forum members here do seem to watch all cycling in a constant state of barely suppressed fury.

I would have to be described as a Contador fanboy, but I quite like Froome as a rider. I think he is an entertaining and aggressive racer. I would have been quite happy to see him win the tour, if he didn't have an obvious devastating advantage over an obviously clean(ish) peloton. The fact that he has forced me away from the race threads and into the Clinic is my biggest gripe with the guy...

Were I do have issues, it is with Sky as a whole - I hate everything they stand for. But that's more of an ideological issue....

 

[Bobito]

Well Contador actually came 6th in the stage. If you think Contador is now doping, then what are your thoughts on the others that finished in front of him ?

We all know Contador was doping up to and including 2011, but their are indications that he is now clean, or at least a great deal cleaner than he used to be.

It seems problematic to assume that Froome is doping without assuming that the next five behind him are doping, when all their times are really quite remarkable when compared with historical norms.

Assuming that the whole peloton is doping seems the conservative assumption that best fits with empirical evidence (I don't mean to say that I think that such an assumption is correct, but I think if you have to take, so to speak, a subjective prior, that's the most reasonable one to take - certainly it's more reasonable than the assumption none of them are doping).

 

[PasqualeMendoza]

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

While I'd agree that is the least likely of the possible scenarios, it is still possible.

Without putting too much thought into the numbers, I'd maybe say that there's a:

30% chance that a dirty Froome is beating a dirty Contador;
30% chance that a clean Froome is beating a clean Contador;
30% chance that a dirty Froome is beating a clean Contador;
10% chance that a clean Froome is beating a dirty Contador.

Regardless of what numbers I put down (from the top of my head), or that anyone else makes up, no one can say they are 0% without documented evidence (or at least, not without them being an unscientific fanatic).

 

[lemoogle]

It seems problematic to assume that Froome is doping without assuming that the next five behind him are doping, when all their times are really quite remarkable when compared with historical norms.

Except their times are nowhere near froome's . Noone is saying they're clean anyway, but how can they be doped and so far below a clean froome. They can't simple as that.

 

[Logic Al]

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.

Can you name a politician that's used it?

Needs the onus of proof to be on someone, otherwise this will go round in circles for years

 

[Hugh Januss]

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.

Not sure which former GT contenders you are talking about here, as I am pretty convinced that we have already had a look at how they all performed when doped.

 

[Bobito]

I doubt this, otherwise we would see what we saw at the Vuelta last year. If he IS doped then that would mean that Froome will succumb to coagulated arteries any second now. No way is he doped the way he is currently being destroyed with relative ease by Froome. No way! He was over 2% below dpVAM on Ventoux.

This kind of post amazes me. It's like saying when Armstrong destroyed everyone - because they were 2% below Armstrong they could not have been doping - a claim we in fact know to be false - since we know that all of them anywhere near him were doping.

 

[Logic Al]

Perhaps you could effectively re-open it (using a similar poll) with the generic "how might it be possible for a rider to dope more effectively". That is, without even mentioning a particular individual.

Good idea, though maybe someone else should. I'm new and will probably get banned if I do it

 

[lemoogle]

30% chance that a dirty Froome is beating a dirty Contador;
30% chance that a clean Froome is beating a clean Contador;
30% chance that a dirty Froome is beating a clean Contador;
10% chance that a clean Froome is beating a dirty Contador.

So:
. . . . . . Clean Dirty
Froome.. 40% 60%
Contador 60% 40%

However, on my personal suspicion index, I'd still place documented dopers like Contador/Valverde as being more likely to be on the juice

Wait whaaaaaaat? Defending Froome with logic like that isn't going to do him any favours.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

While I'd agree that is the least likely of the possible scenarios, it is still possible.

Without putting too much thought into the numbers, I'd maybe say that there's a:

30% chance that a dirty Froome is beating a dirty Contador;
30% chance that a clean Froome is beating a clean Contador;
30% chance that a dirty Froome is beating a clean Contador;
10% chance that a clean Froome is beating a dirty Contador.

Regardless of what numbers I put down (from the top of my head), or that anyone else makes up, no one can say they are 0% without documented evidence (or at least, not without them being an unscientific fanatic).

I don't think Contador will ever be clean and i think there is zero chance that a clean froome can beat a dirty contador...let alone spank him.In my proud opinion.

 

[The Hitch]

I didnt know about any booing
Hope it didnt hurt Walsh feelings too much though

Im surprised you forgot to mention that the people booing Froome arent getting paid to clap

 

[Dazed and Confused]

While I'd agree that is the least likely of the possible scenarios, it is still possible.

Without putting too much thought into the numbers, I'd maybe say that there's a:

30% chance that a dirty Froome is beating a dirty Contador;
30% chance that a clean Froome is beating a clean Contador;
30% chance that a dirty Froome is beating a clean Contador;
10% chance that a clean Froome is beating a dirty Contador.

Regardless of what numbers I put down (from the top of my head), or that anyone else makes up, no one can say they are 0% without documented evidence (or at least, not without them being an unscientific fanatic).

Whats the probability of a clean Froome drops the entire pro peloton by several minutes over the distance of a GT?

I would say zero procent.

Whats the probability of a clean Froome placing outside of the top 30 in TdF?

I would say 75%.

 

[Hugh Januss]

While I'd agree that is the least likely of the possible scenarios, it is still possible.

Without putting too much thought into the numbers, I'd maybe say that there's a:

30% chance that a dirty Froome is beating a dirty Contador;
30% chance that a clean Froome is beating a clean Contador;
30% chance that a dirty Froome is beating a clean Contador;
10% chance that a clean Froome is beating a dirty Contador.

Regardless of what numbers I put down (from the top of my head), or that anyone else makes up, no one can say they are 0% without documented evidence (or at least, not without them being an unscientific fanatic).

Agree in principle, but..........
90% chance that a dirty Froome is beating an afraid to be as dirty as in the past Contador.
8% chance that a dirty Froome is beating a (almost) clean Contador.
1% chance a clean Froome is beating a dirty Contador.
1% chance a clean Froome is beating a clean Contador.

 

[Bobito]

My feelings, too. (The Clinic, never, ever, had more than one Armstrong thread, right?).

Following up on that thread, here is another possibility to explain Froome's ET performance:

Schistosomiasis (Bilharzia) is known to result in a reduction of Hb/red cells. The mechanisms are still not clear, but probably there are several factors involved. Any reduction in red cells would trigger a homeostatic response in the body to increase EPO. So if Froome suffers from the disease, his natural EPO levels are getting a boost while he is symptomatic.

He supposedly has received treatment for the disease too keep it in check. Following treatment, his EPO and red cell levels should eventually stabilize. But during this period there would likely be a lag, in which the flatworms (or more precisely, their eggs, which seem to release the factors that reduce red cells) would be eliminated, but his EPO would remain elevated. The situation is somewhat analogous to the reported use of carbon monoxide as a PED. CO inactivates Hb, resulting in a stimulation of EPO. Again, the effect is only temporary, but the idea is that while the effect is there, the athlete will get a boost.

Treatment for schistosomiasis involves a single treatment with praziquantel once a year. Since it must be given annually, I assume the drug does not completely eliminate the organism's eggs, but merely suppresses them to a very low level. Under these conditions, I can well imagine a situation in Froome's body in which he could get the benefit of continual EPO stimulation from low levels of the antigens produced by the eggs. I would be very interested to see what his passport looks like. Since he and Sky have been very open about the effect of the disease on red cells, they must have seen some very dramatic changes in their levels. It makes me wonder how they were able to define a baseline at all.

A common pattern:

Armstrong - testicular cancer
Contador - brain aneurysm
Froome - schistosomiasis

Serious problems that leave most people with permanent after effects.

However they provide convenient excuses for taking all sorts of drugs. They also may explain the psychological mechanism that allows an already fierce competitor to be willing to do whatever it takes to win.

Just to prove that the above argument is not very good, I'm tempted to add:

Lemond - gunshot wound to the thigh

But I'll get screamed at.

Serious question: in what other sport do folks recover from serious life threatening problems of all kinds to win the premier event?

 

[Galic Ho]

.

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).

That explains you entirely.

You want the full evidence and verdict to form an opinion.

The majority here in the Clinic who you earlier referred to do not need to do that. Most of us knew Contador and Valverde were doping before their bans. Actually they're two of my favourite riders. I knew. It was HOW they ride and the fact they've been good since they were teenagers that alleviates what you've mistaken as pure hatred for Froome, applying to them.

Froome ain't worth hating. Neither are Sky. Calling them out on their BS...definitely worth standing up for. There is virtue in clean cycling. Most of us don't need the smoking gun and dead body to figure it all out though.

As for your outlook on cycling as a whole...that is your prerogative. The dislike with what Sky are doing comes down to what was referred to as an Arms Race of doping that began when the Anglo nations started claiming 'cycling is now clean and we're winning because of it.' It'd be so easy for me to place you in the same category as the Brits pre WW2 with their 'peace in our times rot' that you simply don't want to see what is there; but why bother?

Another new forumist mentioned about 10-15 pages back how over 50 plus pages in a day, nobody had changed their mind. Bear that in mind when you post. Only the Skybots want to support Sky. People here who don't, quite a lot of them don't like Valverde and Contador either. Others don't like the blatant extra degree of doping extended to team Sky from the UCI and ASO. It's not all black and white here. There is a lot more to it than you think. Just be mindful of that. Also note, some people like having a thread to come and read where the ridiculous can be pocked fun at. Because face it, when was the last time the Tour was this big of a joke? Even Freaky Floyd stage 17 2006 wasn't this warped!

 

[The Hitch]

Not sure which former GT contenders you are talking about here, as I am pretty convinced that we have already had a look at how they all performed when doped.

I think the idea is that if their performance improves, it suggests they were clean. If their performance decreases that suggests they were doping.

 

[Bobito]

Contador is a proved and convicted doper. Froome, not a single proof for now. My religion (christian) and especially my profession (lawyer) tells me not to throw stones to somebody until he is proved as a theft (professional speaking here). 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.

Defense attorneys are in the business of getting people they know to be criminals acquitted. Don't confuse right and wrong and legal and illegal.

I know OJ killed his wife, and I think he was correctly acquitted because the government didn't prove its case.

Sunday I saw Froome ride like Rasmussen even though he hasn't tested positive for anything.

 

[PasqualeMendoza]

Well, the thing is: Contador, for instance, has only been banned for a poxy bit of clenbuterol, rather than any blood doping or EPO. And yet, practically every Contador "fanboy" cheerfully acknowledges that he has performed doped up to the eyeballs, based on many of the same reasons that they are sure Froome is doped now. The reason why fanboys of these other riders accept their obviously dodgy performances are almost certainly doped rides, and the Froome fanboys do not is because for the most part the Froome/Sky fanboys are naive blow-ins to the sport, or motivated by blind patriotism, while the fans of other riders have usually actually watched the sport for a while before becoming fans of a particular guy.

I do agree on the excessive personal venom though. Many forum members here do seem to watch all cycling in a constant state of barely suppressed fury.

I would have to be described as a Contador fanboy, but I quite like Froome as a rider. I think he is an entertaining and aggressive racer. I would have been quite happy to see him win the tour, if he didn't have an obvious devastating advantage over an obviously clean(ish) peloton. The fact that he has forced me away from the race threads and into the Clinic is my biggest gripe with the guy...

Were I do have issues, it is with Sky as a whole - I hate everything they stand for. But that's more of an ideological issue....

Well, we agree on a fair bit. I've had my moments of Contador fanboydom in the past (most notably when he trounced Armstrong), and regardless of the cleanliness of the peleton, he's been responsible for some of the all-time great tour performances. While I may have stated a number of times about him being a documented doper, as I also said, the whole thing is not black and white, and his failure was 'greyer' than others.

I also have a loathing of everything that Sky stands for, particularly Murdoch and his media outlets. Still, besides all this, and doubts about Froome's cleanliness, I can still enjoy seeing them battle - if only it were closer.

 

[Raiko200]

An interesting comparison between Usain Bolt and Froome. Bolt has been handily beating everyone in the field. Sometimes it's not even close. He is unarguably the best in the world. Yet, now we find that his closest competitors are doping. They have failed tests. He has not.

Is he using some yet undetectable drug the others don't have access to? It's obviously not possible he could outperform dopers if he's not doping himself right?

Tailwind?
Crosswind?
Olympic Committee coverup?
Puma has paid everyone off?
All his competitors are extremely poor responders to doping?

It's one of the above or he's just better than even the dopers are. But that isn't possible is it?

(yes, sarcasm)

 

[Bobito]

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.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can write this after Armstrong.