Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[jamesmasters]

Only reasonable explanation (other than doping) is his Bilharzia, simple as. If you would draw a line from his development from 2006-2008 and continue that to 2011 or 12 it's not unlikely that you end up with proper GC-material. The problem are the years 2009 and especially 2010 where he seemed to be getting weaker instead of stronger. In 2009 at least he came in 39th in the Giro that's not too bad.
At the end of the day, Bilharzia is a disease that feeds on your red blood cells, which would definitely be hindering your performance as a cyclist, i think we can agree on that much.

Can someone draw the line which shows that 2009 and 2010 are the outlier years?

Remember that Froome is supposed to have picked up bilharzia at the end of 2010.

Just looks like complete and utter BS to me. In my opinion, Froome's story is less credible than Armstrong's was before he got caught.

Edit: And remember, you don't just need to show evidence that he could have been a GC contender. You need to show evidence of godlike cycling talent.

 

[Granville57]

Has the good doctor F said anything?

Yeah, he said that Lance could've won even without doping. But then Lance disagreed with that.


Back to Froome...

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Can someone draw the line which shows that 2009 and 2010 are the outlier years?

Remember that Froome is supposed to have picked up bilharzia at the end of 2010.

Just looks like complete and utter BS to me. In my opinion, Froome's story is less credible than Armstrong's was before he got caught.

Personally I'm still digesting Tyler's unborn twin defense.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

lol

Manuel Saiz Balbas ‏@Manolo_Saiz 9m
Después de ver que todo se sigue poniendo con interrogantes, fracaso de muchos!!!, los ciclistas deberían unirse y decir "BASTA YA"

Manuel Saiz Balbas ‏@Manolo_Saiz 7m
Yo creo en el Trabajo, Disciplina y Entrenamiento. Creo que el que gana trabaja más y mejor, no le miro el pasaporte!!! Y creo en ciclistas

 

[kingjr]

Can someone draw the line which shows that 2009 and 2010 are the outlier years?

Remember that Froome is supposed to have picked up bilharzia at the end of 2010.

That is inaccurate according to his own words in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bKuqFBrE9o

10min 30 onwards

As a matter of fact, no one knows exactly when he picked it up. It could have been in his body forever.

 

[zalacain]

can you remind me what he promised?

Well he promised an open meeting in Manchester after last season ended so that we could ask any questions we wanted and give him the opportunity to put our minds at rest regarding dta, doping etc.
Maybe I missed it?

 

[BYOP88]

Well he promised an open meeting in Manchester after last season ended so that we could ask any questions we wanted and give him the opportunity to put our minds at rest regarding dta, doping etc.
Maybe I missed it?

I even tweeted David Walsh a few times about that to get him to remind Brailsford, but no reply.

 

[Logic Al]

Well he promised an open meeting in Manchester after last season ended so that we could ask any questions we wanted and give him the opportunity to put our minds at rest regarding dta, doping etc.
Maybe I missed it?

Fair enough, but do you think that would have solved anything?

Not as if Sky haven't been asked 100's of doping questions last 12 months!

 

[Logic Al]

I even tweeted David Walsh a few times about that to get him to remind Brailsford, but no reply.

What question would you ask him to help prove innocence/guilt?

 

[Logic Al]

Its not the first time someone has come out of nowhere to dominate everyone (see Riis, Perez, Aitor Gonzalez, Ricco, Wiggins etc)

Froome is an extreme case obviously and more ridiculous than those mentioned

So arguably most extreme case, must be something more to it than usual doping?

 

[Froomstrong]

Only reasonable explanation (other than doping) is his Bilharzia, simple as. If you would draw a line from his development from 2006-2008 and continue that to 2011 or 12 it's not unlikely that you end up with proper GC-material. The problem are the years 2009 and especially 2010 where he seemed to be getting weaker instead of stronger. In 2009 at least he came in 39th in the Giro that's not too bad.
At the end of the day, Bilharzia is a disease that feeds on your red blood cells, which would definitely be hindering your performance as a cyclist, i think we can agree on that much.

I have serious doubts about the Bilharzia story. As others have said, it is a bit too convenient.
Does anyone know how much of an impact it would have had on him?
The line seems to be that now that he is free of the condition, he can realise his full potential, which happens to be more than any other rider in history.
When did he first develop it? Did his results get worse while he had it, until it was diagnosed?
So, when he was suffering from it, should he have been unable to ride at all, or are his performances during that time believable?
Do we know if his ongoing treatment gives him permission to take stuff that would otherwise be banned?

I don't believe that SKY are professional and everyone else is lazy & dumb.
I don't buy marginal gains making you that much faster than everyone else.
I don't see his riding technique being particularly good, or improved.
I see SKY improved a lot when they have Dr. Leinders on their staff.
I don't think everyone else is clean but Froome/SKY are beating the other cheats by significant margins.
It appears that Froomstrong can go a lot faster, if he has to.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

So arguably most extreme case, must be something more to it than usual doping?

What do you think it is?

 

[Rollthedice]

It appears that Froomstrong can go a lot faster, if he has to.

Tomorrow's a great opportunity, even if he doesn't have to.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Only reasonable explanation (other than doping) is his Bilharzia, simple as. If you would draw a line from his development from 2006-2008 and continue that to 2011 or 12 it's not unlikely that you end up with proper GC-material.

Unlikely clean, that's for sure. If he was a grand tour GC destroyer, at minimum, he'd have a long string of near-podiums at lower ranks. That's the barest minimum. He wouldn't have been thirty-something at a grand tour.

 

[zalacain]

Fair enough, but do you think that would have solved anything?

Not as if Sky haven't been asked 100's of doping questions last 12 months!

No it just goes to show that you cannot trust anything Brailsford says

 

[Logic Al]

I have serious doubts about the Bilharzia story. As others have said, it is a bit too convenient.
Does anyone know how much of an impact it would have had on him?
The line seems to be that now that he is free of the condition, he can realise his full potential, which happens to be more than any other rider in history.
When did he first develop it? Did his results get worse while he had it, until it was diagnosed?
So, when he was suffering from it, should he have been unable to ride at all, or are his performances during that time believable?
Do we know if his ongoing treatment gives him permission to take stuff that would otherwise be banned?

I don't believe that SKY are professional and everyone else is lazy & dumb.
I don't buy marginal gains making you that much faster than everyone else.
I don't see his riding technique being particularly good, or improved.
I see SKY improved a lot when they have Dr. Leinders on their staff.
I don't think everyone else is clean but Froome/SKY are beating the other cheats by significant margins.
It appears that Froomstrong can go a lot faster, if he has to.

So Sky are better at doping than everyone else, but at nothing other than doping?

 

[Logic Al]

What do you think it is?

No idea, see dozens of holes on both 'sides'

Not sure yet which bandwagon to jump on, but determined to be on the right one so that I can say 'I told you so' when the truth comes out

 

[DirtyWorks]

So arguably most extreme case, must be something more to it than usual doping?

IMHO, UCI/BC helping Sky for an alleged end game that fits under "grow cycling viewers" umbrella.

That's a crackpot hypothesis though. I'm just a crazy, anonymous forum geek who lives in the past.

 

[Logic Al]

IMHO, UCI/BC helping Sky for an alleged end game that fits under "grow cycling viewers" umbrella.

Yep, British dominance will make cycling really popular. Everyone likes good old British people winning everything!

 

[jamesmasters]

That is inaccurate according to his own words in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bKuqFBrE9o

10min 30 onwards

As a matter of fact, no one knows exactly when he picked it up. It could have been in his body forever.

Fair enough. Let's assume the bilharzia story is true. In that video, and elsewhere on the internet, Froome says he'd had it for about a year prior to diagnosis. Says his brother got it at about the same time after they both took a trip to Kenya about a year prior to diagnosis.

Assuming (big assumption) that there is nothing dodgy about the bilharzia story, what needs to be shown is whether Froome's career until the end of 2009 showed any sign of a potential cycling god - one of the greatest in history. If you're very generous and strike out 2010 and 2011 until the Vuelta, does the graph really fit the expected career progression of a cycling legend?

It doesn't - we really need to go back to 'non traditional background' as a backup explanation to the bilharzia.

 

[Raiko200]

Ok, devil's advocate once again...

If I were Froome and I was doping with something that allowed me to crush every one in the peleton I certainly wouldn't do it. He can communicate during a race as many have pointed out. It certainly wouldn't be hard to follow a wheel until near the need of a stage and then accelerate for a close victory. He also knew Tony Martin's time in the TT so he surely could have left more of a gap. In fact if I were him, and doping, I absolutely would have fallen off my bike and laid on the ground gasping for breath even though I didn't have to. Why can Martin act better than Froome?

Seems obvious that he can win by whatever margin he wants so why make it so suspicious? Does he really need 5 or 10 minutes on his competitors just in case he has a mechanical? Are the huge time gaps really worth the scrutiny they bring? Is Sky smart enough to cover it all up with the UCI and utilize previously unknown substances covertly yet stupid enough to blow the race open in a farcical manner causing everyone to question them?

Is Froome acting on his own? If I were his DS I would tell him to knock it off or I'm cutting off the juice right now. Is he arguing on the radio with Brailsford during the race telling him he wants to humiliate the peloton regardless of the consequences. It doesn't make much sense.

It would be pretty easy to make the race closer and still win. Why don't they?

 

[Zam_Olyas]

No idea, see dozens of holes on both 'sides'

Not sure yet which bandwagon to jump on, but determined to be on the right one so that I can say 'I told you so' when the truth comes out

You sound like someone i know.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Tomorrow's a great opportunity, even if he doesn't have to.

IMHO he had more to give on Ventoux given the way he rode with Quntana and got bored by it so quickly.

He wasn't smart enough to just ride in with Quintana, so I expect two more stages of Froome going alien.

 

[kingjr]

IMHO he had more to give on Ventoux given the way he rode with Quntana and got bored by it so quickly.

He wasn't smart enough to just ride in with Quintana, so I expect two more stages of Froome going alien.

Because it would be very smart not to gain as much time as possible on the rest of the GC-contenders?

 

[Eshnar]

Ok, devil's advocate once again...

If I were Froome and I was doping with something that allowed me to crush every one in the peleton I certainly wouldn't do it. He can communicate during a race as many have pointed out. It certainly wouldn't be hard to follow a wheel until near the need of a stage and then accelerate for a close victory. He also knew Tony Martin's time in the TT so he surely could have left more of a gap. In fact if I were him, and doping, I absolutely would have fallen off my bike and laid on the ground gasping for breath even though I didn't have to. Why can Martin act better than Froome?

Seems obvious that he can win by whatever margin he wants so why make it so suspicious? Does he really need 5 or 10 minutes on his competitors just in case he has a mechanical? Are the huge time gaps really worth the scrutiny they bring? Is Sky smart enough to cover it all up with the UCI and utilize previously unknown substances covertly yet stupid enough to blow the race open in a farcical manner causing everyone to question them?

Is Froome acting on his own? If I were his DS I would tell him to knock it off or I'm cutting off the juice right now. Is he arguing on the radio with Brailsford during the race telling him he wants to humiliate the peloton regardless of the consequences. It doesn't make much sense.

It would be pretty easy to make the race closer and still win. Why don't they?

Who knows. Otoh, if I were Froome and clean, I would try to make it as close as possible too. Better not waste energy. So his behaviour doesn't really fit with any common logic. That's why we call it "going full ***" after all